Urban Arena Wiki - User contributions [en]

Other databases

2019-12-12T15:54:19Z

Lin:

* '''[https://urbact.eu/urbact-glance URBACT]''': URBACT is an EU-funded program that aims “to foster sustainable integrated urban development in cities across Europe (...) its mission is to enable cities to work together and develop integrated solutions to common urban challenges by networking, learning from one another’s experiences, drawing lessons and identifying good practices to improve urban policies”. URBACT organizes around different thematic networks.

* '''[https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/ JPI Urban Europe]''' is a knowledge hub for urban transitions. The aim of JPI is to address the global urban challenges of today with the ambition to develop a European research and innovation hub on urban matters and create European solutions by means of coordinated research (...) Our task is to connect public authorities, civil society, scientists, innovators, business and industry to provide a new environment for research and innovation. We offer experimental zones and long-term research infrastructures in a broad sense. Our mission is to develop knowledge, tools and platforms for dialogue on urban transitions”. In their strategic agenda [https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/app/uploads/2019/02/SRIA2.0.pdf strategic agenda] they identify four pathways: 1) digital transition, 2) urban robustness, 3) urban infrastructures, and 4)inclusive public spaces.

* '''[https://transformativecities.org/ Transformative cities]''' aims to connect and make visible transformative urban initiatives worldwide: “We believe that amplification of changes in different locations can help facilitate radical change on a global level; in other words, systemic transformation. Change in different forms is happening all over the world, and sometimes it is hard to know where to look. Transformative Cities can be seen as a telescope, to help navigate through the complex galaxy of struggles and radical change on a local level throughout the globe.”

* '''[https://www.pathways-project.nl/Database Transition case study database]''' of pathways project “There are many case studies on local and regional transitions. Until now, an overview of such case studies was missing. This database allows for sharing information of previous European case studies in order to foster reuse of the knowledge gained in previous studies.”

* '''[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii Critical turning points database]''' of TRANSIT project brings together insights from more than 80 social innovation initiatives. It features timelines of Critical Turning Points in social innovation initiatives of the networks TRANSIT analysed.

* '''[https://naturvation.eu/atlas?search_api_views_fulltext=soil Urban Nature Atlas]''' of the Naturvation project. The atlas ontains 1000 examples of Nature-Based Solutions from across 100 European cities.

* '''[https://oppla.eu/about OPPLA]''' is an EU Repository of Nature-Based Solutions. The repository offers a ‘knowledge marketplace’, ‘community’ and ‘open platform’ for people with diverse needs and interests - from science, policy and practice.

* '''[https://civics.cc/en/acerca Civics]''' (mostly in Spanish and Portuguese]. CIVICS is a civic innovation map developed o by citizens from across Ibero-America. "It is a digital, self-mapping tool in geolocated address book format, where you can find and add all the civic innovation happening in our cities, locate their associated events and take part in them".

* '''[http://www.solidarityeconomy.eu/susy-map/ The SUSY-map]''' is a collaboration of SUSY and the mapping collective TransforMap increasing the visibility of the Social and Solidarity Economy in Europe and worldwide.

* ''' [https://www.rescoop.eu/community-energy-map Rescoop-EU]'''. This is a digital map showing European examples of groups or cooperatives of citizens working on renewable energy, energy efficiency and e-mobility.

... ''this page is currently under construction, please feel free to add your examples of other databases''

Urban development through cultural solutions

2019-11-24T21:13:39Z

Lin:

Urban development through cultural solutions is about using arts and cultural heritage (e.g museums, old industrial sites etc.) to develop (degraded) urban spaces.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

The approaches here work for multiple actors at multiple levels such as public administration, citizens and informal groups or private grant-making foundations. They are all centered around a paradigm of using cultural capital in order to develop a city. An important aspect here is the idea of "regeneration" which aims at "restoring and improving the quality of urban life through the enhancement and development of the unique characteristics of a place and its people." <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248991497_The_Role_of_Urban_Design_in_Cultural_Regeneration</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

'''Specific examples''':
*Regeneration and Optimisation of Cultural heritage in creative and Knowledge cities (ROCK)<ref> https://rockproject.eu/project </ref> aims to develop an innovative, collaborative and systematic approach to promote the effective regeneration and adaptive reuse in historic city centres by implementing a repertoire of successful heritage-led regeneration initiatives related to 7 Role Model selected cities: Athens, Cluj-Napoca, Eindhoven, Liverpool, Lyon, Turin and Vilnius. The insight gained by this will be used in three 3 Replicator Cities: Bologna, Lisbon and Skopje to achieve regeneration, sustainable development and economic growth of the city. Developing cities in accordance with the cultural heritage is thus very well developed and has shown to be successful. The idea is transferable though the cultural heritage of every city is obviously unique which means that there is not "one" concept of using "cultural heritage" that every city can apply. A common way to regenerate cultural heritage is through the renovation of old historic buildings. On a worldwide level, UNESCO honors sites/landmarks/areas with outstanding historic/cultural significance with the name “World Heritage Site”, so that they are protected by international treaties.

*Impact of the Third Sector as SOcial INnovation (ITSSOIN) analyzed the relationship between the issue of social cohesion and culture-led urban rejuvenation in degraded, peripheral areas within cities, such as Milan, Rotterdam, Greater Paris region and Galicia (Spain). It specifically explores how civic engagement in the field of culture and arts contributes to the expressive, communicative, recreational, and spiritual needs of individuals and communities.<ref>http://itssoin.eu/</ref>

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This is strictly about urban areas. The project “Cultural heritage as urban regeneration” looks at city centres (mostly because there is generally a richer heritage than in peripheries), “Culture-led Place Rejuvenation” looks at degraded urban spaces in the periphery of cities (mostly because of the availability of spaces in the periphery)

Renewing city parts with the aim of cultural vibrance can contribute to sustainability, but this is not necessarily always the case. One case in question is The Olympic Games in Turin (2006), which, according to the ROCK project, is described as a "great international event" that helped to create "a new culture & knowledge-led identity"<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref> for the city.
“The reuse of the heritage in the central districts combined with physical regeneration, great international events (e.g. 2006 Winter Olympics) and the development of a strong, long-term publicly-led cultural policy, contributed to boost an overall and wider redevelopment process.”
It is at least questionable though if Olympic Games can actually actively contribute to environmentally sustainable cities. (or if they can just be planned in a less harmful way)
Cultural vibrancy in cities is enhanced through "procedural justice" and "justice as recognition". The approaches seem to address justice issues, though often only implicitly in a way that they want to enhance the cultural vibrancy of a city. And different aspects can be addressed in different ways. Therefore, the case studies of the different projects mentioned here pay respect to justice issues on different levels.
For example, in the urban renewal project in Kluj-Napoca (ROCK), the “model depends on a participatory approach, consisting of local administration, policy makers, industry, research, NGOs and associations strongly committed to the priority projects for heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone to create a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.” This reflects attention to issues of “procedural justice” in Kluj-Napoca.

Culture-led rejuvenation (ITSSOIN) pays explicit attention to justice aspects (e.g the inclusion of socially disadvantaged groups, strengthening their feeling of belonging to a community and stimulating their active participation and involvement in the life of a community)
In the case of Eindhoven (ROCK), however, it is more about enhancing the reputation of the city. For instance, it was reported that “Eindhoven generated a Living Lab in the former industrial regeneration area called ‘Strijp-S’ […]. The Living Lab generates economic, cultural and technological initiatives that contribute to strengthening identity and the significance of the Strijp-S as the center of Brainport Region Eindhoven, to promote its (inter)national reputation and the rediscovery of the place for industrial heritage”<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>
There may be some ambivalence surrounding its claim to achieving justice if the goal of an initiative is to better the image of a city, not least with regards to gentrification effects (e.g. making housing unaffordable for certain income groups due to an improved image of the areas). There is a high potential here for unintended injustices.

The project "Cultural heritage as urban regeneration" brings out both issues of sustainability and justice <ref>https://rockproject.eu/actions</ref>: “Environmental sustainability is a golden thread throughout the ROCK project as urban regeneration efforts are intrinsically linked to attempts to minimize our impact on the environment – whether through the creative and adaptive reuse of built heritage, the circular model approaches to improve well-being, the use of inclusive and participatory approaches to involve citizens in co-designing solutions, or efforts to contribute to the resilience of communities to climate change.”
It very much depends on the individual case if justice and sustainability are linked. As mentioned above, the Olympic Games in Turin led to the city's success in reshaping its image <ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14775085.2011.635015</ref>. However, it is important to bear in mind that there has been reports detailing that the "work in progress"(building) period of the games led to negative air qualities at that time though.<ref>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205975</ref> As with most city development strategies using culture to develop the city can be done in more or less environmentally harmful ways.

==Narrative of change==
This addresses how degraded (built) parts of a city can be renewed through cultural activities and infrastructure. This renewal and strengthened ties of identity are expected to contribute to a better quality of life for residents. An advantage of using the cultural heritage of a city in redevelopment is that citizens can accept new developments more easily when they can relate to its historical context. Providing spaces and opportunities for civic artistic activities as a way of community building and empowerment is a different rationale. This is a strategy partly mobilized by ITSSOIN.

==Transformative potential==
Activities of urban renewal with reference to cultural heritage may have very diverse impacts on power relations. If designed as a participatory processes as it was done in Kluj-Napoca (next chapter), they add to procedural justice and enhance the sense of community-belonging among residents. However, overall positive outcomes, such as those contributing to fostering more just and sustainable cities, seem rather unlikely as long as there is a tendency to develop large events and infrastructures prevails and gentrification effects are not effectively mitigated against (see e.g high rent prices for apartments in the quarter Strijp S in Eindhoven<ref>https://www.pararius.com/apartments/eindhoven/city-district-stadsdeel-strijp</ref>.

==Illustration==

A case study in the ROCK - project is the city of Cluj-Napoca, which is one of the seven role-model cities and also known to have considered the leveraging of cultural heritage as a strategy for sustainable city development. The model '''‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca’''' is based on the process of brokering between public and private stakeholders. This enabled an open and cooperative environment, raising community trust and encouraging civic involvement by offering citizens the opportunity to become active participants in the life of their own community. The goal is to involve citizens in a democratic deliberation and decision process to help determine the best way to spend part of the public budget (participative youth budgeting). Therefore, it very much pays respect to "justice as recognition" and "procedural justice aspects". The initiative ‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca took a participatory approach in its urban planning process. To implement, the local administration, policy makers and members from the industry, research centers, NGOs and associations were strongly committed to prioritise the projects on heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone in order to foster a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.“<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Approaches]]
[[Category:Urban development through cultural solutions]]
[[Category:Regeneration of disused urban space]]
[[Category:Experimentation labs]]
[[Category:Transition towns]]
[[Category:Living Lab in Eindhoven]]
[[Category:COM’ON Cluj-Napoca]]
[[Category:ROCK]]

Urban development through cultural solutions

2019-11-24T21:10:32Z

Lin:

Urban development through cultural solutions is about using arts and cultural heritage (e.g museums, old industrial sites etc.) to develop (degraded) urban spaces.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

The approaches here work for multiple actors at multiple levels such as public administration, citizens and informal groups or private grant-making foundations. They are all centered around a paradigm of using cultural capital in order to develop a city. An important aspect here is the idea of "regeneration" which aims at "restoring and improving the quality of urban life through the enhancement and development of the unique characteristics of a place and its people." <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248991497_The_Role_of_Urban_Design_in_Cultural_Regeneration</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

'''Specific examples''':
*Regeneration and Optimisation of Cultural heritage in creative and Knowledge cities (ROCK)<ref> https://rockproject.eu/project </ref> aims to develop an innovative, collaborative and systematic approach to promote the effective regeneration and adaptive reuse in historic city centres by implementing a repertoire of successful heritage-led regeneration initiatives related to 7 Role Model selected cities: Athens, Cluj-Napoca, Eindhoven, Liverpool, Lyon, Turin and Vilnius. The insight gained by this will be used in three 3 Replicator Cities: Bologna, Lisbon and Skopje to achieve regeneration, sustainable development and economic growth of the city. Developing cities in accordance with the cultural heritage is thus very well developed and has shown to be successful. The idea is transferable though the cultural heritage of every city is obviously unique which means that there is not "one" concept of using "cultural heritage" that every city can apply. A common way to regenerate cultural heritage is through the renovation of old historic buildings. On a worldwide level, UNESCO honors sites/landmarks/areas with outstanding historic/cultural significance with the name “World Heritage Site”, so that they are protected by international treaties.

*Impact of the Third Sector as SOcial INnovation (ITSSOIN) analyzed the relationship between the issue of social cohesion and culture-led urban rejuvenation in degraded, peripheral areas within cities, such as Milan, Rotterdam, Greater Paris region and Galicia (Spain). It specifically explores how civic engagement in the field of culture and arts contributes to the expressive, communicative, recreational, and spiritual needs of individuals and communities.<ref>http://itssoin.eu/</ref>

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This is strictly about urban areas. The project “Cultural heritage as urban regeneration” looks at city centres (mostly because there is generally a richer heritage than in peripheries), “Culture-led Place Rejuvenation” looks at degraded urban spaces in the periphery of cities (mostly because of the availability of spaces in the periphery)

Renewing city parts with the aim of cultural vibrance can contribute to sustainability, but this is not necessarily always the case. One case in question is The Olympic Games in Turin (2006), which, according to the ROCK project, is described as a "great international event" that helped to create "a new culture & knowledge-led identity"<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref> for the city.
“The reuse of the heritage in the central districts combined with physical regeneration, great international events (e.g. 2006 Winter Olympics) and the development of a strong, long-term publicly-led cultural policy, contributed to boost an overall and wider redevelopment process.”
It is at least questionable though if Olympic Games can actually actively contribute to environmentally sustainable cities. (or if they can just be planned in a less harmful way)
Cultural vibrancy in cities is enhanced through "procedural justice" and "justice as recognition". The approaches seem to address justice issues, though often only implicitly in a way that they want to enhance the cultural vibrancy of a city. And different aspects can be addressed in different ways. Therefore, the case studies of the different projects mentioned here pay respect to justice issues on different levels.
For example, in the urban renewal project in Kluj-Napoca (ROCK), the “model depends on a participatory approach, consisting of local administration, policy makers, industry, research, NGOs and associations strongly committed to the priority projects for heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone to create a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.” This reflects attention to issues of “procedural justice” in Kluj-Napoca.

Culture-led rejuvenation (ITSSOIN) pays explicit attention to justice aspects (e.g the inclusion of socially disadvantaged groups, strengthening their feeling of belonging to a community and stimulating their active participation and involvement in the life of a community)
In the case of Eindhoven (ROCK), however, it is more about enhancing the reputation of the city. For instance, it was reported that “Eindhoven generated a Living Lab in the former industrial regeneration area called ‘Strijp-S’ […]. The Living Lab generates economic, cultural and technological initiatives that contribute to strengthening identity and the significance of the Strijp-S as the center of Brainport Region Eindhoven, to promote its (inter)national reputation and the rediscovery of the place for industrial heritage”<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>
There may be some ambivalence surrounding its claim to achieving justice if the goal of an initiative is to better the image of a city, not least with regards to gentrification effects (e.g. making housing unaffordable for certain income groups due to an improved image of the areas). There is a high potential here for unintended injustices.

The project "Cultural heritage as urban regeneration" brings out both issues of sustainability and justice <ref>https://rockproject.eu/actions</ref>: “Environmental sustainability is a golden thread throughout the ROCK project as urban regeneration efforts are intrinsically linked to attempts to minimize our impact on the environment – whether through the creative and adaptive reuse of built heritage, the circular model approaches to improve well-being, the use of inclusive and participatory approaches to involve citizens in co-designing solutions, or efforts to contribute to the resilience of communities to climate change.”
It very much depends on the individual case if justice and sustainability are linked. As mentioned above, the Olympic Games in Turin led to the city's success in reshaping its image <ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14775085.2011.635015</ref>. However, it is important to bear in mind that there has been reports detailing that the "work in progress"(building) period of the games led to negative air qualities at that time though.<ref>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205975</ref> As with most city development strategies using culture to develop the city can be done in more or less environmentally harmful ways.

==Narrative of change==
This addresses how degraded (built) parts of a city can be renewed through cultural activities and infrastructure. This renewal and strengthened ties of identity are expected to contribute to a better quality of life for residents. An advantage of using the cultural heritage of a city in redevelopment is that citizens can accept new developments more easily when they can relate to its historical context. Providing spaces and opportunities for civic artistic activities as a way of community building and empowerment is a different rationale. This is a strategy partly mobilized by ITSSOIN.

==Transformative potential==
Activities of urban renewal with reference to cultural heritage may have very diverse impacts on power relations. If designed as a participatory processes as it was done in Kluj-Napoca (next chapter), they add to procedural justice and enhance the sense of community-belonging among residents. However, overall positive outcomes, such as those contributing to fostering more just and sustainable cities, seem rather unlikely as long as there is a tendency to develop large events and infrastructures prevails and gentrification effects are not effectively mitigated against. (see e.g high rent prices for apartments in the quarter Strijp S in Eindhoven<ref>https://www.pararius.com/apartments/eindhoven/city-district-stadsdeel-strijp</ref>

==Illustration==

A case study in the ROCK - project is the city of Cluj-Napoca, which is one of the seven role-model cities and also known to have considered the leveraging of cultural heritage as a strategy for sustainable city development. The model '''‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca’''' is based on the process of brokering between public and private stakeholders. This enabled an open and cooperative environment, raising community trust and encouraging civic involvement by offering citizens the opportunity to become active participants in the life of their own community. The goal is to involve citizens in a democratic deliberation and decision process to help determine the best way to spend part of the public budget (participative youth budgeting). Therefore, it very much pays respect to "justice as recognition" and "procedural justice aspects". The initiative ‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca took a participatory approach in its urban planning process. To implement, the local administration, policy makers and members from the industry, research centers, NGOs and associations were strongly committed to prioritise the projects on heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone in order to foster a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.“<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Approaches]]
[[Category:Urban development through cultural solutions]]
[[Category:Regeneration of disused urban space]]
[[Category:Experimentation labs]]
[[Category:Transition towns]]
[[Category:Living Lab in Eindhoven]]
[[Category:COM’ON Cluj-Napoca]]
[[Category:ROCK]]

Urban development through cultural solutions

2019-11-24T21:05:59Z

Lin:

Urban development through cultural solutions is about using arts and cultural heritage (e.g museums, old industrial sites etc.) to develop (degraded) urban spaces.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

The approaches here work for multiple actors at multiple levels such as public administration, citizens and informal groups or private grant-making foundations. They are all centered around a paradigm of using cultural capital in order to develop a city. An important aspect here is the idea of "regeneration" which aims at "restoring and improving the quality of urban life through the enhancement and development of the unique characteristics of a place and its people." <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248991497_The_Role_of_Urban_Design_in_Cultural_Regeneration</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

'''Specific examples''':
*Regeneration and Optimisation of Cultural heritage in creative and Knowledge cities (ROCK)<ref> https://rockproject.eu/project </ref> aims to develop an innovative, collaborative and systematic approach to promote the effective regeneration and adaptive reuse in historic city centres by implementing a repertoire of successful heritage-led regeneration initiatives related to 7 Role Model selected cities: Athens, Cluj-Napoca, Eindhoven, Liverpool, Lyon, Turin and Vilnius. The insight gained by this will be used in three 3 Replicator Cities: Bologna, Lisbon and Skopje to achieve regeneration, sustainable development and economic growth of the city. Developing cities in accordance with the cultural heritage is thus very well developed and has shown to be successful. The idea is transferable though the cultural heritage of every city is obviously unique which means that there is not "one" concept of using "cultural heritage" that every city can apply. A common way to regenerate cultural heritage is through the renovation of old historic buildings. On a worldwide level, UNESCO honors sites/landmarks/areas with outstanding historic/cultural significance with the name “World Heritage Site”, so that they are protected by international treaties.

*Impact of the Third Sector as SOcial INnovation (ITSSOIN) analyzed the relationship between the issue of social cohesion and culture-led urban rejuvenation in degraded city spaces in peripheral areas of cities, such as in Milan, Rotterdam, Greater Paris region and Galicia (Spain). It specifically explores how civic engagement in the field of culture and arts contributes to the expressive, communicative, recreational, and spiritual needs of individuals and communities.<ref>http://itssoin.eu/</ref>

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This is strictly about urban areas. The project “Cultural heritage as urban regeneration” looks at city centres (mostly because there is generally a richer heritage than in peripheries), “Culture-led Place Rejuvenation” looks at degraded urban spaces in the periphery of cities (mostly because of the availability of spaces in the periphery)

Renewing city parts with the aim of cultural vibrance can contribute to sustainability, but this is not necessarily always the case. One case in question is The Olympic Games in Turin (2006), which, according to the ROCK project, is described as a "great international event" that helped to create "a new culture & knowledge-led identity"<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref> for the city.
“The reuse of the heritage in the central districts combined with physical regeneration, great international events (e.g. 2006 Winter Olympics) and the development of a strong, long-term publicly-led cultural policy, contributed to boost an overall and wider redevelopment process.”
It is at least questionable though if Olympic Games can actually actively contribute to environmentally sustainable cities. (or if they can just be planned in a less harmful way)
Cultural vibrancy in cities is enhanced through "procedural justice" and "justice as recognition". The approaches seem to address justice issues, though often only implicitly in a way that they want to enhance the cultural vibrancy of a city. And different aspects can be addressed in different ways. Therefore, the case studies of the different projects mentioned here pay respect to justice issues on different levels.
For example, in the urban renewal project in Kluj-Napoca (ROCK), the “model depends on a participatory approach, consisting of local administration, policy makers, industry, research, NGOs and associations strongly committed to the priority projects for heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone to create a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.” This reflects attention to issues of “procedural justice” in Kluj-Napoca.

Culture-led rejuvenation (ITSSOIN) pays explicit attention to justice aspects (e.g the inclusion of socially disadvantaged groups, strengthening their feeling of belonging to a community and stimulating their active participation and involvement in the life of a community)
In the case of Eindhoven (ROCK), however, it is more about enhancing the reputation of the city. For instance, it was reported that “Eindhoven generated a Living Lab in the former industrial regeneration area called ‘Strijp-S’ […]. The Living Lab generates economic, cultural and technological initiatives that contribute to strengthening identity and the significance of the Strijp-S as the center of Brainport Region Eindhoven, to promote its (inter)national reputation and the rediscovery of the place for industrial heritage”<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>
There may be some ambivalence surrounding its claim to achieving justice if the goal of an initiative is to better the image of a city, not least with regards to gentrification effects (e.g. making housing unaffordable for certain income groups due to an improved image of the areas). There is a high potential here for unintended injustices.

The project "Cultural heritage as urban regeneration" brings out both issues of sustainability and justice <ref>https://rockproject.eu/actions</ref>: “Environmental sustainability is a golden thread throughout the ROCK project as urban regeneration efforts are intrinsically linked to attempts to minimize our impact on the environment – whether through the creative and adaptive reuse of built heritage, the circular model approaches to improve well-being, the use of inclusive and participatory approaches to involve citizens in co-designing solutions, or efforts to contribute to the resilience of communities to climate change.”
It very much depends on the individual case if justice and sustainability are linked. As mentioned above, the Olympic Games in Turin led to the city's success in reshaping its image <ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14775085.2011.635015</ref>. However, it is important to bear in mind that there has been reports detailing that the "work in progress"(building) period of the games led to negative air qualities at that time though.<ref>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205975</ref> As with most city development strategies using culture to develop the city can be done in more or less environmentally harmful ways.

==Narrative of change==
This addresses how degraded (built) parts of a city can be renewed through cultural activities and infrastructure. This renewal and strengthened ties of identity are expected to contribute to a better quality of life for residents. An advantage of using the cultural heritage of a city in redevelopment is that citizens can accept new developments more easily when they can relate to its historical context. Providing spaces and opportunities for civic artistic activities as a way of community building and empowerment is a different rationale. This is a strategy partly mobilized by ITSSOIN.

==Transformative potential==
Activities of urban renewal with reference to cultural heritage may have very diverse impacts on power relations. If designed as a participatory processes as it was done in Kluj-Napoca (next chapter), they add to procedural justice and enhance the sense of community-belonging among residents. However, overall positive outcomes, such as those contributing to fostering more just and sustainable cities, seem rather unlikely as long as there is a tendency to develop large events and infrastructures prevails and gentrification effects are not effectively mitigated against. (see e.g high rent prices for apartments in the quarter Strijp S in Eindhoven<ref>https://www.pararius.com/apartments/eindhoven/city-district-stadsdeel-strijp</ref>

==Illustration==

A case study in the ROCK - project is the city of Cluj-Napoca, which is one of the seven role-model cities and also known to have considered the leveraging of cultural heritage as a strategy for sustainable city development. The model '''‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca’''' is based on the process of brokering between public and private stakeholders. This enabled an open and cooperative environment, raising community trust and encouraging civic involvement by offering citizens the opportunity to become active participants in the life of their own community. The goal is to involve citizens in a democratic deliberation and decision process to help determine the best way to spend part of the public budget (participative youth budgeting). Therefore, it very much pays respect to "justice as recognition" and "procedural justice aspects". The initiative ‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca took a participatory approach in its urban planning process. To implement, the local administration, policy makers and members from the industry, research centers, NGOs and associations were strongly committed to prioritise the projects on heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone in order to foster a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.“<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Approaches]]
[[Category:Urban development through cultural solutions]]
[[Category:Regeneration of disused urban space]]
[[Category:Experimentation labs]]
[[Category:Transition towns]]
[[Category:Living Lab in Eindhoven]]
[[Category:COM’ON Cluj-Napoca]]
[[Category:ROCK]]

Experimentation labs

2019-11-24T19:07:13Z

Lin:

Urban experimentation labs are place-based social experiments that test ideas, methods and technologies from different domains in order to better address specific (and complex) urban challenges in a contextualised manner. Experimentation Labs can vary in scope, scale and longevity. These processes all resemble, in one way or another, co-design workshops taking place in real time and in situ. The degree of experimentation, diversity of stakeholders and innovativeness of ideas brought to the fore, all vary to significant extents.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Experimentation labs, in general, constitute new and unconventional ways of participation in urban spaces. Research on urban labs shows that there is still much opaqueness on what constitutes an urban (living, smart, innovation) lab, and what does not. While initially they mainly have included businesses, entrepreneurs and researchers along with city authorities, they also increasingly aim at including citizens at all stages (research, development, testing implementation). Experimentation labs thus can be considered part of multiple stakeholders partnerships processes and knowledge brokerage (co-learning), but they are mostly ephemeral and not always binding in terms of policy outcomes. However, this co-creation aspect is challenging to achieve in practice, especially when projects aim at developing highly technological innovations, often pursued in the search for smart and sustainable cities.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Experimentation labs are very common in urban settings, and we have observed various types being applied to questions of urban sustainability. Depending on their focus and function they can be found under “Living Labs”, “Action Labs” and “Innovation Labs”, or “Smart (Urban) Labs” or simply “City Labs”. The main idea in most of these remains the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related products. Living Labs focus on the idea of an experiential environment where policy makers and users/citizens design, explore, experience and refine new policies and regulations in real-life scenarios for evaluating their potential impacts before their implementations, in relation, for example, to learning and collaboration in the development of the city (as in the case of the Eindhoven Living Lab collection of initiatives, TRANSIT (2014-2017) project <ref>http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/</ref>), Nature-based Solutions (UNALAB (2017-2022) <ref>https://www.unalab.eu/</ref>, CLEVER Cities (2018-2023) <ref>http://clevercities.eu/</ref>), or more generally transitions to sustainability (GUST (2014-16) <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwD7UsDWrw&feature=youtu.be</ref>). Specific thematic labs might focus on a concrete (while also multi-dimensional) aspect of sustainability policy, like mobility (Cities4people <ref>https://cities4people.eu/</ref>), or energy and mobility (Smart Urban Labs - TRANSFORM (2013-15) <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/186978/factsheet/en</ref>). Experimentation labs emerged nearly a decade ago, as a way of innovating in cities with technology and people, and the research conducted to study and proliferate them has followed soon after. They are mushrooming rapidly across the globe and seem to have captured an important part of the discourse around future city governance. However, they are limited in how they include questions of culture and conflict, and struggle with how to include people’s voices beyond data entries or one-off or tokenistic participation structures.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. Nature-based Solutions (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.

==Narrative of change==

Urban experimentation labs aim to tackle the challenge of designing place-based, relevant and replicable solutions to social and environmental sustainability problems. The underlying premise of their logic is that if more actors are involved in brainstorming about, developing, testing and reformulating such solutions in concrete locations then more new ideas will arise and solutions will be more likely to be accepted and with higher uptake by the local public. This is why they are focusing on co-creative, human-centric and user-driven research, development and innovation, with the commonly expressed goal of developing smarter, more inclusive, more resilient and increasingly sustainable societies. Overall, transition to more sustainable and just futures needs to be collaborative, open to learning and experimental, and city labs aim at being examples of, and providing input for more, such processes.

==Transformative potential==

Starting from the premise that flexible and dynamic approaches that include experimentation and learning are part of what is required for transformation towards social and environmental sustainability, urban experimentation labs have transformative potential, as they are also well-located in inter-connected spaces and actors. However, research shows that this potential can be compromised when its principles (of co-creation) are not followed in the development phase of an intervention/solution, or if this phase is not included as part of the lab at all. The limitations of this research/policy method in relation to shifting power relations, and thus challenging dominant institutions, could be further seen in how citizens are conceptualised by its proponents. The main shift with regard to how citizens are included is from audience/end-users, to co-creators/discussion partners. However, their role in articulating and defining the problems (of urban justice and sustainability) for which solutions are designed remains unclear. More recent projects seem to take on this challenge. CLEVERcities, for example, is an effort to implement CLEVER Action Labs (CAL) in order to co-design, co-implement and co-manage NBS interventions in deprived districts, starting from specific place-based NBS technologies as impulses. The Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities project <ref>http://www.creativespacesandcities.com</ref> is also exploring new and groundbreaking methodologies of co-creation and of policy development, to override hierarchical organisational structures in favour of horizontal and collaborative approaches.

==Summary of relevant approaches==

The GUST project offers a number of illustrative examples where urban living labs of collaboration and innovation have been formed. In Malmö, Sweden, for example, an “Innovation Platform” was created that brought together business, academia and community actors with the goal of renovating existing apartment buildings in the city and through such regenerating to push for socio-economic development and employment while also integrating long-term environmental goals. In another example, the Concept House Village <ref>http://www.concepthousevillage.nl/</ref> in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, is a test-bed for sustainable building technologies and new building retrofitting approaches in the Heijplaat area. In this case, the occupant is actively engaged and seen as key for the design, the development and the use of the houses. Actors that enabled and guided this process were two academic institutions, the building industry, branch organisations, the local community and the municipality of Rotterdam (at a later stage). At a higher level, the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)<ref>https://enoll.org/</ref> is an international federation of benchmarked Living Labs in Europe and worldwide, which acts as a point of reference for public and private organisations engaged in experimentation environments. It includes a wide variety of innovations which can act in many different domains (e.g. health, energy, age) or can have a more territorial character (e.g. in a city) but with a multi-domain approach.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: CLEVERcities]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: European Network of Living Labs]]

Experimentation labs

2019-11-24T19:06:27Z

Lin:

Urban experimentation labs are place-based social experiments that test ideas, methods and technologies from different domains in order to better address specific (and complex) urban challenges in a contextualised manner. Experimentation Labs can vary in scope, scale and longevity. These processes all resemble, in one way or another, co-design workshops taking place in real time and in situ. The degree of experimentation, diversity of stakeholders and innovativeness of ideas brought to the fore, all vary to significant extents.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Experimentation labs, in general, constitute new and unconventional ways of participation in urban spaces. Research on urban labs shows that there is still much opaqueness on what constitutes an urban (living, smart, innovation) lab, and what does not. While initially they mainly have included businesses, entrepreneurs and researchers along with city authorities, they also increasingly aim at including citizens at all stages (research, development, testing implementation). Experimentation labs thus can be considered part of multiple stakeholders partnerships processes and knowledge brokerage (co-learning), but they are mostly ephemeral and not always binding in terms of policy outcomes. However, this co-creation aspect is challenging to achieve in practice, especially when projects aim at developing highly technological innovations, often pursued in the search for smart and sustainable cities.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Experimentation labs are very common in urban settings, and we have observed various types being applied to questions of urban sustainability. Depending on their focus and function they can be found under “Living Labs”, “Action Labs” and “Innovation Labs”, or “Smart (Urban) Labs” or simply “City Labs”. The main idea in most of these remains the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related products. Living Labs focus on the idea of an experiential environment where policy makers and users/citizens design, explore, experience and refine new policies and regulations in real-life scenarios for evaluating their potential impacts before their implementations, in relation, for example, to learning and collaboration in the development of the city (as in the case of the Eindhoven Living Lab collection of initiatives, TRANSIT (2014-2017) project <ref>http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/</ref>), Nature-based Solutions (UNALAB (2017-2022) <ref>https://www.unalab.eu/</ref>, CLEVER Cities (2018-2023) <ref>http://clevercities.eu/</ref>), or more generally transitions to sustainability (GUST (2014-16) <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwD7UsDWrw&feature=youtu.be</ref>). Specific thematic labs might focus on a concrete (while also multi-dimensional) aspect of sustainability policy, like mobility (Cities4people <ref>https://cities4people.eu/</ref>), or energy and mobility (Smart Urban Labs - TRANSFORM (2013-15) <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/186978/factsheet/en</ref>). Experimentation labs emerged nearly a decade ago, as a way of innovating in cities with technology and people, and the research conducted to study and proliferate them has followed soon after. They are mushrooming rapidly across the globe and seem to have captured an important part of the discourse around future city governance. However, they are limited in how they include questions of culture and conflict, and struggle with how to include people’s voices beyond data entries or one-off or tokenistic participation structures.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. Nature-based Solutions (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.

==Narrative of change==

Urban experimentation labs aim to tackle the challenge of designing place-based, relevant and replicable solutions to social and environmental sustainability problems. The underlying premise of their logic is that if more actors are involved in brainstorming about, developing, testing and reformulating such solutions in concrete locations then more new ideas will arise and solutions will be more likely to be accepted and with higher uptake by the local public. This is why they are focusing on co-creative, human-centric and user-driven research, development and innovation, with the commonly expressed goal of developing smarter, more inclusive, more resilient and increasingly sustainable societies. Overall, transition to more sustainable and just futures needs to be collaborative, open to learning and experimental, and city labs aim at being examples of, and providing input for more, such processes.

==Transformative potential==

Starting from the premise that flexible and dynamic approaches that include experimentation and learning are part of what is required for transformation towards social and environmental sustainability, urban experimentation labs have transformative potential, as they are also well-located in inter-connected spaces and actors. However, research shows that this potential can be compromised when its principles (of co-creation) are not followed in the development phase of an intervention/solution, or if this phase is not included as part of the lab at all. The limitations of this research/policy method in relation to shifting power relations, and thus challenging dominant institutions, could be further seen in how citizens are conceptualised by its proponents. The main shift with regard to how citizens are included is from audience/end-users, to co-creators/discussion partners. However, their role in articulating and defining the problems (of urban justice and sustainability) for which solutions are designed remains unclear. More recent projects seem to take on this challenge. CLEVERcities, for example, is an effort to implement CLEVER Action Labs (CAL) in order to co-design, co-implement and co-manage NBS interventions in deprived districts, starting from specific place-based NBS technologies as impulses. The Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities project <ref>http://www.creativespacesandcities.com</ref> is also exploring new and groundbreaking methodologies of co-creation and of policy development, to override hierarchical organisational structures in favour of horizontal and collaborative approaches.

==Summary of relevant approaches==

The GUST project offers a number of illustrative examples where urban living labs of collaboration and innovation have been formed. In Malmö, Sweden, for example, an “Innovation Platform” was created that brought together business, academia and community actors with the goal of renovating existing apartment buildings in the city and through such regenerating to push for socio-economic development and employment while also integrating long-term environmental goals. In another example, the Concept House Village <ref>http://www.concepthousevillage.nl/</ref> in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, is a test-bed for sustainable building technologies and new building retrofitting approaches in the Heijplaat area. In this case, the occupant is actively engaged and seen as key for the design, the development and the use of the houses. Actors that enabled and guided this process were two academic institutions, the building industry, branch organisations, the local community and the municipality of Rotterdam (at a later stage). At a higher level, the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)<ref>https://enoll.org/</ref> is an international federation of benchmarked Living Labs in Europe and worldwide, which acts as a point of reference for public and private organisations engaged in experimentation environments. It includes a wide variety of innovations which can act in many different domains (e.g. health, energy, age) or can have a more territorial character (e.g. in a city) but with a multi-domain approach.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Nature-based solution]]
[[Category: CLEVERCity]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: European Network of Living Labs]]

Crowdsourcing

2019-11-23T23:33:40Z

Lin:

Crowdsourcing is a participatory online activity in which participants voluntarily undertake a task in response to a call or request from a state institution, group, company, individual or non-governmental organisation or other group.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite closed or limited responses (e.g. voting on a list) or be relatively open (e.g. allowing for user generated categories or suggestions). For example, residents might be asked to i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions.

Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. Groups involved in creating sustainable and just cities might be drawn to using crowdsourcing as an approach because, if introduced early in the process and designed in an open complex-embracing manner, it not only allows citizens to have their say within a pre-existing discussion in a rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. An example of a particularly open variant of crowdsourcing is the platform OpenIDEO, set up to help tackle the challenges faced by Detroit, USA. OpenIDEO works by issuing a ‘challenge’, which kickstarts a multi-step process: individuals submit ideas, these are grouped under themes, which then go through concept development (which may include combining themes or ideas), these fleshed out concepts are then voted on, refined, evaluated and then finally chosen.

There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope<ref>https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/</ref> which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic <ref>https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/</ref>, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware<ref>http://www.everyaware.eu</ref> a project that combined data sensors and active user-generated content to help improve the environment through monitoring, awareness and finally behavioural change in different European cities; Cities4People<ref>https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/</ref> which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB<ref>https://cobwebproject.eu</ref>, Citizen OBservatory WEB, a project in which everyday people collected environmental information via mobile phones for research, decision making and policy formation in Dyfi Biosphere Reserve area in mid-Wales.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Crowdsourcing can take different shapes and sizes. One possible way of categorising different modes of crowdsourcing is by the relationship between the crowd (users, participants, public) and the organiser of a particular project or initiative. From the most closed to the most open, there is -- crowd processing, where large amounts of similar data is gathered (e.g. an app that measures how many minutes people spend in a park each month); crowd rating, where large amounts of similar data is gathered and then assessed via ratings (e.g. voting for different options about how to renovate a park); crowd solving, where very different responses or data is gathered and assessed against existing criteria for evaluation (e.g. we need a park with disabled access, how can we do it); and crowd creation, where the final solution, value or choice is determined by its relationship to other suggestions (e.g. we have some space in the city, what should we do with it?)<ref>Geiger, David, Michael Rosemann, Erwin Fielt, and Martin Schader. ‘Crowdsourcing Information Systems-Definition Typology, and Design’. In ICIS 2012 : Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012), Vol. Paper 53. Orlando, Fla., 2012. https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/32631.</ref> . In reality, there is often a mix of different types of crowdsourcing at different stages in a particular project. Crowdsourcing has been used all over the world to solve many different challenges and thus has been tested, refined, critiqued and redeveloped. However, there have been concerns raised about data governance and privacy, even when participation is voluntary.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
Because of the scope for data collection, in both passive and active ways, cities can harness crowdsourcing methods with relative ease (when compared to rural areas). However, it is not only the size of the data which makes cities particularly interesting places to use crowdsourcing, but also the heterogeneity of cities: there are many different types and groups of people, they have different interests and experiences, and often quite different aims and goals. This may seem as if it makes crowdsourcing particularly difficult, because of the potential for disagreement. However, it could equally be argued that because cities are places in which disorder, unexpected mixing and conflict take place, cities are also the places from which innovative and interesting solutions to challenges might arise. Moreover, the imperative to hear different voices is forefronted in such circumstances. Related to this, if done well, crowdsourcing can make decision making and problem solving more just by bringing in voices that are not usually considered when thinking about current and future uses of the city. It has the potential to allow disenfranchised groups - working classes, women, ethnic minorities, different abled people - to frame the contours of decision making, at least on certain issues. Further to this, it can allow for sustainably minded projects to have greater sustainability - if people feel invested in a certain project or idea (e.g. measuring their local air quality) then, even if a project or initiative ends, they might remain committed to an idea. Finally, thinking about sustainability and justice together, crowdsourcing, if it allows for diverse groups to co-create suggestions for urban challenges, can ensure that wider questions of justice are entwined in sustainable solutions.

==Narrative of change==
Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge solving. It relies on the premise that if many people put their heads together they can find solutions that an individual or small group of people cannot and, moreover, might even identify new challenges or problems that otherwise might not have been considered. A positive consequence of bringing together people to solve a challenge is that it can create new communities of collaborators who make work together in the future.

==Transformative potential==
Crowdsourcing contains the same seeds of transformative potential and obvious shortcomings as other participatory approaches - it depends very much on how processes are designed, who is included in process, when crowdsourcing is used within a project or initiative timeframe, and if genuinely radical or transformative ideas are allowed or will be dismissed. Beyond mere participation, and as explored as part of the CROWD_USG project<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en</ref>, transformative uses of crowdsourcing might need to include space for both environmental and social issues; an awareness of equality; high degrees of transparency throughout the process; genuine collaboration and cooperation between between different actors as individuals, groups or institutions; and an ability to adapt a challenge in light of the crowdsourcing process, when it throws up new ideas or issues. Without such considerations, it runs the risk of becoming a box ticking exercise where the glamour of using technology-enabled web platforms combines with empty gestures of participation to alter minor elements within wider projects, and thus justify and enable the upholding of existing power relations<ref>Certomà, Chiara, Filippo Corsini, and Francesco Rizzi. ‘Crowdsourcing Urban Sustainability. Data, People and Technologies in Participatory Governance’. Futures 74 (1 November 2015): 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.006</ref>. Without such considerations, it runs the risk of becoming a box ticking exercise where the glamour of using technology enabled web platforms combines with empty gestures of participation to alter minor elements within wider projects, and thus justify and enable the upholding of existing power relations.

==Illustrations of approaches==
'''The Citizen Mobility Kit'''<ref>https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/</ref> is a collection of methods and tools designed to find solutions to urban mobility challenges. It is meant to be used in different ways depending upon a local community’s needs. It might include a guide on how to enable information sharing or collective approaches, feedback mechanisms that work in real time (e.g. collecting data and evaluating it), collections of existing solutions to mobility issues and so on. Five different tool kits are currently being used within pilot projects as part of the Cities4People project in Oxfordshire, Hamburg, Budapest, Trikala and Istanbul.

'''PPGIS''' (public participation geographic information system) is about utilizing and creating maps and other visual or spatial tools in a way that changes people's awareness and geographic involvement. Geographic technology is thus harnessed to increase participaction. It is being used as part of Helsinki’s master planning. As Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife<ref>https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/</ref> at Forum Virium Helsinki, puts it “[More than just] sticking a pin on a map… PPGIS [Public Participation Geographical Information System] it is about understanding how people see their neighbourhood and what they have to improve...”

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Crowdsourcing]]
[[Category: Data collection]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: OpenIDEO]]
[[Category: Collideoscope]]
[[Category: The Citizen Mobility Kit]]

Community gardens and food

2019-11-23T22:21:23Z

Lin:

With modern cities taking up only three percent of the world’s land surface, their ecological footprints actually cover the entire globe. In recent decades urban solutions are moving from Sustainable Cities to Regenerative Cities<ref>Herbert Girardet (2014): Creating Regenerative Cities https://www.routledge.com/Creating-Regenerative-Cities/Girardet/p/book/9780415724463</ref>. A factor in this shift seeks to reduce energy use in food transport by increasing urban agriculture, thereby cutting fossil fuel dependance and misuse while building community resilience.<ref>Megan Quinn (2006) The power of community: How Cuba survived peak oil https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-02-25/power-community-how-cuba-survived-peak-oil/</ref>

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Community gardens and other aspects of food production, together with their related spaces and processes, are seen as important loci that can lead to various types of urban transformation in cities. Some examples of approaches that relate to this theme include: ‘Edible City Solutions’, community-based urban farms and gardens, aquaponics, and community gardens for social reintegration. While our examples here are mostly based in Europe, some have had a global outreach with city partners based in Central America, Africa and East Asia. The systemic use of urban landscapes for food production is a major step towards more sustainable, livable and healthier cities. Many approaches are seen to empower local communities to overcome social problems by their inclusive and participatory dynamics. Others have also created dynamics for new green businesses and jobs, such as selling locally produced honey<ref>Pollinator biodiversity http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/pollinator-biodiversity/</ref>, thereby generating local economic growth and fostering social cohesion.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

EdiCitNet<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/216082/factsheet/en</ref> is the Edible Cities Network Integrating Edible City Solutions for social resilient and sustainably productive cities and has just started in 2018, expected to run until 2023. EdiCitNet focuses around Edible City Solutions (ECS), including different forms of urban farming combined with closed loop systems for sustainable water, nutrient, and waste management<ref>Säumel, Ina; Reddy, Suhana E; & Wachtel, Thomas: Edible City Solutions—One Step Further to Foster Social Resilience through Enhanced Socio-Cultural Ecosystem Services in Cities. Published in Sustainability, February 2019 https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i4p972-d205771.html</ref>. It examined case studies in Rotterdam (The Netherlands), Andernach (Germany), Oslo (Norway), Heidelberg (Germany), and Havana (Cuba), and found that while the implementation of Nature-based solutions (NBS) (link) has increased in the last decade, they have not been able to significantly increase social cohesion as they mostly invite users to ‘stay and use’ passively but not to become actively involved on-site, in an ongoing fashion. According to findings from the EdiCitNet, around the world and across all socioeconomic groups, cultural and generational differences ECS are booming and demonstrate a high potential for a participatory development of social cohesion.

The ProGIreg<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/</ref> (Productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration) project began in 2018 and is active in post-industrial urban areas that suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Its approach is based on the use of Living labs<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> with local communities in order to affect change using eight interconnected NBS based on food production. This Community-based urban farms and gardens<ref>ProGIreg NBS #3: Community-based urban farms and gardens approach http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/community-based-urban-farms-and-gardens/</ref> approach will turn unused urban land into productive community gardens, contributing to improved mental and physical health through exposure to nature and healthy sources of food and a community feeling. Additionally an aquaponics<ref>ProGIreg NBS #4: Aquaponics http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/aquaponics/</ref> approach will be tried in 4 cities. Aquaponics is a combination of raising fish (aquaculture) in tanks, together with soilless cultivation of plants (hydroponics) in a symbiotic environment, whereby the fish waste water provides the nutrients needed to feed the plants. This approach is easy to operate and ideal for promoting local food production in areas with contaminated or poor quality soil, and has the potential of creating green job opportunities.

Another approach implemented through the CITISPYCE project<ref>http://www.citispyce.eu/</ref> (Combating inequalities through innovative social practices of, and for, young people in cities across Europe, 2013-2015) worked with young people in Elefsina, Athens, and used a Municipal Vegetable Garden as a private initiative<ref>CITISPYCE Repository of Case Studies I: Athens - Topeko (Case Studies I: Local Actions for social integration of vulnerable groups in the Municipality of Elefsina (TOPEKO) http://www.citispyce.eu/citispyce-repository-case-studies</ref>. Originating from an NGO called EPEKA, it aimed at the social reintegration of people facing financial difficulties through their active engagement with the vegetable garden. It successfully resulted in 3 young people (up to 30 years old) finding employment.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Urban gardens have come to symbolize a proximate and locally driven way of improving life in cities, not only in terms of food provision and greening but also as inclusive community hubs that promote sustainability. In all their diversity, urban gardens are not only responses from below to the socio-economic crisis and its associated precariousness, but have also increasingly become part of urban planning and policy.

Food justice activists defend urban agriculture as an important tool for urban food security and sovereignty (Anguelovski, 2014)<ref>Anguelovski, Isabelle (2014) Alternative food provision conflicts in cities: Contesting food privilege, injustice, and whiteness in Jamaica Plain, Boston https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268693826_Alternative_food_provision_conflicts_in_cities_Contesting_food_privilege_injustice_and_whiteness_in_Jamaica_Plain_Boston</ref>, especially so in the context of food deserts and unhealthy foodscapes. Gardening work holds individual healing and other health benefits for socially vulnerable residents and can help them recover from trauma.

Regarding sustainability issues, EdiCitNet´s ECS conceptional framework explores how urban farming combined with closed loop systems for sustainable water, nutrient, and waste management can create more resilient cities. Both ProGIreg and EdiCitNet explore many aspects of sustainability to a very deep degree, seeking to identify and improve areas in cities through NBS including: biodiversity, the carbon cycle, soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, citizen involvement, education and empowerment. Citizen science and active citizen participation also include sustainable education and nature appreciation.

==Narrative of change==

With modern cities possessing such large ecological footprints, being dominated by grey infrastructure and automobile use, with often serious health damaging effects (air pollution, heatstress, little opportunity and space for recreation and sport) the systemic use of urban landscapes for food production can act as a major step towards more sustainable, liveable and healthier cities.First, urban agriculture more generally, and related NBS that have been proposed based on this idea, act as a means to lowering energy dependence by increasing local food distribution and markets, thereby reducing global carbon emissions and increasing urban resilience. Second, growing food in community gardens promotes physical exercise and cultivates healthier eating habits. Their health effects expand to mental health benefits through socialization and engagement with natural processes, as well as because they provide greener, more quiet and more pleasant, proximate urban environments.

Beyond their potential for food security and health, community gardens serve also social empowerment and broader political engagement goals, as they become places of exchange and sharing; a place of urban commoning. The transformative potential of local food production zones more generally has been located in their potential of empowering local communities to collectively alleviate social problems, through their inclusive and participatory dynamics. Some initiatives can create new green businesses and jobs, thereby generating local economic growth and fostering social cohesion. An example of this was Cuba’s market gardens (including rooftops) during the countries “special period” when the 1990s US trade blockade and fuel shortages led to an agricultural and partial economic restructuring. The 2006 film by Community Solutions<ref>Film: The Power of Community. How Cuba Survived Peak Oil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99WCn_nFSAY</ref><ref>Wikipedia: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Community:_How_Cuba_Survived_Peak_Oil</ref> and research by UK based Bohn & Viljoen Architects<ref>Bohn&Viljoen Architects (2012). Scarcity and Abundance: Urban Agriculture in Cuba and the US https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262867813_Scarcity_and_Abundance_Urban_Agriculture_in_Cuba_and_the_US</ref> explored this period and helped inspire their Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPUL) urban proposal<ref>CPULs – Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes – Andre Viljoen (2006) https://www.transitionculture.org/essential-info/book-reviews/cpuls/</ref> and subsequent food art project DOTT 07<ref>Middlesbrough Urban Farming Project https://www.ryerson.ca/carrotcity/board_pages/city/middlesbrough.html</ref> in Middlesbrough in 2007 which culminated with a moment "where up to 8,000 people shared meals from the food that had been grown"<ref>Early, Catherine (2008) In; Guardian, UK: Urban jungle https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/26/cityfood</ref>.

==Transformative potential==

Some projects offered high degrees of Transformative potential, ProGIreg and EdiCitNet both seeked to make urban transformation work with and for local communities, where citizens become active participants in the construction and upkeep of community projects and spaces in their communities, as opposed to being just passive ‘stay and use’ users. The growth of such community decision making processes could lead to wider aspects of future neighbourhood design being driven by community-led initiatives<ref>ECOLISE (2019): Report reveals compelling evidence of the effectiveness of community-led responses to climate and ecological breakdown https://www.ecolise.eu/new-ecolise-report-reveals-compelling-evidence-of-the-effectiveness-of-community-led-responses-to-climate-and-ecological-breakdown/</ref>. Growing food locally and with sustainability principles also creates more awareness towards the health and environmental consequences of industrial chemical-based agriculture, challenging in this way powerful market interests that build on everyday food choices. However, it should be noted, urban community gardens rarely provide autonomy in food consumption, but they do alter the way people experience food and affect their thereafter food behaviors.The growth of such community decision making processes and the more intense and frequent interaction between beighbors that such initiatives cultivate, have potential of increasing grassroots/neighborhood action in other aspects of urban design and policy.

==Illustrations==

The PATHWAYS project focused on key objectives of (2016) EU sustainability policy<ref>EU Commission Communication: A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European strategy for Sustainable Development https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0264</ref> (moving towards a sustainable, resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate-resilient Europe). This was intrinsically linked to the success of two key transitions: 1) the energy transition and 2) the land-use transition. The Transition Case Study Database includes examples from the second section relating to the approach of “Community Gardens”.<ref>Transition case study database: Rosa Rose – more than just a Berlin garden https://www.pathways-project.nl/rosa-rose-%E2%80%93-more-just-berlin-garden</ref><ref>Transition case study database: Casale Podere Rosa https://www.pathways-project.nl/casale-podere-rosa</ref>

* Rosa Rose – more than just a Berlin garden
The initiative “Rosa Rose"<ref>Rosa Rose http://www.rosarose-garten.net/en/home</ref> is one of the community garden projects in Berlin. The initiative started in 2004, when a group of neighbours in the Berlin district of Friedrichshain began turning a 2000m² brownfield into a garden to create their own little oasis. The idea was to grow vegetables, some fruits and herbs and create a green space and dog area that would also be open to passers-by. But unfortunately the oasis had to be abandoned a few years later, due to a planned construction. In May 2010 they could start to develop their new site, a green public area right next to their original location proposed by the district of Friedrichshain. Since then, a contract with the district office ensures a free usage of the area for at least five years, provided that the group maintains the space.

* Casale Podere Rosa
In the north-east of Rome there is an old country side building where more then 20 years ago a bunch of willing and motivated people decided to take up an abandoned area to develop an entire microcosm of activities. Over the years this has grown to include a solidarity purchasing group, an educational botanic garden, urban gardens, a farmer market twice a months, an organic restaurant, the management of a library dedicated to the ecological culture, the energy production through solar panels and more. Today the Casale Podere Rosa<ref>Casale Podere Rosa http://www.casalepodererosa.org/</ref> is a fully developed association around which revolve a community of 500 people, more than 100 families. A piece of neighbourhood benefitting from and contributing to the drive to shape the current identity and quality of the surrounding area. Its achievements, quite unique in the urban scenario where the initiative is settled, are the results of a careful management of the relationships with the local institution and of ability in taking advantage of the peculiarities of the neighbourhood, which has a history of social and environmental struggles.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: Living lab]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: ProGIreg]]
[[Category: CITISPYCE]]
[[Category: EdiCitNet]]
[[Category: PATHWAYS]]

Nature-based solutions for health and equality

2019-11-21T21:31:03Z

Lin:

The European Commission defines nature-based solutions (NBS) as ‘solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience’<ref>ProGIreg: Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/background/</ref>. This wiki page examines how NBS can play a role and bring green elements into everyday urban living in the most equitable of ways, so that citizens of all communities have access to such urban regeneration projects.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Traditionally urbanisation has meant the loss of green spaces in cities, which has a negative impact on water, air, soil, biodiversity and the climate. Indications exist that close contact with nature brings benefits to human health and wellbeing, but the extent of this association varies by country and in urban areas of differing levels of prosperity. While nature-based solutions (NBS) can generally play a role to bring green elements into everyday urban living, this cluster focuses on how citizens in all urban areas benefit from such processes, as opposed to just a privileged few, with health concerning the full physical, mental and social well being of citizens.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

The approaches included in this cluster range from: exploring the regeneration and integration of deprived social housing urban developments through urban innovation; to the co-creation of public space with citizens, using NBS to improve accessibility to post-industrial parts of cities; and to assessing medical health effects of the natural outdoor environment in typical populations in different regions in Europe. URBiNAT<ref>https://urbinat.eu/</ref> (Healthy corridors as drivers of social housing neighbourhoods for the co-creation of social, environmental and marketable NBS) began in 2018 and consists of a worldwide consortium of academic and business partners around 7 European cities that will act as living laboratories<ref>Experimentation labs http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> to implement healthy corridor solutions emerging from community-driven design processes. It focuses on the regeneration and integration of deprived social housing urban developments through an innovative and inclusive catalogue of NBS, ensuring sustainability and mobilising driving forces for social cohesion. Interventions focus on the public space to co-create with citizens new urban, social and nature-based relations within and between different neighbourhoods.

ProGIreg<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/</ref> (Productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration) began in 2018 and is active in urban areas that face the challenge of post-industrial regeneration. These areas suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. They lack quality green spaces, have a negative impact on human health and wellbeing and are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

Phenotype<ref>http://www.phenotype.eu/en/</ref> (Positive health effects of the natural outdoor environment) focused on the day-to-day environments in which people live, other places where they spend time, and the effects on mental and physical health in cases from Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom between 2012 and 2015. Spaces included in their research were green spaces (roof gardens, city parks, courtyards) "greenery" (forests, nature reserves/parks, mountains, farmland, trees, landscaping) and “blue spaces” (water such as canals, ponds, creeks, rivers, beaches).

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

All the approaches have a high urban focus, with each project exploring different aspects of health and equality. While Phenotype (2012-15) explored more specific medical issues related to citizens proximity and use of local green spaces, both URBiNAT and ProGIreg seek to activate citizen involvement in regeneration of urban areas of varying scales along specific urban corridors in a number of cities. Phenotype mentions social justice, equity and fairness, and explored the health impacts on populations in residential neighbourhoods that did not live nearby to green public spaces. URBiNAT and ProGIreg both target unprivileged areas with low levels of green infrastructure, aiming at increasing availability and access to those areas, thus also environmental health justice.

Regarding sustainability issues, the 2 current projects, URBiNAT & ProGIreg, explore many aspects of sustainability to a very deep degree, seeking to identify and improve areas in cities through NBS including: biodiversity, the carbon cycle, soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, citizen involvement, education and empowerment. Phenotype explored specific issues of air quality, fitness and related aspects associated with specific urban green areas.

==Narrative of change==

With increased urban transformation being implemented using NBS and other forms of Green Infrastructure (GI) in post-industrial urban areas suffering from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems, the interests of the local citizens are not always paramount.

These approaches attempt to make urban transformation work with and for citizens, where solutions address all technical, social and economic challenges to bring green elements into everyday urban living. They seek to activate citizen involvement in the regeneration process of urban areas of varying scales along specific urban corridors in post-industrial districts in a number of cities and often use Living Labs as a community led tool for urban change.

==Transformative potential==

This approach has a high transformative potential, mostly seeking to act in currently problematic post-industrial urban areas, engaging and facilitating citizens to become involved in the urban regeneration of degraded environments in their localities, to develop community dynamics to take collective ownership for these areas and in some instances bring about a situation where NBS can offer new economic opportunities. Such community engagement can have a catalyzing effect, leading to organized local communities having greater say in future scenarios for their territories, thus amplifying democracy in innovative ways<ref>Democratic innovation through recognition http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Democratic_innovation_through_recognition</ref>. involving people in creating much needed green amenities/NBS helps them take the issue of health and local environment into their own hands, thus empowering them in taking decisions about the kind of life they want to live.

==Summary of relevant approaches==

ProGIreg is creating Living Labs in post-industrial districts in four front-runner cities (Dortmund, Germany – Turin, Italy – Zagreb, Croatia - Ningbo, China) to develop, test and implement NBS. Another four follower cities (Cascais, Portugal - Cluj-Napoca, Romania - Piraeus, Greece - Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina) will closely follow the progress and engage in city-to-city exchange to replicate NBS locally. One of ProGIreg’s 8 types of NBS is “Accessible green corridors”. Based around rivers that nowadays are often left derelict and inaccessible for locals, projects involve local citizens in renaturing the rivers and green corridors, using a Living Labs<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> approach. The project’s focus is to improve the accessibility to these green corridors so that that deprived urban neighbourhoods become more livable and locals can connect more to nature.

URBiNAT aims to co-plan a number of healthy corridors as innovative and flexible NBS. From West to East, the cities of Porto, Nantes and Sofia act as frontrunners based on their demonstrated experience in the innovative use of public space with NBS. From South to North, the cities of Siena, Nova Gorica, Bruxelles and Høje-Taastrup share and replicate URBiNAT concepts and methodologies, acting as ‘followers’.

The Health Corridor is a ‘Green Articulation’ designed as a pedestrian walkway/viaduct in the public space to integrate neighbourhoods into the urban structure. Each Health Corridor will integrate and link diverse NBS developed by the horizontal partners, deploying the NBS Catalogue and appropriate monitoring and evaluation methods and tool. This will be achieved by focusing on the citizens’ well-being in relation to energy, water, food, nature, mobility, participation, behavioural change, digital democracy, social cohesion and the solidarity economy.

Healthy Corridors, with a customized NBS catalogue, will be co-created and co-planned for the frontrunner and follower cities, testing an innovative and inclusive urban model to regenerate deprived districts, specifically within and linking social housing neighbourhoods. Participative-design will be the cornerstone approach in achieving new models of urban development. Design thinking processes and methods will underpin the creation of Healthy Corridors with NBS.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for health and equality]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: PHENOTYPE]]
[[Category: URBiNAT]]
[[Category: ProGIreg]]

Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation

2019-11-21T21:28:20Z

Lin:

Recent UN warnings<ref>Jonathan Watts, J. (2019). Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life. Guardian, UK. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report</ref> about increased problems arising from climate breakdown (flooding, drought, food shortage) have led to recent declarations of climate emergency<ref>BBC (May 2019), UK: UK Parliament declares climate change emergency https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677</ref> by various governments<ref>Rick Noack, Washington Post (May 2019): Ireland and Britain declare climate emergencies, but will it make a difference? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/05/10/ireland-britain-declare-climate-emergencies-will-it-make-difference/</ref>. With cities increasingly being seen as major solutions to Global Climate Change<ref>United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Goal 11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/</ref>, this wiki page examines how best cities can implement climate adaptation responses using nature-based solutions (NBS), that the European Commission defines as ‘solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience’<ref>ProGIreg: Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/background/</ref>.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Within the overall concept of [[Nature-based solutions]], some are designed to respond specifically to the challenge of climate change adaptation. NBS for climate adaptation in urban areas can include responses to heat stress with green walls and roofs, rehabilitated gardens and small forest creation, as well as green and blue infrastructure for flood management. GrowGreen<ref>GrowGreen http://growgreenproject.eu/</ref> (Green Cities for Climate and Water Resilience, Sustainable Economic Growth, Healthy Citizens and Environments, 2017 - 2022) aims to create climate and water resilient, healthy and livable cities, making nature part of the urban living environment so as to improve the quality of life for all citizens while also helping business to prosper. It identifies high quality green spaces and waterways as NBS that are able to provide innovative and inspiring solutions to major urban challenges, such as flooding, heat stress, drought, poor air quality and unemployment while helping biodiversity to flourish. ProGIreg<ref>ProGIreg: Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/background/</ref> (Productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration) is active in urban areas that face the challenge of post-industrial regeneration. These areas suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Their “Green walls and roofs” approach improves building’s insulation, reduces storm water run-off, supports CO2 capture, filters pollutants, and increase biodiversity, leading to reduced energy consumption for heating or cooling (thus also costs for residents) and overall increases urban resilience.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

A lot of the NBS for climate adaptation research and policy initiatives apply a 2-tier system of city networks, including European cities, but also linking with cities across the globe. GrowGreen began in 2017 and aims to create climate and water resilient, healthy and livable cities by investing in NBS. It seeks to embed NBS in long term city planning, development and management, so that accessible green and blue spaces are a permanent feature of all urban areas around the world. Its demonstration projects are designed and implemented in four (frontrunner) Cities (Manchester,UK: Valencia, Spain: Wroclaw, Poland: Wuhan, China), and three follower Cities (Brest, France: Zadar, Croatia: Modena, Italy) which face similar climate risks.

ProGIreg began in 2018 and is using Living Labs in post-industrial districts, similalrly in 2 of its 4 frontrunner cities (Turin, Italy: Zagreb, Croatia) to develop, test and implement NBS for climate adaptation. In Zagreb, the former Sljeme meat-processing factory is to be fully revamped into a business innovation centre with a 700m2 green roof and 300m2 of green walls, with potential to replicate this on other factory buildings at the same site. In Turin and Cluj-Napoca Green roofs and walls will be fitted to public buildings. Piraeus is a densely-populated area, with little ground space available for green regeneration, so the green roofs and walls will be used to improve local biodiversity and counteract the urban heat island effect. Both projects have a high level of transferability, as NBS projects are being developed by and with local community groups. 2 of the 4 follower cities (Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Piraeus, Greece) will closely follow the progress and engage in city-to-city exchange to replicate NBS locally.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

NBS for climate adaptation seem to have a very high urban focus, with each project assisting in CO2 capture. GrowGreen sees itself as a vanguard project for development of NBS around the world, seeking to embed NBS in long term city planning, development and management, so that accessible green and blue spaces are a permanent feature of all urban areas. With Climate Breakdown worsening, its practical lessons for climate change adaptation are expected to rapidly increase in uptake.

Regarding justice, GrowGreen’s approach includes various actors and stakeholders, a citizen driven, bottom up approach has been used to develop NBS designs, with the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project being constantly assessed throughout. ProGIreg seek to activate citizen involvement in processes of urban regeneration of varying scales along specific urban green corridors in a number of cities, using the living labs (link) approach. Co-design of Nature-based Solutions (following NBS) lies at the core of the project and translates into systematically involving all relevant stakeholders, including local community groups, from the very start of the project, engaging them as equal co-creators. The aim of co-design is to achieve mutually valued outcomes, a joint ownership of the NBS implemented as well as a good fit between the NBS and the local context. Specifically ProGIreg has selected, possibly, challenging areas to work in, namely areas of deprived social housing and areas that suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems.

Regarding sustainability issues, GrowGreen is developing strategies for Climate change adaptation in cities, but its various areas of focus include: climate and water resilience responding to flooding, heat stress, drought, poor air quality and increasing biodiversity. ProGIreg explores many aspects of sustainability to a very deep degree, seeking to identify and improve areas in cities through NBS including: biodiversity, the carbon cycle, soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, citizen involvement, education and empowerment. Citizen science and active citizen participation also include sustainable education and nature appreciation.

==Narrative of change==

With increased problems arising from climate breakdown (flooding, drought, food shortage) along with rapidly increasing urban transformation, how can NBS and other forms of green and blue Infrastructure best respond to modern cities urban climate challenges?

NBS in urban areas can tackle the challenges of climate change adaptation, using nature and nature-inspired mechanisms, as a means to counteract climate change impacts and as an alternative to carbon-intensive grey solutions. These include responses to heat stress with green walls and green roofs, rehabilitated gardens and small urban forest creation, as well as enhanced or restored green and blue infrastructure for flood management. It has been observed in this bundle of NBS, that researchers and policy-makers are recognizing and implementing ith more rigour the aspect of, active citizen participation as a key tool to bring about required change, and thus projects are developed by and with local community groups.

==Transformative potential==

All approaches attempt to make urban transformation work with and for citizens, therefor an intended high transformative potential is hoped for. ProGIreg’s report<ref>ProGIreg Deliverable 2.3: Co-designing Nature-based Solutions in Living Labs, pages 25-28 http://www.progireg.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/D2.3_Report_on_WS_round_1_in_FRC_proGIreg_ICLEI_2019-04-30.pdf</ref> from the end of 2018 had a considerable amount of exploration into levels of citizen engagement and what full empowerment could mean. GrowGreen is a citizen-driven, bottom-up approach, the full impact of this in a transformative potential will become clear near end of project, but it shows high potential. Many NBS challenge institutions because they bring alternative solutions on the table, such as a proposed green corridor that cuts off car lanes and challenges also the automobile lobby, or the creation of constructed wetlands for water treatment instead of more grey-based/chemical solutions might challenge both the "common" hierarchies in established institutions. By placing new solutions on the table, institutional power structures get also reshuffled at government (public) and (market/business) private level.

==Illustration of approach==

The focus of the GrowGreen (2017 - 2022) project was on Green Cities for Climate and Water Resilience, Sustainable Economic Growth, Healthy Citizens and Environments. They hoped to make a genuine and measurable contribution to the global NBS<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Nature-based_solutions</ref> and city-greening agenda up to 2022, by 2019 the results in their 3 chief Frontrunner Cities were the following:

* GrowGreen’s chief Frontrunner City is Manchester, the fastest growing city in the UK outside of London. Five of the Greater Manchester region’s 13 rivers flow through the City of Manchester and are a major source of floods. The city’s long history of flooding is partly due to floodplain development, an ageing sewer system, covering rivers, and the large areas of impermeable surface that have resulted from urban growth. Surface water flooding has increased tenfold between 1945 and 2008, and is predicted to increase further with climate change. A community park with integrated NBS was designed in the neighbourhood of West Gorton, which is one of the city’s priority areas for housing development. The project is supporting local partners and stakeholders to design and deliver a detailed green infrastructure masterplan for the neighbourhood, expected to include parks, green streets, trees, rain gardens, community food growing, green roofs, attenuation ponds and a number of Sustainable Urban Drainage features.

* Valencia is located in the centre of Spain’s eastern Mediterranean coastline, and is the country’s third city demographically and economically. The city has a warm-temperate subtropical climate, with hot summers and little rainfall. Climate change analyses for the city suggest that increasing temperatures, extreme weather events, and decreasing rainfall are likely for the remainder of the century. The city’s NBS demonstration project to address these heat-related risks is located in the Benicalap-Ciutat Fallera district, which has high levels of immigration and unemployment, as well as an ageing population and deteriorating infrastructure. Several projects have been designed in Benicalap. These include a vertical eco-system which will desalinate water for reuse, a small sustainable forest with species selected specifically to maximise carbon sequestration, a green-blue corridor which includes new street tree and shrub planting, green roofs to mitigate the impact of heat stress and actions to enhance community engagement such as a new biodiversity app and a community food growing project.

* Wroclaw is the fourth most populated city in Poland and despite extensive flood protection works, up to 36% of the city remains at risk of flooding. Major floods have recently disrupted energy, transport and communication systems. Heat waves and drought are increasingly common during the summer months, and are exacerbated by the urban heat island effect. The city’s NBS demonstration projects are designed to address these dual risks of heat and flooding. The demonstration projects will take place in the Olbin/Plac Grunwaldzki (downtown) district of the city, which is a dense, multi-use neighbourhood that ranges from wealthy to socially deprived. The pocket parks, green walls and green streets envisioned as part of the project will be co-designed with local residents. In addition, a neighbouring district, the Biskupin/Sepolno (garden city) area, will be evaluated to determine how green development from the 20th century performs today. Since the project started, several courtyards have been designed within residential tenement blocks in Olbin. The new green courtyards will create attractive new communal green spaces whilst also incorporating NBS into the designs. Extensive community consultation has been carried out with proactive citizen engagement in the design.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: ProGIreg]]
[[Category: GROWGREEN]]

Nature-based solutions

2019-11-21T21:24:37Z

Lin:

Cities around the world are undergoing significant transformations and are facing substantial challenges in the form of urban densification and extreme weather conditions, due to climate change and the ongoing urbanisation. In Europe, more than 70% of the population is already living in urban areas. Nature-based solutions (NBS) are becoming an effective tool for such eco urban regeneration, but their social impact is being questioned as a form of green gentrification in certain communities<ref>GREENLULUS: Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/</ref>. The European Commission defines NBS as ‘solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience’.<ref>ProGIreg: Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/background/</ref>

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Nature-based solutions (NBS) have been examined in a number of research projects that involve stakeholders, as a way to make cities greener and more sustainable. Looking at NBS as the way forward in sustainable urbanism, projects have also looked at barriers that prevent the wider implementation of NBS and have examined potential means of overcoming these barriers. For example, a justice-based analysis examines questions of social equity in relation to the impact of NBS and related City Greening initiatives.

Examples of NBS inspired and supported by nature are numerous, including: green roofs and city parks that can limit heat stress; city lagoons that store water; and permeable surfaces, vegetation and rain gardens to intercept stormwater. NBS can deliver multiple benefits such as multi-functional green spaces that support adaptation to climate change while also being used for sports and recreation, as well as serving as places for local distinctiveness, increasing the aesthetic appeal of a neighbourhood, and providing a sense of community.

As NBS is a relatively new concept in research and policy, the impacts of implementing such approaches are only recently starting to crystalize. The NATURVATION<ref>NATURVATION https://naturvation.eu/</ref> (Nature Based Urban Innovation, 2016-2020) project outlined that despite their significant potential, the use of NBS solutions remained marginal, fragmented, and highly uneven within and between cities. The CLEVER Cities<ref>CLEVER Cities http://clevercities.eu/</ref> (2018-2023) project has identified ten key barriers to NBS implementation: 1) Limited knowledge base for nature-based solutions. 2) Inadequate governance structures. 3) Balancing the multiple goals NBS can deliver. 4) Effective citizen involvement. 5) Insufficient social inclusion. 6) Insufficient social acceptance. 7) Lack of political support. 8) Lack of financial support. 9) Monitoring challenges. 10) Upscaling difficulties. The GrowGreen<ref>GrowGreen http://growgreenproject.eu/</ref> project seeks to embed NBS in long term city planning, development and management, so that accessible green and blue spaces are a permanent feature of all urban areas. Many approaches have identified the need for local communities’ active participation in the creation of NBS, which the URBAN GreenUP<ref>URBAN GreenUP https://www.urbangreenup.eu</ref> (New Strategy for Re-Naturing Cities through NBS, 2017-2022) project identifies as the core of urban green regeneration. GREENLULUS<ref>GREENLULUS http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/</ref> (Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses, 2016 – 2021) project further explores if, and attempts to measure the extent to which, greener cities are less racially and socially equitable or whether greening projects tend to increase environmental inequalities.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

The approaches vary widely in scope and size. A number of efforts have been made to systematically organize examples, and research findings around NBS and their implementation:

It is quite common that NBS projects would use the Living Labs approach to develop solutions with and by local communities in front-runner cities, and then try these approaches later in follower cities, such as the ProGIreg<ref>ProGIreg: Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/background/</ref> (productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration) project, that is active since 2018 in urban areas that lack quality green spaces and suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Through interconnected projects, it will implement 8 types of NBS: 1) Leisure activities and clean energy on former landfills 2) New regenerated soil 3) Community-based urban farms and gardens 4) Aquaponics 5) Green walls and roofs 6) Accessible green corridors 7) Local environmental compensation processes 8) Pollinator biodiversity.

Nature4Cities (NBS for re-naturing cities: knowledge diffusion and decision support platform through new collaborative models, 2016 - 2020)<ref>Nature4Cities https://www.nature4cities.eu/</ref> is creating a comprehensive NBS reference Platform<ref>NBS reference Platform http://www.nature4cities-platform.eu/</ref> to empower urban planning decision-making based around new governance and collaborative models driven by citizens, researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders. They distinguish 3 distinct levels with the following list of NBS examples:

* NBS at building or plot level: Permeable paving | Urban meadow | Private garden | Shelter for auxiliary fauna - insect hotel | Use of auxiliary fauna - Earth worms | Climber covered green building | Sustainable urban drainage system | Green roof and meadow | Combined solutions - Green roof with renewable energy | Rooftop farming
* NBS at neighborhood or district level: Cemetery | Pedestrian way with sand | Green wharf | Spontaneous flora | Street trees | Permeable riverbank | Community garden | Water body | Urban park
* NBS at city level and beyond: Urban farming | Constructed wetland | Beehive | Green street network | Urban forest | Ecological corridors | Urban planning

A similar effort is the Urban Nature Atlas<ref>Urban Nature Atlas https://naturvation.eu/atlas</ref>, from the NATURVATION<ref>NATURVATION https://naturvation.eu/</ref> project, which maps 1000 examples of Nature-Based Solutions from across 100 European cities, and provides information on the key challenges they address, the type of urban setting they are implemented in, their cost, management set-up and type of financing source.

UNaLab<ref>UNaLab https://www.unalab.eu/</ref> (Urban Nature Labs, 2017 – 2022) is aiming to develop smarter, more inclusive, more resilient and increasingly sustainable cities through innovative NBS. It focuses on urban ecological water management, accompanied with greening measures and innovative and inclusive urban design. The UNaLab consortium centered around a diversity of stakeholders from 10 cities across Europe and beyond, including municipalities, research, business and industry, some cities some are more implementation-oriented, others are more assessing/observing how NBS are realized, so as to later replicate in a different context.

The GREEN SURGE<ref>GREEN SURGE https://greensurge.eu/</ref> (Green Infrastructure and Urban Biodiversity for Sustainable Urban Development and the Green Economy, 2018 - 2023) project is a collaborative project between 24 partners in 11 countries, they will produce a Manual for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning, which will be aimed at planners, policy-makers, and other practitioners. URBAN GreenUP also involves European and non-European partner cities with the aim to mitigate the effects of climate change, improve air quality and water management: Three European cities will assume the demos as front-runners (Valladolid, Liverpool and Izmir), other set of two European cities will act as followers to strengthen the replication potential of the results (Ludwigsburg and Mantova) and finally three non-European cities (Medellín, Chengdu, China and Quy Nhon, Vietnam) will allow to identify the market opportunities for European companies out of Europe and fostering the European leadership in NBS implementation at global level. They are grouped into four main categories: re-naturing urbanization, water interventions, singular green infrastructures and non-technical interventions.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

All approaches have a very high urban focus, but the level to which justice is addressed varies greatly. Most research projects are concerned with the direct implementation of NBS or the development of tools to assist in the process. While some approaches attempt to create citizen driven, bottom up processes that seek to include the highest level of community engagement in the process, some also aiming at NBS providing improved economic opportunities for disadvantaged communities. GREENLULUS stands out as a unique project that seeks to understand the impact of NBS and related urban processes on certain communities, as creating or exacerbating inequalities in the form of green gentrification.

Sustainability issues addressed by a high number of approaches include climate and water resilience responding to flooding, heat stress, drought, poor air quality, biodiversity, the carbon cycle, soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, citizen involvement, education and empowerment. Regarding the linkage of sustainability and justice, this approach has an overall high level, but from different aspects. On the one hand, NBS aim at increasing availability of green/blue spaces which are beneficial to all people, some address explicitly disadvantaged areas, so mend past injustices in underprivileged neighborhoods, and some aim specifically at including/addressing the needs of vulnerable groups (like children, the elderly). However, on the other hand, counter-effects of NBS (like gentrification) are only now beginning to be studied as drivers of injustice, and wider issues of uneven patterns of participation in public debate/workshops/consultations continue to persist and express also in NBS projects."

==Narrative of change==

With increased problems arising from climate breakdown (flooding, drought, food shortage) along with rapidly increasing urban transformation, how can NBS and other forms of Green and Blue Infrastructure best respond to modern cities urban climate challenges?

These approaches seek to respond to the urgent challenges of climate mitigation and adaptation by using NBS in urban areas, so as to achieve as rapidly as possible more sustainable, resilient and just cities and communities. Having identified that many NBS remained marginal, fragmented, and highly uneven within and between cities, many projects that involve city stakeholders are taking steps to employ bottom-up, community-led approaches that involve local communities to the highest degree in the co-design, implementation and ongoing upkeep of NBS. Many approaches work at a series of scales, to see NBS as tools of connections between currently disconnected urban communities, especially in post-industrial areas, where solutions also include improved economic opportunities through outputs from the urban solutions, such as selling honey in ProGIreg’s Pollinator biodiversity<ref>Pollinator biodiversity http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/pollinator-biodiversity/</ref> NBS.

==Transformative potential==

Most approaches have high transformative potential, seeking to act in currently problematic post-industrial urban areas, engaging and facilitating citizens to become involved in the urban regeneration of Green and Blue areas in their localities, to develop community dynamics to take collective ownership for these areas and in some instances bring about a situation where NBS can offer new economic opportunities. Such community engagement can have a catalyzing effect, leading to organized local communities having greater say in future scenarios for their territories. The development of urban (green) corridors can physically improve connections with surrounding local areas facing similar challenges and general health benefits that will increase with time. The GREENLULUS approach questions certain aspects of NBS, suggesting how deeper questioning of justice in urban re-naturing and new strategies can be developed to identify and resist the negative aspects of NBS.

==Illustration of approach==

The '''GREENLULUS approach''' is most aligned to the chief line of investigation of the UrbanA project. GREENLULUS analyzes the conditions under which urban greening projects in distressed neighbourhoods redistribute access of environmental amenities to historically marginalized groups. The study takes place in 40 cities in Europe, the United States, and Canada. The research assesses the extent to which urban greening projects such as parks, greenways or ecological corridors encourage and/or accelerate gentrification, given such projects have been recently shown to be factors contributing to residents’ exclusion and marginalization. Through an innovative FUG (Fair Urban Greening) index, it analyzed which cities most equitably distribute the benefits of greening. They also provide new tools for municipal decision-makers to conduct an environmental equity performance analysis of new or restored green amenities. Lastly, their research included an in-depth analysis of cases of community mobilization and contestation, and of the policies and measures that municipalities develop to address exclusion in “greening” neighbourhoods. Their hypothesis is that the social and racial inequities present in sustainability projects make green amenities Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs) for poor residents and people of color.

NATURVATION’s Urban Nature Atlas maps 1000 NBS examples from across 100 European cities, 2 of which include:

* '''Urban gardens of Poblenou''' (Horts indignats del Poblenou)<ref>Urban gardens of Poblenou https://naturvation.eu/nbs/barcelona/urban-gardens-poblenou</ref>
It is a community garden initiated by the autonomous assembly of the Poblenou neighborhood. It has changed location a number of times, eventually occupying the empty lot of demolished buildings. Over time the garden expanded taking over an adjacent empty space, as well as other yards in the neighborhood. The garden is not maintained for strictly productivity purposes, especially because much of its soil has been contaminated by a soap factory. It is rather used as a space for social encounter and knowledge sharing on planting and working with the earth on communitarian basis (1 and description provided by CEU).

* '''Lisbon Biodiversity Route''' (Rota da Biodiversidade)<ref>Lisbon Biodiversity Route https://naturvation.eu/nbs/lisboa/lisbon-biodiversity-route</ref>
Pedestrian route with 14 km,marked according to the norms of the Portuguese Federation of Camping and Mountaineering, connects the Forest Park of Monsanto to the Tejo river, which aims to contribute to raising awareness of the capital's biodiversity.(ref. 4). The position and expressive dimension of these connected areas is decisive in the regulation of the climate,quality of the air and in the diversity of habitats that the city offers for the proliferation of life. The Biodiversity Route is a circular route, which can be done on foot or by bicycle in each,species of fauna and flora that can be observed.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for health and equality]]
[[Category: UNaLab]]
[[Category: Nature4Cities]]
[[Category: CLEVER Cities]]

Participatory pollination

2019-11-21T21:22:09Z

Lin:

With governments being pushed to declare Biodiversity Emergency<ref>O'Sullivan, K. (2019). Government must declare ‘climate and biodiversity’ emergency. Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/government-must-declare-climate-and-biodiversity-emergency-1.3882649</ref> after recent UN warnings<ref>Jonathan Watts, J. (2019). Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life. Guardian, UK. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report</ref>, pollinators <ref>Pollinator on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollinator</ref> (birds, bees, ants etc) have been identified as essential to healthy and functioning ecosystems, their extinction could cause massive food shortages and possible societal breakdown<ref>Grossman E. (2013). Declining Bee Populations Pose a Threat to Global Agriculture. Published at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. https://e360.yale.edu/features/declining_bee_populations_pose_a_threat_to_global_agriculture</ref>, their role in protecting areas for biodiversity to flourish is now critical for human wellbeing (TEEB, 2010)<ref>TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/</ref>. Participatory processes to ensure natural pollination include citizen science approaches in projects based around nature-based solutions (NBS)<ref>https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Nature-based_solutions</ref>.

''This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.''

==General introduction to approach==

Participatory pollination is a citizen science approach of the ProGIreg<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/</ref> project that sees the creation of Living Labs to involve local citizens to create, monitor and promote awareness of pollinator-friendly spaces. ProGIreg (Productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration) began in 2018 and is active in urban areas in 8 different cities that face the challenge of post-industrial regeneration. ProGIreg have 8 types of [[nature-based solutions]] (NBS), 1 of which relates to Participatory pollination. Their “Pollinator biodiversity”<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/pollinator-biodiversity/</ref> NBS complements and links all other greening actions since pollinators are essential to a healthy and functioning ecosystem. To make urban areas more pollinator-friendly, cities can reduce pesticide usage and increase the size of green spaces and plant species diversity. Also green networks and corridors help prevent in-breeding of isolated populations, which can lead to species extinction. Monitoring the variety and amounts of bees and butterflies is a good way of assessing the pollinator-friendliness of a city, as outlined in recent ICLEI video<ref>(VIDEO) Professor Simona Bonelli: How to attract more butterflies and bees to your city https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1YsEUn6oos</ref> with proGIreg’s pollinators expert, Professor Simona Bonelli<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simona_Bonelli2</ref> from the University of Turin.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

ProGIreg is active in urban areas that lack quality green spaces and suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Living Labs<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> have been created in post-industrial districts in four front-runner cities, to develop, test and implement NBS. 4 follower cities will closely follow the progress and engage in city-to-city exchange to replicate NBS locally. This specific approach is at an initial stage, beginning June 2018, and will be tested in Living Labs in 2 of the 4 front-runner cities (Dortmund & Turin) and 1 of the 4 follower cities (Cascais, Portugal). The 3 areas differ in size: The Dortmund Living Lab is 215 ha, is situated about 2 km west of downtown Dortmund and includes the Emscher River. At its longest north-south extension, it is 4.8 km long, at its broadest extension in the northern part it is 1.25 km wide, at its most narrow section it is only 40 m wide. The Turin Living Lab area is the post-industrial “Mirafiori Sud” district (34,659 inhabitants on 11.5 km2) which is located along the river Sangone. The Cascais Living Lab Regeneration Area comprises part of the localities Tires and Zambujal in São Domingos de Rana, spanning about 0.42 km².

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The Participatory pollination approach is very urban focused and explicitly addresses justice by its selection of area of activity and addresses a host of sustainability issues. To make urban areas more pollinator-friendly, cities can reduce pesticide usage and increase the size of green spaces and plant species diversity. Also green networks and corridors help prevent in-breeding of isolated populations, which can lead to species extinction. Three areas are chosen for this approach, all suffering from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. These areas often lack quality green spaces, have a negative impact on human health and wellbeing and are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Regarding scale and type of areas, in Dortmund the approach includes a former-landfill site a neighbouring permaculture orchard, in Turin it includes a number of mental health spaces across the city. In the 1 follower city, Cascais, some local schools and community spaces are involved. ProGIreg’s citizen science approach involves joining with local citizens to create, monitor and promote awareness of the pollinator-friendly spaces. Assessing socio-cultural inclusiveness, ProGIreg outline in their document “Monitoring and Assess-ment Plan (Deliverable 4.1 - Link 2): In developing greener cities, social inclusiveness – defined as the cumulative social benefits created and supported by Green Infrastructure and NBS in cities – is derived through a balanced approach that combines both social (e.g., benefits to people) and inclusivity (e.g., equal accessibility to the benefit) impacts. The approach also seeks to generate direct economic benefits of NBS, where NBS will end up having a new productive activity after implementation, i.e. selling products and services produced by the new infrastructure or producing new income streams that previously did not exist, In regard to this approach, this would mean the sale of honey produced in NBS spaces<ref>ProGIreg Deliverable 4.1: Monitoring and Assessment Plan by CNR, pg 15: Direct economic and labour impacts of the implemented NBS http://www.progireg.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/D4.1_proGIreg_CNR_2019_03_29.pdf</ref>.

The approach’s environmental benefits are both at global and local scale, focusing on urban green and blue spaces of all typologies, the so-called Green and Blue Infrastructures. At global scale, there are direct and indirect interactions with the carbon biogeochemical cycle. GI directly interacts with the carbon cycle because its elements remove carbon dioxide (CO2) form the atmosphere, while, thanks to temperature regulation, reduce energy demands and the associated carbon emission. Thanks to a proper planning, conservation and management of green infrastructure, cities can play an important role for biodiversity<ref>ProGIreg Deliverable 4.1: Monitoring and Assessment Plan by CNR, pg 14 http://www.progireg.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/D4.1_proGIreg_CNR_2019_03_29.pdf</ref>. This approach identifies soil regeneration and aquaponics as contributions to solve the issues related to soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, which are actually increasing due to the global urbanisation process. The approach attempts to link sustainability and justice to a high degree, seeing NBS as having huge potential to address technical, social and economic challenges and to make urban transformation work with and for citizens.

==Narrative of change==

Acknowledging the need to create or protect areas, including in cities, for biodiversity to flourish is now critical for human wellbeing, this approach deals with a series of problems, principally that of maintaining or improving urban biodiversity through the creation of Participatory pollination projects in 3 European cities<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/pollinator-biodiversity/</ref>. This is one specific approach of an interconnected system of NBS being implemented in 8 cities. Recognizing that many post-industrial urban areas suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems, it seeks to engage local communities in a citizen science process, as part of a process to facilitate improved levels of citizen engagement. ProGIreg’s citizen science approach involves joining with local citizens to create, monitor and promote awareness of the pollinator-friendly spaces, as part of a wider strategy to increase citizen participation in construction of NBS in problematic urban areas through Living Labs<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> that are citizen-owned and co-developed by state, market and civil society stakeholders. Future uses of such NBS include possible economic activity, such as selling honey.

==Transformative potential==

This approach is at initial stages, so time will see if the high hoped for transformative potential is realised. Acting in currently problematic post-industrial urban areas, It seeks to engage and facilitate citizens to become involved in the urban regeneration of nature zones in their localities, to develop community dynamics to take collective ownership for these areas and in some instances bring about a situation where these NBS offer new economic opportunities. While this could be mere tokenist participation, such community engagement could lead to organized local communities having greater say in future scenarios for their territories.

==Illustration==

This approach seeks to improve urban biodiversity through the creation of participatory pollination projects in 3 European cities. The project is at initial stage, being tested since 2018 in Living Labs in 2 of the 4 front-runner cities (Dortmund & Turin) and 1 of the 4 follower cities (Cascais, Portugal).

*Dortmund, Germany: Pollinator-friendly plants will be introduced to the open slopes of the former-landfill site Deusenberg and the neighbouring permaculture orchard. Local citizens will help monitoring numbers and species variety.

*Turin, Italy: Turin will take a socially inclusive and bottom-up approach by working with doctors and patients of mental health centres to promote pollinator-friendly spaces across the Living Lab.

*Cascais<ref>Cascais Ambiente. (2019) Cascais Ambiente participa em projeto europeu para transformar áreas pós-industriais em centros verdes. (Portuguese only) https://ambiente.cascais.pt/pt/noticias/cascais-ambiente-participa-projeto-europeu-transformar-areas-pos-industriais-centros-verdes</ref>, Portugal: By running workshops for schools and the local community, Cascais will increase awareness of the importance of pollinators in the local ecosystem, encourage beekeeping and the reduction of pesticide-use.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Community gardens]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: Living Labs]]
[[Category: Pollinator Biodiversity]]
[[Category: ProGIreg]]

Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation

2019-11-21T21:18:07Z

Lin:

In the context of just and sustainable cities, governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation refers to the effort of public institutions to engage the civil society in policy making processes.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation differs from any other climate policies for its methodology. They all develop governance tools and processes to involve a diverse group of stakeholders in climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. This ranges from involving citizens in decision-making processes to empower citizens to deal with adaptation techniques on the ground. The key message here is that citizens’ involvement and bottom-up approaches are an essential prerequisite to successfully face the challenge of climate change.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
Collaborative scenario creation processes - for energy transitions ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/88647/brief/en ENCI-LOWCARB] 2009-2012): This approach focuses more on the process on how to achieve a transition to sustainable energy, rather than on the final energy scenarios. The process is divided into several steps which aim at transparently achieving the full inclusion of the civil society in taking climate change measures. This approach is based on the belief that citizens will become more supportive of an energy transition if they can concretely see their contribution in the final energy scenario.

Governance scheme for energy transition process ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106718/factsheet/en MILESECURE] 2012-2015): This approach is based on the assumptions that civil society needs to be deeply involved in democratic decision making processes for climate actions to be successfully implemented and for energy transition to occur (read more at point 6).

Smart tool for governance towards floor-resilient cities ([https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/project/floodlabel/ FLOODLABEL] 2017-2020): This approach consists in informing homeowners on the flood risks they run. It empowers citizens with the knowledge to deal with individual adaptation in their houses.

Early warning service for urban pluvial floods for and by citizens and city authorities ([https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/project/floodcitisense/ FloodCitiSense] 2017 - 2020): The approach offers an early warning service on urban pluvial flood for citizens and cities authorities to deal with the risks in the most optimal way. Citizens would have direct access to low-cost sensors and web-based technology to be aware of any pluvial flood danger. In this way, citizens are better prepared to respond to risks.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
Urban climate adaptation and mitigation policies have been developed to tackle urban issues, in particular the ones focused on risks adaptation. However, they are not exclusive to cities as they also tackle rural challenges. Justice is strongly addressed even though it is not the goal but rather a principle used to reach environmental sustainability. The approaches listed above set to achieve sustainability goals through just and inclusive procedures. In this sense, the link between sustainability and social justice lies in pursuing sustainability in the most inclusive, fair and just way.

==Narrative of change==
The set of policies above explicitly address climate change through adaptation (e.g. risk management) and mitigation (e.g. energy transition) strategies. Yet, the peculiarity of these governance policies is how they address the climate crisis and set to achieve change. To different degrees, they aim at a democratization of climate governance and the development of more inclusive processes. The underlying premise is that higher level of citizens’ participation in the development and implementation of mitigation and adaptation policies will result in more sustainable scenarios. At the same time, citizens would be more sympathetic of an energy transition in which they were directly involved as agents.

==Transformative potential==
Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation focused on citizens’ inclusion in the decision making process, represents an alternative to the dominant approach of top-down policy making. As such, it challenges governmental institutions which do not include citizens in politics. Similarly, the approaches above challenge the idea that private and profit oriented businesses should play a bigger role than the civil society in the development of climate adaptation and mitigation policies.

Processes of participation, deliberation and inclusion in policy and decision making, come with downsides. The research field of urban political ecology<ref> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1110 </ref> has shown how participation can oftentimes be another tool for private and public institutions to legitimize their projects. Citizens’ have often found themselves to leave those “participation table” because they saw their participation as a way for investors to justify projects citizens’ were opposed to (Kaika 2017)<ref> http://unequalcities.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2019/01/Kaika-Maria-Dont_Call_me_Resilent_Again_KAIKA_2017_pre_Pub.pdf </ref>. Participation, in fact, should not be about asking citizens for an opinion over the details on how to structure a policy. On the opposite, participation should take place from the beginning – it should not only be about how to carry out an urban renewal project.

==Illustration of approach==
Governance scheme for energy transition process (MILESECURE): The project MILESECURE developed a governance scheme for energy transition processes that is based on three assumptions (1) social, political movements and grassroots are the central actors to push an energy transition process; (2) external governance can and should provide them with support; (3) Behaviour change and transformation in the personal dimension are necessary for the success of the transition. These three assumptions advocate for transdisciplinary approaches based on a variety of perspectives (i.e. environmental, geopolitical, lifestyle and cultural, political, technological, economic and combined) which interact at the institutional and behavioral level.
The approach strongly addresses both justice and sustainability, as an energy transition would be based on deep forms of democratic politics. It does not only focus on the urban context, as rural households need to be involved in the energy transition. The approach challenges top-down decision-making as well as the dominant idea that technological development will lead us out of the ecological crisis. The approach advocates for a behavioral, interior and personal changes which would affect all individuals, and not just structures and/or technologies. Additionally, it addresses social and grassroots movements as the main protagonists needed for change. While the governmental institutions can support them, they should not be the main actors driving the energy transition.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Multi-stakeholder partnership – policy]]
[[Category: Co-learning and knowledge brokerage]]
[[Category: FloodCitiSense]]
[[Category: ENCI-LOWCARB]]
[[Category: MILESECURE]]

(Impact) evaluation and assessment framework

2019-11-21T21:06:37Z

Lin:

Research on sustainable and just urban areas has involved a variety of evaluation and assessment methods. This cluster summarizes a sample of these methods, which have been employed in the study of the following topics: environmental conflict in coastal urban areas, food supply chains, transitions to sustainable and low-carbon societies, environmental public health risks, distribution of green amenities, and common good contributions by companies and other organizations. What unites these approaches is not their substantive content, but rather the innovative, fruitful, and transferable methods that can be employed in many contexts.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

While each evaluation/assessment method discussed here is highly unique, they share several commonalities. Each one includes in-depth research on their issue and its context. This could include research on governance arrangements and the impacts of certain events, system change, development patterns etc. The assessments are carried out using case studies, pilot projects, and in one case, big-data. Each assessment framework is mainly aimed at helping policymakers by: producing policy recommendations, decision-support tools, public-use data repositories, scenarios, enhancing policy learning, predicting and mitigating risks, and even changing norms in policy making. Each assessment method has a strong focus on environmental sustainability, and a varying degree of justice considerations.

<u>Note:</u> Two approaches, Socio-technical strategy assessment (DESAFIO, 2013-2015)<ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106722/reporting/en </ref> and Impacts quantification of globalization (GLOBAL-IQ, 2011-2014)<ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/99713/reporting/en </ref>, are worth noting but do not sufficiently cover UrbanA concepts of sustainability and justice in urban settings to be further elaborated upon here. See references for more information about the projects.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

'''Environmental Conflict Assessment Framework (CAF), SECOA project (2009-2013):''' <ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93527/reporting/en </ref>)

The CAF was developed and tested through the SECOA project on 17 coastal areas in Europe and Asia. It starts with elaborating on resources and resource users, including influence and power relations between users. CAF then identifies specific conflicts that are triggered by competing resource use, and typifies, ranks, and analyses all stakeholders involved in the conflicts. This assessment contributes towards conflict mediation and resolution, along with building scenarios and producing a policy recommendation toolbox. Conflict assessment frameworks, in general, are a well-established tool, and the breadth of SECOA’s test areas and conflict types indicates that the approach is transferable to many coastal urban contexts. However, as a broad, region-based framework tool, it must be contextualized for each urban area in order to be useful.

'''Food-Chain Analysis with a focus on SMEs, FOODMETERS project (2012-2015):'''<ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105259/reporting/en </ref>

Food-chain analysis involves the use of various assessment tools targeted at understanding urban food systems, with a focus on small and medium enterprises. Analysis includes the Metropolitan Footprint Tool, developed by FOODMETERS to measure environmental impact of urban food consumption and estimate self-sufficiency. Analysis also includes assessing the impact of different food chain types, e.g. short food supply chains, on sustainability and resilience of urban regions. Regarding the maturity, successes, limitations and transferability of this approach, please see the Sustainable Food Supply Chains cluster.

'''Initiative-based learning (IBL), PATHWAYS project (2013-2016):''' <ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/111082/reporting/en </ref>

IBL is a qualitative assessment tool that looks at the evolution, governance (including actor constellations in various institutional settings), and scaling of sustainability transitions through the lens of specific cases (initiatives). It considers technological, economic, social and ecological dimensions. IBL provides a framework to understand how specific initiatives influence broader contexts, as well as reveal the complexity and uncertainty of sustainability transitions. IBL was successfully used in PATHWAYS to provide an analytical framework of sustainability transitions in specific cases within different sectors.

'''Predictive system of public health focused on risk and resilience, PULSE project (2016-Oct 2019):''' <ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/206068/reporting/en </ref>

This approach uses geolocated, population-based data, including data gathered by citizens through smart technologies, data from city governments, and from health systems to undertake spatio-temporal health impact assessments of environmental risks. This includes identifying health inequities across cities. The assessment aims to predict and intervene against health risks such as asthma and type two diabetes related to issues like air quality and mobility within cities. The PULSE project is championing this approach, so it is relatively new and its successes and limitations are unknown.

'''Fair Urban Greening (FUG) Index, GREENLULUS project (2016-2021):''' <ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/204099/reporting/en </ref>

The Fair Urban Greening index measures the (in)equity of distribution of green amenities resulting from the greening of locally unwanted land uses both in and across cities, in order to assess the social and racial impact of new green amenities in distressed neighborhoods (e.g. gentrification) to counterbalance pure environmental assessments. This approach is novel, since, according to the GREENLULUS project, no large scale study of the relationship between green cities and racial/social equity has been conducted. GREENLULUS is currently applying the FUG index to 40 cities in North America and Europe.

'''Common Good Matrix, The Economy for the Common Good (n.d.):''' <ref> https://www.ecogood.org/en/our-work/common-good-balance-sheet/ </ref>

The Common Good Matrix, a value-oriented benchmark system developed for the institutional sector (companies, municipalities or other organisations) allows the assessment of their impact on the common good. This assessment tool positions increasing the common good (e.g. quality of life, social justice, environmental sustainability) as a main goal of organizations, rather than purely financial gain. This Matrix has been developed by The Economy for the Common Good, which has been endorsed by the European Economic and Social Committee. While the Matrix appears to be supported by important actors, a foreseeable limitation is that its success hinges on uptake among organizations which are not required to use it.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

'''Urban.''' Most of the assessment methodologies (including CAF, food-chain analysis, predictive system of public health, and the FUG index) are inherently linked to urban settings and issues, and the others (including initiative based learning and the common good matrix) could also be applied to non-urban areas. Europe, North America and parts of Asia are the studied urban regions.

'''Sustainability.''' All assessments are concerned highly with environmental sustainability, primarily at the urban or regional scale.

'''Justice.''' Many of the approaches explicitly address justice and some have less direct, but still present, justice implications. Direct considerations of justice in assessments include investigating power inequalities between resource users (CAF), health inequities across cities (predictive system of public health), distribution of green amenities and unwanted land uses among racialized communities (FUG index), and social justice impacts of organizations (common good matrix). Food-chain analysis is mainly focused on environmental impact, rather than justice, and IBL has a social, but no explicit justice focus. Both procedural and distributive justice are achieved through the use of participatory research methods and considerations of various inequities in urban regions.

'''Linking sustainability and justice.''' Half of the approaches (FUG index, predictive system of public health, and common good matrix) directly connect sustainability and justice, while the link between sustainability and justice in the others depends highly on their application in context.

==Narrative of change==

Pressing and novel challenges in cities related to environmental and justice concerns require well-informed and innovative policy responses. Evaluation and assessment frameworks aim to help inform policymakers and other decision makers and provide functional tools to address these concerns. These frameworks, which often produce data for the public, can also empower citizens to advocate for themselves and the environment based on awareness of the issues.

==Transformative potential==

In general, the transformative potential of evaluations and assessments is dependent on their perceived importance by decision-makers and/or their citizens. These approaches are tools to reveal problems and suggest ways forward, but they do not have inherent transformative potential. Provided that they make it to the agendas of urban areas, most approaches in this overview have transformative potential. For example, Food-chain analysis may challenge the power relations between large and small, local producers, IBL reveals how small experiments disturb the status quo and spark sustainability transitions, predictive health systems and the FUG index problematize race or place based discrimination in cities.

==Illustration of approach==

'''Initiative Based Learning: Case study of Brixton community energy project in London (From PATHWAYS project)''' <ref> https://www.pathways-project.eu/sites/default/files/Case%20study%20Brixton%20energy.pdf </ref> IBL was used to study the evolution of a cooperatively owned solar energy project in London, England, and the UK’s first inner-city renewable energy co-operative. PATHWAYS studied the gestation, development and implementation of the initial program, and analyzed its potential for replication and transfer across contexts and scales. After the smaller-scale project in Brixton proved successful, it became a not for profit <ref> https://www.repowering.org.uk/ </ref> which is currently working to help other communities develop renewable co-ops. The IBL assessment included great detail on specific actor networks, financing, policy influence, community involvement and so on. Initial replication efforts were mainly peer-to-peer on a smaller scale, while later on the initiative was transferred to a larger scale by pulling information from its smaller projects and feeding it ‘upstream’ into the Repowering Ltd. organization. This case study is a good example of an initiative that connects sustainability and justice in an urban setting, and demonstrates how assessment methods like IBL are used to better understand the role of local initiatives in energy transitions.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: (Impact) evaluation and assessment framework]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban space]]
[[Category: Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]]
[[Category: Sustainable Food Supply Chains]]
[[Category: DESAFIO]]
[[Category: FOODMETRES]]
[[Category: PULSE]]

(Impact) evaluation and assessment framework

2019-11-21T21:06:05Z

Lin:

Co-learning and knowledge brokerage

2019-11-21T21:03:49Z

Lin:

Co-learning and knowledge brokerage is an approach implemented in cities with the objective to facilitate the circulation of ideas, understandings and cutting-edge research between a diverse variety of actors in society. It is closely related to the concept and practice of multi-stakeholder partnership, as it requires the convergence of people and groups from different fields and backgrounds, and it shares the aim of exchanging, "translating" and creating knowledge, for a richer reflection on how to address complex urban challenges.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Co-learning and knowledge brokerage is based on sharing views, insights and experiences, but does not usually require a commitment to (long-term) partnership, or the uptake of concrete measures and actions in terms of policy or implementation. It emphasises sharing and transferring knowledge through unconventional methods and the development of adequate formats and common vocabularies (translation of technical terms, introduction of tacit knowledge, popularisation of research). This can mean the development of multi-disciplinary platforms of exchange for tackling urban challenges (bringing different academic disciplines together) or a more transdisciplinary approach which involves knowledge exchange between policy makers, technical experts, researchers, non-governmental organisations, civil society groups, including students, and activists.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Some examples of urban co-learning and knowledge brokerage are more explicitly about transferring societal demands and bottom-up knowledge on urban problems to academic institutions, and thus shaping research agendas (i.e. Science Shops in TRANSIT (2014-2017) project <ref>http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/</ref>) or bringing social innovations to broader light and thus inspiring policy (Living and Lively Laboratory in SEiSMiC (2013-2016) project <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/185532/factsheet/en</ref>). These approaches are aimed at the exchange and brokerage of knowledge between geographically proximate groups (city level) but their knowledge outcomes and implications also aim for a higher level influence. In the case of the SeiSmic project, for example, it became clear that more open procurement policies for less traditional and less formal social innovators, and less cumbersome financing models for business, would strongly enhance EU efforts to achieve sustainable, inclusive and liveable urban futures. Other approaches apply the principles of knowledge transfer and brokerage more broadly between disciplines, sectors, academic and policy experts and civil society, users, end-groups etc. Of those, some begin with a more local focus, like Communities of Practice (CoPs) (see FOODLINKS project (2011-2013) <ref>http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/Foodlink-broschuere-knowledge-brokerage.pdf</ref>) and Urban Learning Labs [http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs] (ULLs - see GREENSURGE (2013-2017) project <ref>https://greensurge.eu/</ref>), and thus have more concrete issues and potentially more immediate practical implications. On the other hand, Knowledge-Action Networks (KAN) of the FutureEarth initiative <ref>https://futureearth.org/</ref>, for example, have a more international scope and thus bare the limitation of remaining too theoretical or abstract arenas of exchange and debate –although this will show with time, as these Networks are only now beginning to be established. Last, knowledge brokerage initiatives such as the ones of the PRIMUS (2009-2012) project <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/90973/factsheet/en</ref> that are built around a series of events and meetings (Informed Cities Fora, European Round Tables, and Implementation Workshops) that aim at bringing together scientific partners with local councils and civil servants, can be limited in including more bottom-up views and perspectives.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Although knowledge brokerage and co-learning is not necessary referring to urban contexts, we find most of the approaches to be implemented in the urban context. This is, it seems, also due to the complexity of challenges faced in the urban context, and the hybridity and high density of stakeholders and actors in cities. However, some applications of knowledge brokerage, as in the case of Communities of Practice for sustainable and just food systems (FOODLINKS), did not explicitly focus on the urban. Whereas the driving goal of knowledge brokerage networks and actions is to better understand and address urban challenges, this is not always necessarily done with the same attention to justice. Namely, whereas breaking institutional and disciplinary silos is likely to contribute to more integral understandings and timely reactions with regards to some existing socio-environmental inequalities and injustice, it is not guaranteed that these processes of brokerage will not also reproduce or ignore other types of injustice. This is particularly the case when knowledge about complex issues of sustainability is shared and asserted mainly between high-level bureaucrats, academics and policymakers, excluding more grassroots demands, experiences and knowledge.

In sum, the degree of involving civil society in knowledge brokerage varies between the approaches and is expected to define how they include or address justice in their objectives and outcomes. The focus of each approach is related either to the overall question of sustainability (e.g. KANs, PRIMUS knowledge brokerage), or to specific aspects/themes of sustainability (such as food or green infrastructure), or to domains such as social innovation (SEISMIC) and heritage regeneration (see ROCK project <ref>https://rockproject.eu/</ref>) but with sustainability-oriented goals. In most cases, questions of sustainability are addressed at local scale, but require or promote the 'glocalisation' of knowledge. The connections between sustainability and justice are not clear in this overall type of approach of co-learning. It is shown, for example, that more participatory processes (procedural justice) through community based design do improve the outcomes of cultural heritage actions. In most cases, distributive justice is more an assumed outcome of better sustainability policy (trickle down of benefits), but justice as such is not necessarily brought into question, neither as an outcome nor in the process of knowledge brokerage around sustainability.

==Narrative of change==

Achieving environmental and social sustainability is a multi-faceted and multi-layered challenge which requires the joint work and synchronisation of efforts from a number of institutions and actors, at multiple scales. In order for this process to bare fruits, knowledge needs to be translated, circulated and reflected upon collectively, breaking professional, institutional and social boundaries. Co-learning and knowledge brokerage aim at enabling communication, collaboration, stimulation and motivation for diverse stakeholders and can help towards urban sustainability, building national and international bridges for mutual learning between society, the scientific community and policy makers. This can have implications for research and innovation agendas, the development of policy recommendations for real social needs, and the creation of platforms for dialogue and mutual learning among citizens and urban actors in order to strengthen innovative governance for urban sustainability.

==Transformative potential==

Knowledge brokerage and co-learning through innovative methods of building multi-stakeholder platforms of exchange allows for ideas to be circulated faster and thus increases the potential for their creative application. The uncustomary bringing together of stakeholders from different backgrounds, with communication, translation and transfer of knowledge as the central objective, opens up opportunity for accessing and debating certain types of knowledge for actors who might be typically excluded from it. This can alter, change or even challenge dominant institutions, as knowledge becomes more accessible, manageable and implementable. In the example of participatory design (ROCK), local demands find place in urban planning. In CoP, civil society organisations are better positioned to long-term dialogue with policy makers, shaping the creation of concrete measures. Research-policy networks of knowledge brokerage are also created (such as Science Shops, or in the case of the PRIMUS project) and barriers to transformative futures are identified, thus enabling a shift of research agendas and policy directions towards more sustainable and just directions. It has been shown also in the context of the Experimentation Labs approach, that integrating students in transformational partnerships promotes the coupling of education, research and community engagement with sustainability challenges.

==Illustration of approach==

In the example of the '''Knowledge Action Networks (KANs)''' of the FutureEarth initiative, collaborative frameworks facilitate highly integrative sustainability research on some of today’s most pressing global environmental challenges. At a global scale, bringing together experts and stakeholders from various regions, they aim is to generate the multifaceted knowledge needed to inform solutions for complex societal issues. In the theme of health, for example, a research agenda was set for a better integrated understanding of the complex interactions between a changing global environment (such as pollution, disease pathogens and vectors, and ecosystem services) and the health of human beings (including livelihoods, nutrition, and well-being).

In a more bottom-up example, the '''SEiSMiC project''' mobilised a wide range of urban actors from civil society in 10 countries (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom). It identified a number of social innovation good practices that enhance the inclusive, sustainable and liveable future of European cities. These good practices include concrete tools to stimulate social innovations; new approaches to exchange via Internet cartographic tools used by groups of citizens; hotels run by migrants; the stronger involvement of women in the governance of cities; charters for the use of public space; and a focus on storytelling as an essential element of community building at the beginning of projects. Through a Living and Lively Laboratory approach [http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs], it experimented with multi-level dialogue and mutual learning processes, showing how not only are alternative methods useful in creating better innovation dynamics (walkshops, narratives, case studies, filmed meetings, visualisations) but that visualisation and the “language” of civil society is complementary and an added value to the traditional policy discourse of experts.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Co-learning and knowledge brokerage]]
[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]
[[Category: Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy]]
[[Category: Sustainable food supply chain]]
[[Category: PRIMUS]]
[[Category: GREENSURGE]]
[[Category: SEiSMiC]]

Governance and participation processes

2019-11-21T20:57:54Z

Lin:

Governance and participation processes geared toward urban sustainability emphasise environmental problem solving, mainly based on the co-production of knowledge through innovative, diverse and strategic partnerships.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
Governance and participation processes that support urban sustainability and just cities emphasise diverse participants and roles in collective problem-solving efforts. Through strategic partnerships (see, for example, [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100669/reporting/en/ URBAN-NEXUS]) or social innovation (e.g., [http://itssoin.eu/ ITSSOIN]), participants collaborate to achieve concrete sustainability goals such as “reducing ecological urban footprints” (e.g.,[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100669/reporting/en/ URBAN-NEXUS]), creating “sustainability transitions” (e.g., [https://www.incontext-fp7.eu/ INCONTEXT]), or catalysing and mainstreaming the reduction of carbon and energy consumption in urban settings (e.g., [https://drift.eur.nl/projects/music/ MUSIC]). These approaches ultimately attempt to overcome the challenges faced by traditional top-down or silo-based governance structures and processes by convening diverse participants such as researchers and policymakers, and/or by bringing together community members, for example, from the third sector (i.e., voluntary organisations) through social innovation. Bottom-up approaches and grassroots participation can be critical in such participatory approaches.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
Governance and participation processes include approaches that assert a fundamental commitment to convening participants that might otherwise lack opportunities to share their perspectives and contribute to the knowledge base upon which policies are formulated and decisions are made. Projects using these approaches can apply a number of different arrangements to engage people in both establishing the knowledge base for working toward sustainability goals as well the policymaking process itself. In this context, knowledge is co-constructed and shared, for example, through action research, a learning spiral approach, community arenas, an [https://www.incontext-fp7.eu/sites/default/files/D5.3_Out%20of%20the%20townhall-final.pdf/ out of the town hall] approach, or [https://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/news/events/urbanexus-dialogue-cafe/ dialogue cafes]. Each of these ways engage participants in gathering and sharing knowledge and perspectives to address mutually identified problems. For example, the [https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/282/282679/final1-results-urban-nexus.pdf/ learning spiral approach] applied in the project [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100669/reporting/en/ URBAN-NEXUS]"aims to ensure the formation of new, supported knowledge, the transition from knowledge to action, as well as the constant updating of the acquired knowledge" <ref>URBAN-NEXUS https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100669/reporting/en/</ref> An "out of the town hall" approach engages local communities in agenda-setting by giving them the space to identify the most important issues for them, rather than local governments asserting community problems, concerns and issues in advance.<ref>Out of Town Hall Approach https://www.incontext-fp7.eu/sites/default/files/D5.3_Out%20of%20the%20townhall-final.pdf/</ref> These new approaches to participation are assessed not only based on their capacity to promote social innovation, but also their ability to inform concrete problem-solving efforts through, for example, transition management.<ref>Wesely, Julia & Feiner, Georg & Omann, Ines & Schäpke, Niko. (2013). Transition management as an approach to deal with climate change. Conference Paper. Conference: Transformation in a Changing Climate, Oslo.</ref> <ref>Roorda, C., Wittmayer, J., Henneman, P, Steenbergen, F. van, Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., (2014)Transition management in the urban context: guidance manual. DRIFT, Erasmus University Rot- terdam, Rotterdam.</ref>

While most of these original governance and participation approaches emphasize bottom-up types of approaches at the local scale, such as place-based and “out of town hall” approaches, some are mixed. A “mixed logic analysis” approach, for example, emphasizes dialogue around larger data sets generated by scientific researchers that are then shared with local communities.

Participation processes in the latter stages of implementation (e.g., [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/99659/reporting/en/ URBANSELF]) tend to demonstrate increasing success, while the success of other projects such as [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/185532/factsheet/en/ SEiSMiC] “depends on agreement among partners concerning decision-making”.<ref> SEiSMiC https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/185532/factsheet/en/</ref> The project [https://www.incontext-fp7.eu/sites/default/files/D5.3_Out%20of%20the%20townhall-final.pdf/ INCONTEXT] provided lessons learned by coming to the conclusion, for example, that “Shared visions can drive change --even in diverse groups.” A challenge for [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100669/reporting/en URBAN-NEXUS] was noted, “The diversity and sheer number of different stakeholders of sustainable urban development also create difficulties in getting a complete set of stakeholders in our network. To set up a meeting where all people have a connection with the topic discussed and having all stakeholders present is a difficult task. Creating long-term partnerships is something that definitely does not happen overnight”.<ref>URBAN-NEXUS https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100669/reporting/en/</ref> Other projects, such as MUSIC aimed at carbon and energy reduction, revealed that limited time, lack of coordination across governmental institutions, and a short-term perspective pose challenges to sustainability initiatives.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
The approaches to governance and participation processes may not all have an urban focus, but the scales do tend to be localized. Justice is largely asserted in the form of assuring diverse participation, which can be challenging in terms of identifying participants and assuring their commitment. However, most of the approaches include some aspect of environmental sustainability such as reducing carbon emissions or ecological footprints at different scales, particularly at the local or national levels. Governance and participation processes convened around these issues, combined with a commitment to diverse participation, connect sustainability and justice (particularly, procedural justice emphasizing recognition with implications for distribution). The civic-based participatory nature of self-organization (particularly in contrast to top-down and techno-expertise approaches), for example, points to procedural and recognition-based justice at the local scale through civic engagement and contribution to decisionmaking. [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/53077/factsheet/en/ GREENSPACE], involving extensive and diverse data collection and distribution for reflection across communities (e.g., Choice experimental approach in Dublin, ecological mapping in Stuttgart), noted that, the “Brighton & Hove” case study “demonstrated the potential for long-term sustainable deliberation and how a group can be supported to uphold inclusively, equity and fairness.”

==Narrative of change==
The main issues that this cluster of approaches addresses is inclusivity - the need for wider and more diverse engagement - in generating knowledge and understanding and garnering important perspectives in asserting solutions to sustainability challenges. The approaches attempt to provide forums that not only engage a diverse set of participants, some of which emphasize including disadvantaged groups or individuals, but provide a process by which they can establish common or collective understandings and solutions.

==Transformative potential==
The transformative potential of these approaches is in the structured interactive dynamics across diverse actors. Hence, they provide a platform to include different perspectives that are ultimately brought to bear upon the various contextualized challenges faced across communities, policymakers, and researchers. Diverse and wide inclusion of actors and stakeholders and an attempt to redress a predominance of top-down approaches transform the power dynamics through diverse participation, particularly in knowledge sharing. [http://itssoin.eu/the-project ITSSOIN], a research project on the third sector and social innovation, concluded that, “ the state alone does not seem to be capable of promoting the social innovation, but that cross-sector collaboration has to come in.”

==Illustration of approach==
Co-creation is about bringing together different people (e.g., researchers, policymakers, residents and artists) to build understanding and, in the case of the [https://www.co-creation-network.org/ H2020 CO-CREATION project], to address disadvantage from the perspective of inclusion and participation in a way that is context-specific. Generally, co-creation refers to the collaborative construction of understandings across different actors in order to assert a common foundation upon which parties are considered equal, speak the same language and have shared a vision or goals. In 2019, CO-CREATION case studies are used to develop and test co-creation methodological approaches by bringing together diverse participants (e.g., residents, artists) to “co-create knowledge and understanding” in neighbourhoods in seven cities including Oxford, Bath/Bristol, Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Rio, and Mexico City.<ref>CO-CREATION https://www.co-creation-network.org/the-project/case-studies/</ref>

The project,[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/99659/factsheet/en/ URBANSELF], is about research on self-organization initiatives that engage citizens’ expertise, experiences and perspectives to exchange knowledge and generate solutions to address urban challenges.<ref>URBANSELF https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/268/268931/final1-final_publishable_report_urbanself.pdf/</ref> Self-organization can emphasize citizen-based initiatives at the community and/or local levels and yet also be considered for a comparative basis across urban settings and initiatives. This approach assumes that active engagement of citizen inhabitants is fundamental to success. Self-organization is in contradistinction to exclusionary (particularly, based on “power relations, valorisation of knowledge and expertise”) and highly technical approaches to sustainability (e.g., criteria) and top-down approaches administered by the state (e.g., Chennai, India and top-down measures as in Kunming, China) and asserts the transformation of inhabitants into active citizens (constituting “real participation” vs. virtual) engaging their own approaches to urban sustainability. It is generally considered an “actor-centred approach emphasising local knowledge, communication and survival strategies instead of technical expertise as the main forces driving urban development”. Examples of self-organization were explored in cities in Europe, China, India, the UK, and others. The slums studied in India included some of the most effective examples of self-organization.

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Co-learning and knowledge brokerage]]
[[Category: Transition towns]]
[[Category: ITSSOIN]]
[[Category: URBANSELF]]
[[Category: MUSIC]]

Governance and participation processes

2019-11-21T20:57:05Z

Lin:

Financial practices and instruments

2019-11-21T20:54:31Z

Lin:

This approach tackles unsustainability and injustice in cities from a financing perspective. From this perspective the distribution of resources and the way our economic system is organized is the starting point to think of just and sustainable cities.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
Alternative financial practices and instruments respond to the need for and the wish to build regenerative, equitable and democratic economies. These types of initiatives took root after the financial crisis of 2007 and were in most cases a response to the disruptive consequences of the financial system such as ecological destruction and growing socioeconomic inequalities. This [http://fessud.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FESSUD_Infographic_WP3_2.pdf infographic] shows the causes and consequences of the financial crisis.

Additionally, in the context of reaching the objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change and the need to transform our cities, policy makers, corporate actors and researchers are interested in alternative financial instruments that help to bridge the ‘infrastructure investment gap’ or fund green projects that are cross-sectoral and have multiple benefits. Achieving the goal of urban transformation in terms of climate mitigation and adaptation requires not only huge financial investments, but requires also a different type of financing <ref> https://cff-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/storage/files/eFdIR9tEi3ALnudfzN58GJxqCc8jEJTYnqyQ0TGs.pdf </ref> <ref> https://futureearth.org/networks/knowledge-action-networks/finance-and-economics/ </ref>.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
Some examples of alternative financial practices and instruments aim at strengthening public finance and the real productive economy. See for example the book “The public finance we want” (2019) <ref> https://www.tni.org/en/publicfinance </ref>. Examples are: 1) Socially responsible [https://www.thegpsc.org/sites/gpsc/files/landmark_success_stories_2014_-_eng_0.pdf public procurement]. 2) The public support of local cooperatives and democratic enterprises by donating land or loans for a fair price, 3) Reclaim public ownership of services such as water and energy-services, based on participatory governance models. As is the case in for example [https://www.tni.org/en/article/from-terrassa-to-barcelona-cities-and-citizens-reclaim-public-water-and-other-essential Barcelona]. 4) A citizens basic income paid with a complementary social currency that can be spent in local businesses <ref> http://fessud.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Fessud_Policy-brief_9_Voluntary-Degrowth-by-Redesigning-Money-for-Sustainability-JusticeResilience.pdf </ref>. 5) Citizens’ wealth funds and 6) New public and democratic banks which organized itself according to alternative governance arrangements (Examples are Costa Rica’s Banco Popular, Germany’s Sparkassen, ‘Belfius is ours’). This also raises the question on how to assess the extent to which corporate activities contribute to the common good (see the example of the common good matrix below).

A community-based approach that is not based on money, market or state welfare arrangements is [https://hourworld.org/ Timebanking] (as described by [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/time-banks TRANSIT]). This is “a values-based mechanism for reciprocal service-exchange that focuses on the contributions everyone can make to meeting needs within a local community. The value of all services in time banking is equal. The unit of exchange and account is simply the hours spent giving or receiving service”. Read more about this approach below.

Another approach is the social divestment movement. This is a global grassroots campaign encouraging institutional and public investors to pull out of investments in fossil-based energy companies. The movement is mainly represented by [https://350.org/ 350.org] and, more specifically, [https://gofossilfree.org/divestment/ Fossil Free]. “Divestment is the opposite of an investment – it simply means getting rid of stocks, bonds, or investment funds that are unethical or morally ambiguous <ref> https://gofossilfree.org/divestment/what-is-fossil-fuel-divestment/ </ref>”. The movement also encourages these investors to reinvest the money. The movement upholds [https://gofossilfree.org/divestment/reinvestment/ a set of principles] that are based on the idea of ‘regenerative financing’ to guide these reinvestments. These principles are: Increase community empowerment and prosperity, shift economic control, democratize the workplace, drive social equity, promote ecological well-being and resilience, shift trends in production and consumption and strengthen the public.

Another set of approaches are the (private) financial instruments that are specifically designed to accelerate urban transformation to resilient or decarbonized cities. In general, “Private finance for sustainable innovation (...) faces two fundamental challenges: (1) payoffs are for some part public and therefore cannot easily be reaped by investors, and (2) payoffs are often long term and high risk due to their innovative character, making it less attractive for investors” <ref> http://clevercities.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Resources/D1.1_Theme_3_financing_urban_regeneration_EBN_12.2018.pdf </ref> Many of these examples are not new or different but are about leveraging conventional sources and unlock novel mechanisms for a sustainability goal. Examples are socially responsible investment funds and banking, climate/green bonds, solar-leasing and environmental upgrade agreements <ref> http://www.visionsandpathways.com/ </ref> and [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/92175/reporting/fr carbon taxation].

With regards to implementing and mainstreaming [[nature-based solutions]] in urban policies and planning, the question of unlocking funds and financing is a key issue. Especially, how to secure long-term investment since most financial resources are used for traditional short-term approaches or are committed to specific tasks <ref> http://clevercities.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Resources/Clever_Cities_Factsheet_1_WEB.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.progireg.eu/ </ref>. Some of the EU funded projects that look into NBS are therefore looking into different ways to finance those solutions.. E.g. trough greening fiscal policies, public-private partnerships, innovative use of public budgets, grant funding and donations (including EU funding and crowdfunding), instruments generating revenue, ‘green finance’ and loans (like the Natural Capital Financing Facility), market-based instruments etc. <ref> https://oppla.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/working-documentfinancing-nbs-cities.pdf </ref> <ref> http://clevercities.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Resources/D1.1_Theme_3_financing_urban_regeneration_EBN_12.2018.pdf</ref>

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The alternative financial practices and instruments do not necessarily have an urban focus. They might operate on a regional, national or global level. However, especially the community based alternatives, like local currencies and social public procurement, are organized on the level of municipalities, neighbourhoods or communities.

The examples presented above that strengthen public finance and those that are community-based do explicitly address distributive and procedural justice because they respond to the unequal distribution of wealth and resources.The approaches might address sustainability issues by challenging current consumption and production patterns and promoting local economy, or by unlocking investment for sustainable infrastructure and solutions. The narrative of the social divestment movements with its focus on climate justice shows the connection between environmental and justice issues.

In the context of the financial system one might refer to ‘financial exclusion’. Financial exclusion relates to the idea that lower-income and marginalized groups have less access to financial products, services, technologies and institutions. Additionally the retreat of the welfare state, and labour market insecurity, makes it increasingly difficult for these groups to provide in their basic needs.Often this means that they depend on expensive types of credit which might push them further into the debt spiral.<ref> http://fessud.eu/ </ref> [http://fessud.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/FESSUD_Infographic_WP5.pdf This info graphic] shows the relation between financialization and well-being.

==Narrative of change==
What is the type of problem that these approaches address? The alternative financial practices put the working of capitalism and our financial systems at the roots of our current concerns with inequality and the ecological destruction (in short minimizing costs and maximizing profits). Some of these try to counter further financialisation <ref> http://fessud.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Fessud_Policy-brief_9_Voluntary-Degrowth-by-Redesigning-Money-for-Sustainability-JusticeResilience.pdf </ref>. This is done by among others 1) deliberately working on principles that are diametrically opposite of the values of the dominant financial system. E.g. inclusivity, collectivity, equal exchange (see the Timebanking example below), 2) limiting dependency of civil society on welfare and mainstream systems, 3) creating equal relations between actors and more inclusive and democratice institutions and 4) strengthening public finance and the ‘real productive economy’. For example local complementary currencies try to achieve change by uncoupling human well-being and livelihood from economic cycles and financial speculation <ref> http://fessud.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Fessud_Policy-brief_9_Voluntary-Degrowth-by-Redesigning-Money-for-Sustainability-JusticeResilience.pdf </ref>

The narrative of change of the alternatives for financing sustainability solutions or greening infrastructures (like [[nature-based solutions]]) address the inability of current financial markets to prioritize sustainable investments due to its short-term focus and high risk aversion of financial markets <ref>http://fessud.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Fessud_Policy-brief-10_A-European-Union-Sustainable-Banking-Network.pdf </ref>.

==Transformative potential==
The financial alternatives challenge existing power relations; between financial institutions and communities; between private and public institutions etc. For example [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/time-banks timebanking] opposes the dominant values of competition, exploitation, scarcity-value and dependence, and promote voluntarism, cooperativism and co-production. Dominant power relations are framed as unjust and destructive to personal well-being, and social and ecological systems.

Some of the financial instruments don’t change or alter the power relations within the financial system, because the focus is on leveraging conventional instruments (like debt-based instruments). These approaches might bare the risk of increasing financialization and strengthening the power of private actors and financial institutions (increasing private profit and not public benefit). Although we need to bare in mind that the situation might differ for indebted countries that cannot rely on public institutions <ref> https://www.tni.org/en/publicfinance </ref>. In this way, the second set of approaches might have less potential to radically transform dominant ways of working, thinking and doing.

==Illustration==
'''Timebanking''' is a complementary currency based on the exchange of services using the time spent on delivering the service. Think of simple and more complex services such as walking your neighbor's dog, teaching piano, helping people with disabilities. These different types of services are valued equally. Timebanking originated in Japan and the US, and then spread worldwide. It provides communities in their needs by helping each other without involvement of money, markets or welfare arrangements. In this sense, this system is less vulnerable to for example inflation and crisis. Researchers of the [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/253%20Time%20Banks%20-%20Case%20study%20report%20Time%20Banks-2017.pdf TRANSIT] project described the transformative potential of timebanking as “the potential to develop new and different relationships in society that are grounded in values different from those of otherwise dominant societal systems (...)”. Secondly, it increases the level of useful activity independent of formal employment, professionalised welfare services and/or money.

'''The Common Good Matrix''' is an evaluation framework that gives guidance to assess the contribution of corporate activities to the common good. It is created by the movement “Economy for the common good” <ref> https://www.ecogood.org/en/movement/ </ref>. The Common Good Matrix describes 20 common good themes <ref> https://www.ecogood.org/media/filer_public/56/e8/56e8c64e-c940-431b-8e7f-dce680bb8737/ecg_full_balance_sheet_workbook.pdf </ref>. Themes include both issues of justice and environmental impact of activities. Think of values as fair business towards direct suppliers, human dignity in the workplace, ownership issues, environmental impact. In the assessment process, the organisation positions itself on a scale depending on how developed each value is in the organisation. The Common Good Matrix is the basis for creating a Common Good Report, a comprehensive account of an organisation's standing in relation to the common good. The Common Good Balance Sheet is an instrument which promotes a value-driven, ethical economy. Its impact and significance go beyond legal requirements in order to ensure the highest possible standards in the future.

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Financial practices and instruments]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: Timebanking]]
[[Category: Fossil Free]]

Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy

2019-11-21T20:28:05Z

Lin:

Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy refers to approaches to (urban) governance that enable sustainability and climate change related transformations through the practice of connecting multi-sectoral networks with individuals and organisations on-the-ground. It deals with the challenge of bringing together public, private, and civil society representatives in ongoing processes of communication and exchange, in order to enable innovative solutions to complex problems.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Multi-stakeholder partnerships-policy as an approach motivates and embraces robust participation, especially from those who have been traditionally disempowered and excluded from city-making processes. In doing so, it looks towards how we manage information and decision-making within local democratic processes as a key to creating more just and sustainable cities. Whereas participation might not always be direct, there is a focus on empowering multi-sectoral networks to develop solutions to socio-environmental problems through robust democratic processes. One example is the establishment of university-community partnerships that embrace participatory-action research (PAR <ref>https://www.participatorymethods.org/glossary/participatory-action-research</ref>) as a planning strategy. Both in Memphis and Sicily, where this approach was implemented and evaluated, researchers established partnerships with local organisations to address power imbalances (related to disadvantaged African-American neighbourhoods in Memphis, and environmental sustainability linked to the anti-mafia movement in Sicily) that affected planning and decision making in the place where they lived (See PARTES project<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/96316/reporting/en</ref>).

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

There are many ways into studying the challenges inherent in bringing together diverse, multi-scale, and multi-sector interests in order to generate more just, inclusive, and sustainable cities. An effort completed in 2003 (SUT-Partnership <ref>https://www.itas.kit.edu/2003_029.php</ref>) identified best practices in four European countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, and Greece) for developing multi-stakeholder partnerships, especially across public and private sectors, that generate sustainable tourism initiatives. Successful partnerships were found, for example, in countries where tourism played an important role in the economy and the public sector took a lead role in establishing partnerships. Another study, which ended in 2014, analysed two models of participatory action research across universities and community residents in the US and Italy (PARTES project). The project finds that both models successfully challenge established local power structures and gain institutional legitimacy along the way. Some of the limitations of this approach included the requirement of time and coordination from the side of a multi-disciplinary research team in order to create solid bases of common understandings and to agree on methods and approaches of data collection.

Two other ongoing efforts have demonstrated high transferability to other contexts and high potential to fuel transformational initiatives. One (P-CAN, 2019-2023 <ref>https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FS008381%2F1</ref>) is creating place-based climate change commissions as a type of multi-stakeholder partnership-policy to solve the challenge of collaborating across local, national and international climate policy (implementation and design) in three cities in the UK (Belfast, Edinburgh, Leeds). These commissions are just now being created so the impact is unknown at the time of writing. Another ongoing project (CLEVER Cities, 2018-2023 <ref>http://clevercities.eu/</ref>) looks at how multi-scale and multi-sectoral challenges associated with adapting cities towards nature-based innovations assembles local teams of citizens, businesses, knowledge partners and local authorities in order to resolve governance challenges. It pays particular attention to the role of community-driven urban transformation (through Nature-based Solutions), for which it considers success factors such as: the engagement of volunteers, the application of targeted participation programmes to engage less powerful residents, the involvement of people with different socioeconomic backgrounds, and the combination of private and collective action.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

For the most part, this cluster of approaches recognises the primacy of the urban level in resolving the challenges inherent to unsustainable and unjust growth patterns, but also recognises that urban governance is dependent on multi-sectoral and multi-scalar interactions. In terms of justice, the efforts to create links between scientific, policy, and activist communities (PARTES) take on the challenges inherent to developing more just urban outcomes most directly and completely by challenging established power structures that perpetuate injustices. As well, the effort to adapt cities through governance around nature-based solutions (CLEVER Cities) directly seeks to address the injustices created through lack of participation of certain excluded groups. In terms of sustainability challenges, the most robust efforts are found within projects that create new governance forms and mechanisms designed to address sustainability directly. These projects (P-CAN, CLEVER Cities, PARTES) involve the creation of new and durable coalitions of interests, mobilised as part of the research to take on sustainability problems.

The more challenging and less-present aspect of these projects involves the extent to which justice and sustainability challenges are overtly linked in the approach and findings used. Only the ongoing CLEVER Cities project, through its approach of community-driven urban transformation and Nature-based Solutions, states an overt effort to link these two concepts by bringing together a socially inclusive urban governance model with ambitious efforts to meet the Paris Climate accord. Many other multi-level and multi-sectoral approaches may explicitly analyse justice and sustainability outcomes, but do not overtly link these two goals.

==Narrative of change==

Multi-stakeholder partnerships-policy is a cluster of approaches that collectively aim at addressing the complexity and inter-connectedness of sustainability challenges, recognising the need for new more participative, inclusive, transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral governance models. Approaches thus rely on the potential of generating more complete knowledge outcomes (including from different disciplines but also from outside of academia) which will translate into more suitable, applicable, and durable solutions. This is done through the creation of platforms, dialogues, arenas and collaborations between stakeholders from distinct scales, domains and backgrounds.

==Transformative potential==

The transformative potential of multi-stakeholder partnerships strongly depends on the consideration given, and assumptions carried, by the different approaches around socio-environmental justice and its manifestations, drivers and implications at different scales. More specifically, some approaches address sustainability more as a problem of economic nature (thus business and sustainable finance community are considered priority stakeholder groups for place-based climate action), potentially reproducing inequalities of access to processes that define planning decisions from non-profit driven groups. Relatedly, dominant ideas about what integrative solutions are desired and possible to address climate change remain tied to powerful institutions and are less informed by local concerns, social movements and disadvantaged groups. On the other hand, approaches that do focus on including citizen groups (and their values and respective perception of problems) are transforming existing arenas of dialogue and deliberation on city planning around sustainability, and can thus challenge dominant ways of knowing and related power relations at local and trans-local level (although not free of challenges relating to achieving such participation and outcomes).

==Illustration of approach==

University-community partnerships that embrace participatory-action research were studied by the PARTES project, as part of Multi-stakeholder Partnerships, and aimed at promoting sustainable socio-economic community development in two relatively disadvantaged regions in the US (Memphis) and Italy (Sicily). In Memphis this meant forcing city elites to reframe their way of dealing with poverty and social housing. In Sicily it meant forcing local public institutions to make decisions based upon values of transparency and sustainability. PAR promoters from academic institutions worked with communities and facilitated sessions with the purpose of enhancing their understanding of their status of powerlessness as a first step for social change. The approach was found to be effective in generating real effects on public decision-making (the birth of the River Agreement Initiative in Sicily, and VAC’s involvement in the Vance Choice Neighborhood Planning Initiative in Memphis) and community-led projects of concrete change on the ground (a community garden in Sicily and a community-run food business in Memphis).

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[CategorY: Sustainable food supply chain]]
[[Category: PARTES]]
[[Category: CLEVER CITIES]]
[[Category: P-CAN]]

Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy

2019-11-21T20:27:23Z

Lin:

Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy refers to approaches to (urban) governance that enable sustainability and climate change related transformations through the practice of connecting multi-sectoral networks with individuals and organisations on-the-ground. It deals with the challenge of bringing together public, private, and civil society representatives in ongoing processes of communication and exchange, in order to enable innovative solutions to complex problems.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Multi-stakeholder partnerships-policy as an approach motivates and embraces robust participation, especially from those who have been traditionally disempowered and excluded from city-making processes. In doing so, it looks towards how we manage information and decision-making within local democratic processes as a key to creating more just and sustainable cities. Whereas participation might not always be direct, there is a focus on empowering multi-sectoral networks to develop solutions to socio-environmental problems through robust democratic processes. One example is the establishment of university-community partnerships that embrace participatory-action research (PAR <ref>https://www.participatorymethods.org/glossary/participatory-action-research</ref>) as a planning strategy. Both in Memphis and Sicily, where this approach was implemented and evaluated, researchers established partnerships with local organisations to address power imbalances (related to disadvantaged African-American neighbourhoods in Memphis, and environmental sustainability linked to the anti-mafia movement in Sicily) that affected planning and decision making in the place where they lived (See PARTES project<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/96316/reporting/en</ref>).

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

There are many ways into studying the challenges inherent in bringing together diverse, multi-scale, and multi-sector interests in order to generate more just, inclusive, and sustainable cities. An effort completed in 2003 (SUT-Partnership <ref>https://www.itas.kit.edu/2003_029.php</ref>) identified best practices in four European countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, and Greece) for developing multi-stakeholder partnerships, especially across public and private sectors, that generate sustainable tourism initiatives. Successful partnerships were found, for example, in countries where tourism played an important role in the economy and the public sector took a lead role in establishing partnerships. Another study, which ended in 2014, analysed two models of participatory action research across universities and community residents in the US and Italy (PARTES project). The project finds that both models successfully challenge established local power structures and gain institutional legitimacy along the way. Some of the limitations of this approach included the requirement of time and coordination from the side of a multi-disciplinary research team in order to create solid bases of common understandings and to agree on methods and approaches of data collection.

Two other ongoing efforts have demonstrated high transferability to other contexts and high potential to fuel transformational initiatives. One (P-CAN, 2019-2023 <ref>https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FS008381%2F1</ref>) is creating place-based climate change commissions as a type of multi-stakeholder partnership-policy to solve the challenge of collaborating across local, national and international climate policy (implementation and design) in three cities in the UK (Belfast, Edinburgh, Leeds). These commissions are just now being created so the impact is unknown at the time of writing. Another ongoing project (CLEVER Cities, 2018-2023 <ref>http://clevercities.eu/</ref>) looks at how multi-scale and multi-sectoral challenges associated with adapting cities towards nature-based innovations assembles local teams of citizens, businesses, knowledge partners and local authorities in order to resolve governance challenges. It pays particular attention to the role of community-driven urban transformation (through Nature-based Solutions), for which it considers success factors such as: the engagement of volunteers, the application of targeted participation programmes to engage less powerful residents, the involvement of people with different socioeconomic backgrounds, and the combination of private and collective action.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

For the most part, this cluster of approaches recognises the primacy of the urban level in resolving the challenges inherent to unsustainable and unjust growth patterns, but also recognises that urban governance is dependent on multi-sectoral and multi-scalar interactions. In terms of justice, the efforts to create links between scientific, policy, and activist communities (PARTES) take on the challenges inherent to developing more just urban outcomes most directly and completely by challenging established power structures that perpetuate injustices. As well, the effort to adapt cities through governance around nature-based solutions (CLEVER Cities) directly seeks to address the injustices created through lack of participation of certain excluded groups. In terms of sustainability challenges, the most robust efforts are found within projects that create new governance forms and mechanisms designed to address sustainability directly. These projects (P-CAN, CLEVER Cities, PARTES) involve the creation of new and durable coalitions of interests, mobilised as part of the research to take on sustainability problems.

The more challenging and less-present aspect of these projects involves the extent to which justice and sustainability challenges are overtly linked in the approach and findings used. Only the ongoing CLEVER Cities project, through its approach of community-driven urban transformation and Nature-based Solutions, states an overt effort to link these two concepts by bringing together a socially inclusive urban governance model with ambitious efforts to meet the Paris Climate accord. Many other multi-level and multi-sectoral approaches may explicitly analyse justice and sustainability outcomes, but do not overtly link these two goals.

==Narrative of change==

Multi-stakeholder partnerships-policy is a cluster of approaches that collectively aim at addressing the complexity and inter-connectedness of sustainability challenges, recognising the need for new more participative, inclusive, transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral governance models. Approaches thus rely on the potential of generating more complete knowledge outcomes (including from different disciplines but also from outside of academia) which will translate into more suitable, applicable, and durable solutions. This is done through the creation of platforms, dialogues, arenas and collaborations between stakeholders from distinct scales, domains and backgrounds.

==Transformative potential==

The transformative potential of multi-stakeholder partnerships strongly depends on the consideration given, and assumptions carried, by the different approaches around socio-environmental justice and its manifestations, drivers and implications at different scales. More specifically, some approaches address sustainability more as a problem of economic nature (thus business and sustainable finance community are considered priority stakeholder groups for place-based climate action), potentially reproducing inequalities of access to processes that define planning decisions from non-profit driven groups. Relatedly, dominant ideas about what integrative solutions are desired and possible to address climate change remain tied to powerful institutions and are less informed by local concerns, social movements and disadvantaged groups. On the other hand, approaches that do focus on including citizen groups (and their values and respective perception of problems) are transforming existing arenas of dialogue and deliberation on city planning around sustainability, and can thus challenge dominant ways of knowing and related power relations at local and trans-local level (although not free of challenges relating to achieving such participation and outcomes).

==Illustration of approach==

University-community partnerships that embrace participatory-action research were studied by the PARTES project, as part of Multi-stakeholder Partnerships, and aimed at promoting sustainable socio-economic community development in two relatively disadvantaged regions in the US (Memphis) and Italy (Sicily). In Memphis this meant forcing city elites to reframe their way of dealing with poverty and social housing. In Sicily it meant forcing local public institutions to make decisions based upon values of transparency and sustainability. PAR promoters from academic institutions worked with communities and facilitated sessions with the purpose of enhancing their understanding of their status of powerlessness as a first step for social change. The approach was found to be effective in generating real effects on public decision-making (the birth of the River Agreement Initiative in Sicily, and VAC’s involvement in the Vance Choice Neighborhood Planning Initiative in Memphis) and community-led projects of concrete change on the ground (a community garden in Sicily and a community-run food business in Memphis).

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: PARTES]]
[[Category: CLEVER CITIES]]
[[Category: P-CAN]]

Experimentation labs

2019-11-21T20:25:42Z

Lin:

Urban experimentation labs are place-based social experiments that test ideas, methods and technologies from different domains in order to better address specific (and complex) urban challenges in a contextualised manner. Experimentation Labs can vary in scope, scale and longevity. These processes all resemble, in one way or another, co-design workshops taking place in real time and in situ. The degree of experimentation, diversity of stakeholders and innovativeness of ideas brought to the fore, all vary to significant extents.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Experimentation labs, in general, constitute new and unconventional ways of participation in urban spaces. Research on urban labs shows that there is still much opaqueness on what constitutes an urban (living, smart, innovation) lab, and what does not. While initially they mainly have included businesses, entrepreneurs and researchers along with city authorities, they also increasingly aim at including citizens at all stages (research, development, testing implementation). Experimentation labs thus can be considered part of multiple stakeholders partnerships processes and knowledge brokerage (co-learning), but they are mostly ephemeral and not always binding in terms of policy outcomes. However, this co-creation aspect is challenging to achieve in practice, especially when projects aim at developing highly technological innovations, often pursued in the search for smart and sustainable cities.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Experimentation labs are very common in urban settings, and we have observed various types being applied to questions of urban sustainability. Depending on their focus and function they can be found under “Living Labs”, “Action Labs” and “Innovation Labs”, or “Smart (Urban) Labs” or simply “City Labs”. The main idea in most of these remains the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related products. Living Labs focus on the idea of an experiential environment where policy makers and users/citizens design, explore, experience and refine new policies and regulations in real-life scenarios for evaluating their potential impacts before their implementations, in relation, for example, to learning and collaboration in the development of the city (as in the case of the Eindhoven Living Lab collection of initiatives, TRANSIT (2014-2017) project <ref>http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/</ref>), Nature-based Solutions (UNALAB (2017-2022) <ref>https://www.unalab.eu/</ref>, CLEVER Cities (2018-2023) <ref>http://clevercities.eu/</ref>), or more generally transitions to sustainability (GUST (2014-16) <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwD7UsDWrw&feature=youtu.be</ref>). Specific thematic labs might focus on a concrete (while also multi-dimensional) aspect of sustainability policy, like mobility (Cities4people <ref>https://cities4people.eu/</ref>), or energy and mobility (Smart Urban Labs - TRANSFORM (2013-15) <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/186978/factsheet/en</ref>). Experimentation labs emerged nearly a decade ago, as a way of innovating in cities with technology and people, and the research conducted to study and proliferate them has followed soon after. They are mushrooming rapidly across the globe and seem to have captured an important part of the discourse around future city governance. However, they are limited in how they include questions of culture and conflict, and struggle with how to include people’s voices beyond data entries or one-off or tokenistic participation structures.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. Nature-based Solutions (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.

==Narrative of change==

Urban experimentation labs aim to tackle the challenge of designing place-based, relevant and replicable solutions to social and environmental sustainability problems. The underlying premise of their logic is that if more actors are involved in brainstorming about, developing, testing and reformulating such solutions in concrete locations then more new ideas will arise and solutions will be more likely to be accepted and with higher uptake by the local public. This is why they are focusing on co-creative, human-centric and user-driven research, development and innovation, with the commonly expressed goal of developing smarter, more inclusive, more resilient and increasingly sustainable societies. Overall, transition to more sustainable and just futures needs to be collaborative, open to learning and experimental, and city labs aim at being examples of, and providing input for more, such processes.

==Transformative potential==

Starting from the premise that flexible and dynamic approaches that include experimentation and learning are part of what is required for transformation towards social and environmental sustainability, urban experimentation labs have transformative potential, as they are also well-located in inter-connected spaces and actors. However, research shows that this potential can be compromised when its principles (of co-creation) are not followed in the development phase of an intervention/solution, or if this phase is not included as part of the lab at all. The limitations of this research/policy method in relation to shifting power relations, and thus challenging dominant institutions, could be further seen in how citizens are conceptualised by its proponents. The main shift with regard to how citizens are included is from audience/end-users, to co-creators/discussion partners. However, their role in articulating and defining the problems (of urban justice and sustainability) for which solutions are designed remains unclear. More recent projects seem to take on this challenge. CLEVERcities, for example, is an effort to implement CLEVER Action Labs (CAL) in order to co-design, co-implement and co-manage NBS interventions in deprived districts, starting from specific place-based NBS technologies as impulses. The Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities project <ref>http://www.creativespacesandcities.com</ref> is also exploring new and groundbreaking methodologies of co-creation and of policy development, to override hierarchical organisational structures in favour of horizontal and collaborative approaches.

==Summary of relevant approaches==

The GUST project offers a number of illustrative examples where urban living labs of collaboration and innovation have been formed. In Malmö, Sweden, for example, an “Innovation Platform” was created that brought together business, academia and community actors with the goal of renovating existing apartment buildings in the city and through such regenerating to push for socio-economic development and employment while also integrating long-term environmental goals. In another example, the Concept House Village <ref>http://www.concepthousevillage.nl/</ref> in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, is a test-bed for sustainable building technologies and new building retrofitting approaches in the Heijplaat area. In this case, the occupant is actively engaged and seen as key for the design, the development and the use of the houses. Actors that enabled and guided this process were two academic institutions, the building industry, branch organisations, the local community and the municipality of Rotterdam (at a later stage). At a higher level, the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)<ref>https://enoll.org/</ref> is an international federation of benchmarked Living Labs in Europe and worldwide, which acts as a point of reference for public and private organisations engaged in experimentation environments. It includes a wide variety of innovations which can act in many different domains (e.g. health, energy, age) or can have a more territorial character (e.g. in a city) but with a multi-domain approach.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: European Network of Living Labs]]

Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups

2019-11-21T20:16:27Z

Lin:

Practices and policies for the inclusion of disadvantaged groups aim to provide all citizens with equal access into urban life and ensure their right to the city.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
Practices and policies for the inclusion of disadvantaged groups address existing patterns of exclusion and inequalities which limits well-being and economics possibilities of certain groups. It aims at fostering the inclusion of disadvantaged groups such as youth, elderly, migrants and diverse families (e.g. same-sex couples or single mothers).

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
Jobs and professional training/counselling (for vulnerable groups) ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106725/brief/en CITISPYCE] 2012-2015): The European financial crisis and the following austerity measures led to high levels of unemployment. The group that suffer the most for unemployment has undoubtedly been the youth. Governments have developed policies to reduce unemployment by moving young people into low skilled, temporary and poorly paid jobs. On the contrary, this approach promotes moving away from measuring “employment” success from the quantity of people getting a job to the quality and pay of the job. Policies to promote youth employment should be integrated with education and professional training which promote the shift from “quantity” to “quality”.

Youth Policy as autonomous field ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106760/factsheet/en SocIEtY] 2013-2015): The young people suffer from lack of capital and resources which reproduce exclusion of this group. Youth policy as autonomous field means involving different stakeholders in the process of policy-making, particular attention should be given to including the youth so to make their experiences, ideas, aspirations and voices heard in these processes.

Migrant inclusion through employment ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/31392/factsheet/en Migrants and Minorities in European Cities] 1996-1998): Migrants and other ethnical minorities are amongst the most vulnerable groups which suffer social exclusion. In particular, in today’s society social exclusion is strictly connected to employment. Therefore, policies interventions to provide more job opportunities to migrants becomes an approach to enhance their integration into society. Another specific example of migrant integration practice, is the re-start program ([https://www.refugeecompany.com/ REFUGEE COMPANY] ongoing). The Refugee Company (The Netherlands) represents one initiative funded from partners of different backgrounds (companies, foundations, municipalities) which aims at providing concrete solutions to help refugees to successfully integrate into society. The programme consists in proving free language courses and support in finding a suitable job with the final aim of offering economic independency to refugees.

Equity oriented structural policies (social/economic policies) to reduce health inequities ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/101228/brief/en SOPHIE] 2011- 2015): Research has shown that health inequities can be caused by socioeconomic, gender and immigration factors. Social protection, in particular, has shown to have a positive impact on people’s health. In the urban setting, both inclusive urban planning and housing policies can positively influence physical and mental health. Therefore, the development of policies aimed at reducing inequalities and exclusions in society can directly reduce health inequities and improve a population’s overall health.

Inclusive citizenship ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194369/brief/en GRAGE] 2014-2018): Elderly represent a fast growing part of the population. Therefore, if urban planning and policies will fail to adapt to these changes, elderly as a societal group will be excluded. Inclusive citizenship means ensuring the elderly their right to the city: developing infrastructures and services which allow them to live in the city as well as including them in the governance of the urban spaces. Another project which investigates the inclusion of elderly in the urban space is GOAL (Transport for elderly people). [to add link to pathways & scenario cluster which talks about this]

Evidence-based policy for societal development of families ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106717/brief/en FAMILIESANDSOCIETY] 2013-2017): This approach consists in developing policies which recognize the diversity of families. For instance, children of less educated mothers and from disadvantaged backgrounds have proven to benefit more from childcare services than from home-based care. Starting from this evidence, policies should be developed to offer free childcare to children of mothers from disadvantaged backgrounds. Policies based on the needs of the majority of families will not necessarily benefit everyone, but it might even reproduce exclusions of minorities.

Sustainable and solidarity economy ([http://www.solidarityeconomy.eu/ SUSY]): There are thousands of local projects in Europe which are based on a model of sustainable and solidarity economy which is defined as follows "The social and solidarity economy is a movement that aims to change the current social and economic system. Solidarity economic principles serve as the new basis – principles based on solidary exchange that connects individual needs with those of the community." <ref> http://www.solidarityeconomy.eu/</ref>. Although these projects are often implemented by citizens without direct support from established institutions, they provide effective channels to bring people together and reduce inequalities.

Cities integrated solutions via networking ([https://urbact.eu/all-networks URBACT]): Networks of cities and town represents one way for policy-makers to be informed and learned about good practices and successful cases which have contributed to the reduction of exclusion and inequalities. This is not a specific approach per se, but rather indicates the different ways in which

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
The policies and practices that aim at disadvantages group share the same understanding that cities are where inequalities are most visible. However, the approaches call for the development of policies which are not limited to citizens living in urban areas, but it expands to semi-rural and rural areas too. The approaches aim at the development of inclusive policies which tackle both causes and symptoms of inequalities and strive for social justice. Environmental sustainability, on the other hand, is not the focus of these policies. Yet, some socio-economic policies go hand in hand with environmental sustainability. For instance policies that address mobility poverty of elderly in cities advocate for more cycling, biking and public transportation, which consume drastically less Co2 than private cars. Similarly, “equity oriented structural policies (social/economic policies) to reduce health inequities” offer an alternative method of urban planning, with more green spaces and reduction of traffic. This shows that policies which aim at fostering inclusion of disadvantaged groups can largely improve cities’ sustainability performances.

==Narrative of change==
The root cause that this cluster addresses is inequality. Not only disadvantaged groups are heterogeneous (i.e. elderly, youth, immigrants…), but heterogeneous are also the reasons why these groups are categorized as disadvantaged. Disadvantaged groups might suffer from different types of inequality, such as income, education, job opportunities, health benefits, and access to transportation, etc. The underlying premise of specific policies is that they can address both the causes and symptoms of inequalities leading to increased levels of inclusion. In addition, knowledge sharing and networking (e.g. see projects such as SUSY; URBANACT) can help policy developers, civil society and citizens to be inspired by successful cases. Finally, civil society projects such as voluntary work for migrant integration bypass formal policy development and aim at creating spaces (e.g. free language course) which reduce inequalities.

==Transformative potential==
The examples recognize that inappropriate policies are one of the factors that cause inequalities and exclusions. In other words, the cluster does not policy making as the problem per se, but rather it sees the development of inappropriate policies as the problem. In this sense, the transformative potential of the cluster does not lie in challenging policies as an institution, but in challenging the way in which policies are developed and implemented. According to most approaches in this cluster, therefore, increasing inclusion can potentially be achieved by innovative policies in terms of methods and contents.
However, some approaches almost entirely bypass policy making and come up with their own solutions and initiatives to enhance inclusion. Some of them (e.g. sustainable and solidarity economy) challenge the main current economic system of profit making and create their own networks where disadvantaged groups can be better integrated.

==Illustration of approach==
An example of a policy for inclusion of disadvantaged groups is equity oriented structural policies (social/economic policies) to reduce health inequities (inspired by [[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106760/factsheet/en SOPHIE] project 2013-2015).

Research within the EU funded project SOPHIE was able to link health inequities to a number of different factors. Particularly relevant to the UrbanA project are two facts: (1) urban planning impacts health and (2) housing policies can reduce health inequalities.

In Barcelona, for instance, residents in a neighborhood which underwent a renewal process (i.e. more green areas, improved service and infrastructures) found that their well-being and health had overall improved since the renovations. Similarly, neighborhoods’ renewal plans, such as the Dutch District Approach, have proven to improve health among the adult population as they promote outdoor walking. Policies which support urban regeneration initiatives (if implemented in such a way not to reproduce socio-economic exclusion) have shown to reduce health inequities in deprived and poor neighborhoods.
Access to housing and housing conditions strongly affects physical and mental well-being. SOPHIE found that fuel poverty, which is the difficulty to keep a house temperature warm enough because of economic constraints, plays a big role on people’s health. At the same time, in Spain the rising of rents, mortages debt and evictions following the economic crisis in 2007 have caused people severe mental distress, even resulting in a dramatic increase in suicide rates<ref> http://www.sophie-project.eu/pdf/conclusions.pdf </ref>.

Urban planning and access to housing are only two of the many aspects which result in health inequities. This shows that certain urban spatial arrangements can results in social injustices not only in terms of economic opportunities but also more directly in terms of health. Environmental sustainability might not be the focus of health-equity oriented policies, but the implementation of these policies show that more environmentally sustainable interventions (e.g. more green walkable area, traffic reduction, sound insulation) has the potential to have a positive impact on health equities, and as result on social justice.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category:Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]]
[[Category: Culture for empowerment]]
[[Category: Right to housing]]
[[Category: CITISPYCE]]
[[Category: SocIEtY]]
[[Category: GRAGE]]

Pathways and scenarios for post-carbon societies

2019-11-21T20:14:06Z

Lin:

Given the EU’s ambitions to reduce its GHGs, and calls by European leaders for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 <ref> https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en </ref>, the use of pathways and scenarios is an important tool for envisioning transitions to post-carbon societies.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
European-funded research has used qualitative and quantitative methods, including participatory research, case studies, quantitative modelling and socio-technological analyses, among others, to support EU policy-making and reach climate goals. Furthermore, these approaches have a strong focus on cities due to their importance in addressing climate change. One approach, Participatory Scenario Development, is directly focused on post-carbon (European) cities, while the other two have a broader focus. While the approaches use participatory methods to engage a variety of stakeholders, the outputs are targeted at municipal and EU officials, and research and academic circles.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

The three approaches in this cluster have similar topics, geographic coverage, methodologies and aims.

'''Elaborate Transition Scenarios of Post-Carbon Societies''', from PACT project (2008-2011)<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89952/reporting/en</ref>
is an approach in which three scenarios were developed to capture routes towards a post-carbon EU. The scenarios are very detail-rich and include world tensions on resources and climate, policies, behaviours and life-styles, technologies, as the main discriminating factors. This approach covers a broad spectrum of topics, but its elaborate vision of post-carbon households and lifestyles in urban spaces is especially interesting.

'''Participatory scenario development (for Post-Carbon societies)''', from POCACITO project (2014-2016) <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/111399/reporting/en</ref> engages local stakeholders in a participatory manner to create custom post-carbon transition strategies in selected cities, focusing on a sustainable economic and social model. The EU 2050 Roadmap for Post-Carbon Cities <ref> https://pocacito.eu/result/project-reports/eu-2050-roadmap-post-carbon-cities </ref> is an example of an output from this approach.

'''Exploring transition pathways to sustainable, low-carbon societies''', from PATHWAYS project (2013-2016)<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/111082/reporting/en</ref> centres on two alternative pathways, A and B, which both achieve long-term climate and biodiversity goals. Path A represents continued strength of the current global regime in the context of eco-modernization, and B represents a total regime shift and radical response strategies. Within these pathways, domains like electricity, heat & building, mobility, agro-food-systems, and multifunctional land use & biodiversity can be explored.

Post-carbon pathways and scenarios is not a new topic, yet it surely cannot be considered a mature one, due to constantly changing modelling technologies and public-perceptions of a post-carbon world. A limitation of these approaches is their predictive nature, which means that they cannot offer a silver bullet for the route to post-carbon societies. Instead they are able to open up potential futures, and encourage policymakers to work towards them in a way that minimises social and economic costs. Regarding transferability, the methodologies in their general form are transferable to non-European contexts, and could be used to study non-European cities.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

'''Urban'''. This approach considers the urban space as a place of importance in the transition to post-carbon societies. Therefore, many case studies are completed in European cities to create the pathways/scenarios, and devote a lot of time to urban areas in their analyses. Participatory Scenarios has cities as its main focus, and therefore, its outputs may be the most useful to city-makers.

'''Sustainability'''. A wide range of sustainability issues associated with post-carbon societies are addressed to a high extent, and on scales ranging from local to global. Environmental sustainability is the raison d’etre for these pathways and scenarios.

'''Justice'''. Examples of the approach do not explicitly address injustice. Rather they promote social aspects of post-carbon societies. By using participatory methods, the approaches pay attention to procedural justice. On a large scale, post-carbonism is a form of international justice for areas impacted by climate change, but this is also not a focus of the approaches.

'''Linking sustainability and justice''' Regarding the content of the pathways and scenarios, there is currently no explicit link between sustainability and justice, except for the approaches’ aspiration towards low-carbon and environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable cities. To clarify, their “social” considerations do not explicitly address injustice. In future applications of the approaches, justice considerations such as measures of social inequality could be incorporated as a focus of these tools. From a methodological perspective, a link between sustainability and justice exists when participatory scenario development is used.

==Narrative of change==

As global reserves of fossil fuels are diminished and GHGs are increasingly released, contributing to climate change, there is a pressing need for a large-scale shift away from carbon-based societies. Pathways & scenarios for post-carbon societies envision this future shift, and offer strategic guidance to policymakers such that cities can be more prepared for the future.

==Transformative potential==
Pathways and scenarios for post-carbon societies have the potential to be highly transformative since their purpose is to evaluate a major global shift away from current carbon-based systems. The degree of transformative potential depends on whether current power relations are problematised and challenged in the pathways/scenarios. The methodologies in this cluster do not clearly acknowledge issues of power with the exception of the Exploring Transition Pathways approach. In it, Path A represents a largely-maintained status quo, where incumbent actors hold onto their power, and technological substitution occurs rather then radical system change. Therefore, the transformative potential of pathways and scenarios, in future applications of its approaches, depends on its attention towards power relations and the willingness of researchers to consider a more radical transition to post-carbonism. Pathways and scenarios risk reproducing existing power relations if they are developed by powerful actors who wish to see their positions maintained (e.g. top-level bureaucrats or industry leaders). However, approaches like Participatory Scenario Development mitigate this risk by welcoming diverse voices expressing concern over current power relations.

==Illustration of approach==

An illustrative example of Participatory Scenario Development, from POCACITO project is the '''vision workshop in Malmo''', Sweden. Malmo, Sweden was one of the POCACITO case study cities. Part of the Participatory Scenario Development process involved a visioning workshop in which a variety of stakeholders (city officials, public transport company, a construction company, local university, and IT company) were brought together to produce a vision for a 2050 post-carbon Malmo. The visions included topics from good mobility to social equality and inclusion, and opportunities and limitations for reaching them. The workshop also mapped out short, medium, and long-term goals for the city and named relevant actors to champion them. Visioning exercises can serve as an inspirational foundation for more precise post-carbon pathways and scenarios. Unfortunately, certain social groups such as the young and elderly, and immigrants, were missing from the workshop. More workshop results are available in its report. <ref> https://pocacito.eu/sites/default/files/workshop_reports/Malmo_Workshop_Report.pdf </ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Pathways and scenarios for post-carbon societies]]
[[Category: Energy and Mobility solutions]]
[[Category: POCACITO]]
[[Category: PACT]]
[[Category: PATHWAYS]]

Reconceptualising urban justice and sustainability

2019-11-21T19:57:29Z

Lin:

'''Alternative conceptual framings''' are a feature of many and diverse approaches to urban sustainability and/or justice, and in particular their intersections. Arguments in their favour range from the ethical to the instrumental: the moral right of all those living in cities to contribute to shaping their future, to the practical importance of diverse outlooks, ideas and capabilities in working towards sustainability and justice.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions. All citations are from project websites/reports if not otherwise marked.

== Why Reconceptualise Urban Justice and Sustainability? ==
The UrbanA project characterises both sustainability and justice in broad terms. It recognises that the concepts of sustainability and justice are both highly contested, and may be defined, understood and acted upon in many different ways.<ref name="urbana D3.1"> Avelino, F., K. Schipper, F. van Steenbergen, T. Henfrey, S. Rach, J. Connolly, I. Anguelovski, M. Bach, M. Oltmer & Giorgia Silvestri, 2019. ''[https://app.box.com/s/q1fn4ns8kq1dramo6oifd7o0spp0h66j UrbanA Mapping Guidelines]''. UrbanA H2020 Project Deliverable 3.1.</ref> Particularly when sustainability and justice are considered together, this can challenge dominant notions of sustainability.

UrbanA considers sustainability as an intergenerational and multi-level phenomenon with multiple dimensions (social-cultural, economic, ecological). Sustainability may be understood and achieved in very different ways, depending on which of these are taken into account or given emphasis.

UrbanA understoods justice to include distribution of costs and benefits of sustainability interventions, patterns of participation and exclusion in decision-making and execution, and the extent to which action on sustainability accomodates diverse needs and expectations, particularly in relation to often-marginalised groups such as ethnic minorities, low income groups, the elderly, women and gender non-conforming people. Accomodating such diversity often involves challenging the tendency of certain powerful actors to dominate discussion and action on urban sustainability.<ref> Avelino, F., 2017. Power in Sustainability Transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability: Power in Sustainability Transitions. ''Environmental Policy and Governance'' 27, 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1777</ref> This often leads to understandings of sustainability, and courses of action, very different from those promoted by such powerful incubments.

==Shapes, Sizes and Applications==
Many different academic fields and forms of practical action towards urban sustainability and justice call for, and in many cases offer, new conceptualisations of sustainability and/or justice.

Examples of academic reconceptualisations include:
*The observation from Energy Systems Studies that decarbonising energy systems is not simply a process of substituting fossil fuels with renewable energy technologies, but also requires dismantling social and political systems that 'lock in' dependence on fossil fuels.<ref> Unruh, G.C., 2002. Escaping carbon lock-in. ''Energy Policy'' 30, 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00098-2</ref>
* The recognition within Sustainability Science of the incompatibility between sustainability and dominant mindsets, and need for a paradigm shift in cultural outlook.<ref> Göpel, M., 2017. [http://www.transitionresearchnetwork.org/uploads/1/2/7/3/12737251/3.3_paradigm_shifts.pdf Shedding Some Light on the Invisible: The Transformative Power of Paradigm Shifts]. Pp. 113-140 in Henfrey, T., G. Maschkowski & G. Penha-Lopes (eds.) ''Resilience, Community Action and Societal Transformation''. East Meon: Permanent Publications.</ref>
* Calls in Alternative Economics for new economic models that question the primacy of GDP growth as a macro-economic indicator and call for new approaches that seek to achieve societal welfare within sustainable limits.<ref>Jackson, T., 2017. ''Prosperity without Growth. Foundations for the economy of tomorrow.'' Second edition. London: Routledge.</ref><ref> Kallis, G., Kerschner, C., Martinez-Alier, J., 2012. The economics of degrowth. ''Ecological Economics'' 84, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.017</ref>
* The establishment within Organisational and Management Studies of new approaches to collective planning that emphasise the need to question and move beyond established ways of thinking and acting.<ref> Scharmer, C.O., 2009. ''Theory U. Leading from the future as it emerges.'' San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler</ref>
* The emergence within Design Studies of the new field of Transition Design, which takes its lead from the 'pluriverse' of collaborative and place-based action for alternative futures, rooted in strong values of sustainability and justice.<ref> Escobar, A., 2018. ''Designs for the Pluriverse’’Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds.'' London: Duke University Press.</ref>

The EU-funded ENTITLE Project (a training network within the Marie Curie action of FP7, 2012-2016) trained a cohort of 18 early career researchers in the academic field of Political Ecology.<ref> http://www.politicalecology.eu/. Accessed September 13th 2019.</ref> Political Ecology emphasises that environmental issues have inseparable social and political dimensions, and can neither be understood nor addressed without taking into account the uneven distribution of costs and benefits of environmental change across differences of class, race, ethnicity and gender, and the power imbalances these both reflect and engender.<ref> Biersack, A., & J. B. Greenberg (eds.), 2006. ''Reimagining Political Ecology.'' Durham, NC: Duke University Press.</ref>

The concept of Convergence was the central focus of the EU-funded CONVERGE project (FP7, 2009-2013).<ref> https://www.schumacherinstitute.org.uk/research/converge/. Accessed September 13th 2019.</ref> It is an extension of Aubrey Meyer's concept of Contraction and Convergence, created by the Global Commons Institute in the 1990s as a tool to promote equity in relation to climate change mitigation. Contraction referred to the reduction of global levels of greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels, Convergence to the equitable per capita distribution of rights to emit these emissions.<ref> http://www.gci.org.uk/. Accessed October 19th 2019.</ref> CONVERGE extended this concept to areas such as access to natural resources, energy, governance, trade and human well-being, as an integrative framework for reconciling equity and respect for global environmental limits.<ref> https://convergence-alliance.org/. Accessed October 18th 2019.</ref>

In terms of practical action, the [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/ TRANSIT project] (FP7, 2013-2016), examined initiatives and networks involved in Transformative Social Innovation (TSI). TSI actors, which include many urban social change initiatives, adopt and enact values, practices and forms of social relations radically different from those of wider society.<ref> Kemp, R., Zuijderwijk, L., Weaver, P., Seyfang, G., Avelino, F., Strasser, T., Becerra, L., Backhaus, J., Ruijsink, S., 2015. ‘’[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/ Doing things differently: exploring Transformative Social innovation and its practical challenges]’’ (Transit Brief No. 1). TRANSIT FP7 Project.</ref>

Specific cases of practical initiatives whose discourse or practice express alternative conceptualisations of sustainability and or justice include:
* [[Ecovillages]] are a form of [[Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities|intentional community]], found in urban, peri-urban and rural settings, and among the case studies in the TRANSIT Project. Ecovillages emphasise themes of cultural change and unity in diversity, and deliberately seek to create spaces of heightened social and environmental awareness, characterised by collaboration, creativity and experimentation.<ref>Kunze, I., Avelino, F., 2015. ''[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/192%20Case_study_report_GEN_FINAL.pdf Social Innovation and the Global Ecovillage Network]''. Research Report, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.</ref>

* [[Transition towns]], another TRANSIT Project case study,<ref> Longhurst, N., Pataki, G., 2015. ''[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/260%20Case%20study%20report%20template%20Batch1%20Transition%20Towns%20v11%20May%202017.pdf TRANSIT WP4 Case Study Report: The Transition Movement]''. TRANSIT FP7 Project.</ref> provide experimental spaces for collaborative exploration of creative responses to local manifestations of global social and environmental issues such as climate change and economic stability, and in some ways translate ecovillage thinking and action to established communities, and provide .<ref> Lockyer, J., 2010. Intentional community carbon reduction and climate change action: from ecovillages to transition towns, in: Peters, M., Fudge, S., Jackson, T. (Eds.), Low Carbon Communities: Imaginative Approaches to Combating Climate Change Locally. Edward Elgar, Camberley, UK, pp. 197–215.</ref> <ref> Barry, J., Quilley, S., 2009. The transition to sustainability: Transition towns and sustainable communities. Pp. 1-28 in ''The Transition to Sustainable Living and Practice'', Advances in Ecopolitics Volume 4. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2041-806X(2009)0000004004</ref>

* Both Transition and ecovillages are forms of community-led initiatives, of the kind studied in the TESS project, whose activities provide alternative pathways to sustainability and decarbonisation that emphasise democratic participation, with greater scope for participation and justice.<ref> Hof, A., Holsten, A., Berg, H., et, al, 2016. Sustainability Transitions to Low Carbon Societies - TESS, ARTS & PATHWAYS Common Policy Brief.</ref> Both operate through the creation and management of [[commons]], diverse arrangements for ownership and management of resources based on collective agreement among their co-users.<ref> Bollier, D. & Helfrich, S., 2019. ''Free, fair and alive. The insurgent power of the commons.'' Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.</ref>

* The EU-funded HiReach Project (H2020, 2017-2020) examined of experiences of transport poverty among diverse groups, including children, migrants, women, elderly people, people with reduced mobility, inhabitants of rural or deprived areas and low income and/or unemployed people. Findings revealed diverse expectations concerning mobility and transportation needs, requiring a range of different approaches to transport provision, in both technical and organisational terms.<ref> Kuttler, T., Moraglio, M., Bosetti, S., Chiffi, C., Van, P., Grandsart, D., 2019. [http://hireach-project.eu/HiReach_D2.2%20Inputs%20from%20final%20users_v2_20190524_TRT_draft.pdf ''Mobility in prioritised areas: inputs from the final-users''] (HiReach Project Deliverable No. 2.2).</ref>

* The AGAPE Project (FP7, 2014-2016) studied the consequences of urban displacment in southern European cities following the post-2008 economic crisis. It identified a range of actions undertaken by those affected in order to challenge directly gentrification and its effects, including confronting eviction, privatization, speculation and austerity. It concluded that such [[anti-gentrification practices]] dramatically reshape understandings of urban exclusion and justice, the courses of action available to city authorities, and the consequences of these.<ref> AGAPE Project, 2016. [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/188216/reporting/en ''Final Report Summary - AGAPE (Exploring Anti-GentrificAtion PracticEs and policies in Southern European Cities)'']</ref>

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, Sustainability, and Justice==
Action to make cities more sustainable often has the unintended consequence of increasing injustice. For example, the activities of community initiatives in Peckham, south London reinforced ongoing processes of gentrification that led to exclusion of low income residents.<ref> Håkansson, I., 2018. The socio-spatial politics of urban sustainability transitions: Grassroots initiatives in gentrifying Peckham. ''Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions'' 29, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.003</ref>

The apparent trade-off with justice observed in many urban sustainability initiatives is most likely an artefact of capitalist economics that equate well-being with levels of material consumption, and hence with environmental impacts.<ref> Henfrey, T. & G. Penha-Lopes, 2019. Recoupling through Regeneration: Community-led initiatives and the re-imagining of economic and social policy. ''Global Solutions Journal'' 4: 254-259.</ref> Many [[ecovillages]], for example, achieve levels of reported well-being and life satisfaction comparable to those of affluent urban neighbourhoods at far lower levels of material consumption, through alternative approaches that make social capital the main determinant of life quality.<ref> Mulder, K., Costanza, R., Erickson, J., 2006. The contribution of built, human, social and natural capital to quality of life in intentional and unintentional communities. ''Ecological Economics'' 59, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.021</ref> This emphasises the importance - and challenge - of identifying alternative conceptualisations that bring justice and sustainability into alignment, and finding ways to make them the basis of urban sustainability transitions.

In terms of their occurence, alternative conceptualisations may arise in both urban and non-urban settings. Experiences from ecovillages suggest that a degree of cultural isolation from the mainstream has been important in enabling the emergence and maturity of new modes of thinking and action.<ref> Henfrey, T., Ford, L., 2018. Permacultures of transformation: steps to a cultural ecology of environmental action. ''Journal of Political Ecology'' 25, 104–119. https://doi.org/0.2458/v25i1.22758</ref> While perhaps most readily available in [[intentional communities]], such freedom of creative thought and action is also a feature of temporary or permanent alternative spaces that are often found in urban settings.<ref> Leyshon, A., R. Lee & C.C. Williams (eds.), 2003. ''Alternative Economic Spaces.'' London: Sage.</ref>

The EU-funded RELOCAL project (H2020, 2017-2020) mapped patterns of inequality in cities (and non-urban areas) in nine countries across Europe, at scales ranging from city-wide to neighbourhood.<ref> Németh, S., 2018. [https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2018/10/D10.8-Working-Paper-Series-2.pdf ''Resituating the Local in Cohesion and Territorial Development'']. Working Paper 2. RELOCAL Project.</ref> A key finding was the existence of 'frontier areas' where marked differences in affluence are evident among geographically close neighbours.<ref> https://relocal.eu/multi-scalar-patterns-of-inequalities/. Accessed September 13th 2019.</ref> In many cities, widely different understandings and experiences of urban life may thus co-exist in close proximity. This suggests both the necessity of, and potential for, reconciling diverse views of sustainability and perspectives on urban life, via attention to all three key dimensions of justice, may be highest in urban areas.<ref> ''The Role of the Local in Improving Cohesion and Spatial Justice: integrating place-based with top-down approaches to local development'' ([https://relocal.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2018/12/RELOCAL_Policy-Brief-1_Sept-2018.pdf Policy Brief No. 1]), 2018. RELOCAL Project.</ref>

==Narrative of Change==
Although the approaches listed here are diverse, they have in common that they reject dominant narratives, and the courses of action they imply, in favour of their own. These alternative discourses often foreground sustainability and justice as primary societal goals, not secondary considerations dependent on or subordinate to other factors.

The degrowth and postgrowth movements express an explicit political ecology of this type. They assert that commitment to GDP growth as a goal in itself is ecologically and socially damaging in multiple respects. On the basis of a large and growing body of evidence, GDP growth is argued to be fundamentally incompatible with sustainability, to often generate and exacerbate injustice, and to undermine democracy by excluding alternatives from serious consideration.<ref> Asara, V., Profumi, E., Kallis, G., 2013. Degrowth, Democracy and Autonomy. ''Environmental Values'' 22, 217–239. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327113X13581561725239</ref>

François Schneider and colleagues (2010: 513) emphasise that degrowth is based on a politics of choice:
(D)egrowth is offered as a social choice, not imposed as an external imperative for environmental or other reasons. Decentralizing and deepening democratic institutions and repoliticizing the economy are prime objectives for the degrowth movement, alongside the reduction of consumption and production; one cannot be considered without the other.<ref> Schneider, F., Kallis, G., Martinez-Alier, J., 2010. Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. ''Journal of Cleaner Production'' 18, 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014</ref>

Democracy and empowerment through locally autonomous, self-organised action are also central to narratives of change in the [[ecovillage]] and [[Transition movement]]s. According to the Global Ecovillage Network website:
The Global Ecovillage Network envisions a world of empowered citizens and communities, designing and implementing pathways to a regenerative future, while building bridges of hope and international solidarity.<ref> https://ecovillage.org/. Accessed October 18th 2019.</ref>

The [http://www.ecolise.eu ECOLISE] network of European community-led sustainability and climate change initiatives, whose members include GEN, Transition Network, and many national networks in the [[ecovillage]] and [[Transition movement]]s, begins its strategy with the following statement:

ECOLISE sees hope in the rich seam of solutions that are being continuously developed by community-led initiatives across Europe and the world, including those that encompass inner growth, inclusive approaches to collaboration and to the governance of commons and stewardship of ecosystems. Furthermore ECOLISE is inspired and motivated by the growing interest in these life-affirming approaches. In this context ECOLISE’s purpose is to engage in, support and facilitate accelerated learning and collaboration among community-led initiatives, their networks and partners in order to catalyse systemic transformation within and across society.
The work of ECOLISE is inspired by the vision of a compassionate, equitable and regenerative society of empowered and resilient communities that thrive on diversity and inclusion and live within planetary boundaries.<ref> https://www.ecolise.eu/about-ecolise/. Accessed October 18th 2019.</ref>

UrbanA fellow Marilyn Hamilton of [https://integralcity.com/ Integral City] emphasises the importance of an integral approach, which integrates multiple perspectives within a meta-framework recognising that all phenomena have both interior/exterior and individual/collective dimensions, and develop and evolve in each of these.<ref> Wilber, K., 2000. ''Integral Psychology''. Boston: Shambala</ref> In Marilyn's view, approaches to sustainability and justice tend to emphasise exterior dimensions of phenomena, and in particular to overlook the caring qualities prominent in inner dimensions and essential for justice. Inclusion is another important feature of an integral approach, which honours pluralism and recognises that all perspectives express some degree of relative truth and bring valid insights into complex problems. Locating different perspectives on the integral map allows each to be honoured in its own terms, and enables collaboration towards inclusive action.

==Transformative Potential==
Reconceptualisations of justice and sustainability directly challenge conventional top-down and centralised approaches to urban planning. As well as offering alternative perspectives, they demand more inclusive, pluralistic and participatory approaches to urban governance. While this makes them inherently transformative - at least in theory - in practice the extent to which their transformative potential is realised varies. Initiatives and networks locate themselves differently in relation to dominant institutions and ways of thinking. They also vary greatly in their degree of maturity, and their success in practice in operating in alignment with their values.

Squatters on Barcelona's urban periphery are an example of what has been termed 'uncivil' initiatives. They explicitly distance themselves from accepted norms and deliberately break laws they perceive to be unjust. Instead, they cultivate popular legitimacy through socially responsible action in their immediate neighbourhoods.<ref> D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., Cattaneo, C., 2013. Civil and Uncivil Actors for a Degrowth Society. Journal of Civil Society 9, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2013.788935</ref>

Community-based initiatives seeking engagement with incumbent regimes run constant risks of co-option by the very dominant framings they seek to challenge, limiting or even directly contradicting their stated goals.<ref> Frantzeskaki, N., Dumitru, A., Anguelovski, I., Avelino, F., Bach, M., Best, B., Binder, C., Barnes, J., Carrus, G., Egermann, M., Haxeltine, A., Moore, M.-L., Mira, R.G., Loorbach, D., Uzzell, D., Omann, I., Olsson, P., Silvestri, G., Stedman, R., Wittmayer, J., Durrant, R., Rauschmayer, F., 2016. Elucidating the changing roles of civil society in urban sustainability transitions. ''Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability'' 22, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.008</ref>. Initiatives that choose to constitute as officially recognised organisations often find themselves subject to a phenomenon known as ''coercive isomorphism'', where the need to sustain the chosen legal form creates pressures that are at odds with their basic premises and preferred ways of operating.<ref> Becker, S.L., Franke, F., Gläsel, A., 2018. Regime pressures and organizational forms of community-based sustainability initiatives. ''Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions'' 29, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.004</ref> Such effects can be exacerbated by participation in funding schemes that assume or favour particular organisational models, framing concepts and modes of action.<ref> Creamer, E., 2015. The double-edged sword of grant funding: a study of community-led climate change initiatives in remote rural Scotland. ''Local Environment'' 20, 981–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.885937
</ref><ref> Taylor Aiken, G., 2014. Common Sense Community? The Climate Challenge Fund’s Official and Tacit Community Construction. ''Scottish Geographical Journal'' 130, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2014.921322</ref>

Increasing numbers of cases exist where citizen movements enacting alternative conceptualisations that closely link sustainability and justice have assumed political power at city level. In Naples, protest movements against toxic waste dumping matured into people'a assemblies encating a radical participatory form of democracy. Spreading to all districts of the city, they became the basis of a grassroots political coalition that won control of the city in municipal elections in 2016.<ref> Armerio, M., Di Angelis, M., 2017. Anthropocene: victims, narrators, and revolutionaries. ''South Atlantic Quarterly'' 116, 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-3829445</ref> In Barcelona, housing rights campaigner Ada Colau was elected mayor in 2015, part of a wave of popular protest movements to have come to power as part of the 'new municipalist' movement worldwide <ref> Bookchin, D. & A. Colau (eds.), 2019. ''[http://fearlesscities.com/ Fearless Cities]: A guide to the global municipalist movement''. Oxford: New Internationalist.</ref> Its projects include Barcelona Energia, a publically owned renewable energy company that now manages the electricity grid for the entire municipal region, with aim of empowering residents to produce their own energy and democratise control of energy infrastructure.<ref> https://transformativecities.org/atlas-of-utopias/atlas-013// Accessed October 18th 2019.</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Reconceptualising urban justice and sustainability]]
[[Category: Ecovillages]]
[[Category: Transition towns]]
[[Category: ENTITLE]]
[[Category: AGAPE]]
[[Category: RELOCAL]]

Social food movements

2019-11-21T07:27:25Z

Lin:

Social food movements aspire to make food production and consumption more sustainable, strengthen the local food sector, connect people through food, create more awareness about the food we eat and also revive the joy of it. A variety of actors are involved in food movements, such as citizens, consumers, farmers and local producers, people in the gastronomic sector, but also government officials, municipalities, associations and researchers. Examples of initiatives that try to tackle unsustainability and injustice through a social food movement are the Slow Food movement and Veggie Thursdays, which are outlined below.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

With regard to cultural aspects, food movements can trigger the (renewed) acknowledgement of specific food practices and traditions. Food movements might also include aspects of health, such as the wish to improve one’s personal health through a certain diet’, or present a broader movement towards public health. This can be connected to the desire to build a supportive community, managing stress or doing physical exercise. Some social food movements might evolve with the ambition of changing certain habits concerning practices of eating on the individual, organisational or broader community level. As to aspects of leisure, some food movements focus on having fun with cooking, developing new recipes, enjoying the quality and flavour of food, hence developing a new appreciation and awareness of the food we eat.

The development of or participation in a social food movement can also involve environmental aspects. Changing one’s habits, taking up specific food choices or questioning certain food practices can be aimed at contributing to a more ecologically sustainable environment (and food system). For example by raising awareness of the variety of animal and plant breeds (biodiversity). Social food movements might have a political dimension by creating awareness about power asymmetries in the food system, transforming people’s agency in food choices and pointing out the exploitation of people, the environment and animals in the global food system.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

An example of such a food movement is Slow Food. Slow food is a global grassroots organisation, founded by the Italian journalist Carlo Petrini and a group of activists in Bra (Italy) in 1986. The movement grew with the development of several national branches in Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Japan, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Brazil, Kenya and South Korea. Originally, Slow Food started as a countercultural movement to fast food (such as McDonald’s). The movement builds on the idea of connecting the cultivation of taste with local traditional gastronomy and regional biodiversity, criticising the globalised and delocalised food production and fighting the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions. The Slow Food movement seeks to refresh people’s interest in the food they eat. It is based on the three principles of good (relating to pleasure, quality, flavour and healthiness of food), clean (referring to a production which does not harm the environment) and fair (about accessible prices for consumers and fair conditions and salary for producers)<ref>https://www.slowfood.com/</ref>. Since its foundation, the movement’s discourse broadened to issues such as global warming, animal welfare, food waste or indigenous rights. The aims, values and activities of the movement have evolved enormously over time and reach from community activities of local organisations to national organisations and the establishment of an international network. Hence, informally the Slow Food movement might be described as “instrumental branch of a more diffused movement.” <ref>Dumitru, A., Lema-Blanco, I., Kunze, I. & García-Mira, R. (2016). Slow Food Movement. Case-study report. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169</ref>

Another example is Veggie Thursday which is a social movement on vegetarianism. With the idea of introducing a vegetarian day per week in 2009, the city of Ghent and the EVA association (Ethic Vegetarian Alternative) wanted to encourage citizens to eat less meat and fish and fight climate change <ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/5322315/Ghent-declares-every-Thursday-Veggie-day.html</ref>. With that Ghent became the first city with an official veggie day. It has been adopted by many other actors in Belgium, including 30 schools in Ghent, established by many cities, such as Hasselt, Malines, Eupen and Sint-Niklaas and Brussels, and supported by several governments around the globe.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The social food movements mentioned above don’t focus solely on urban areas. For example Slow Food works closely with farmers and producers outside cities, thus connecting both spaces. Food movements address issues of unsustainability for example by promoting vegetarianism and the reduction of one's ecological footprint. A particular feature of Slow Food is the movement’s commitment to a just and sustainable local and global development. For example by promoting fair pricing, preventing food waste and protecting indigenous knowledge on food practices. With their activities Slow food aims to empower people to make fair and sustainable food choices.

==Narrative of change==

Social food movements, such as Slow Food, address the problematic evolution of the global food system, which includes dynamics of injustice and unsustainability affecting people, the planet and animals. As a counter movement which “represents an act of rebellion against a civilisation based on the sterile concepts of productivity, quantity and mass consumption, destroying habits, traditions and ways of life, and ultimately the environment” <ref>Dumitru, A., Lema-Blanco, I., Kunze, I. & García-Mira, R. (2016). Transformative Social Innovation: Slow Food Movement. A summary of the case study report on the Slow Food Movement. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169</ref>, the Slow Food movement calls for rethinking and restructuring one’s everyday habits and concrete food life-style. In the Slow Food movement, such rethinking is triggered and promoted through the creation of a community of like-minded individuals, by critiquing the status quo, and by presenting alternative ways of thinking and doing. The grassroots movement invites people to imagine a new economic and food system based on new social relations. Initiatives such as Veggie Thursday present a more top-down approach for creating awareness and activating people to change their habits.

==Transformative potential==

Social food movements have transformative potential in the sense that they challenge mainstream understandings of how food is produced, processed, distributed and consumed, and unequal social relations that underlie these processes. For example the (market) relation between producers and consumers, and human-animal relationships. This is done by creating awareness, trigger discussion, promoting alternative (individual) lifestyles and behavioural change, and experimenting with different ways to organize the food system. Some of the initiatives might focus on individual change while others might focus more on empowering communities to gain control over their food subsistence. Slow food is an example of a translocal network that criticises the broader economic system and at the same time draws attention to very specific local situations. The risk of these social food movements is that they might reproduce existing inequalities between social groups. Some groups might have limited access to or might not be able to afford (the time and money) to participate in these alternative practices.

==Illustration==

The '''Slow Food Convivium Freiburg (SFFR)''' was founded in 1997. It presents one of the first local organisations of the movement (so-called convivia) and counted 300 members in 2016. It operates on a regional level in the south-west of Baden-Württemberg, and therefore includes rural and urban areas. The activities that SFFR organizes are small-scale, like so-called snail tables, private cooking activities and tastings, education for school kids and adults or donations to the national or international movements. Through its various activities SFFR wants to mirror the broader movement’s philosophy, inspire its members and attract new people. In one of their projects, called “Junior slow mobil”, SFFR educates children on natural and local food. With a mobile kitchen they travel between the elementary schools in Freiburg and surroundings to cook with children. Through this practical approach SFFR tries to trigger a responsible enjoyment or sustainable pleasure of food. Educational activities are highly significant for the convivium, with the clear intention of reaching poor children in marginalised schools through the Junior slow mobil project.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Social food movements]]
[[Category: ECOVILLAGES]]
[[Category: TRANSITION TOWNS]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: INCONTEXT]]
[[Category: Slow Food Convivium Freiburg]]
== Suggested reading==
*[https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/33261761/Thesis_.pdf Mazel, A. G. (2019). Governing food. Media, politics and pleasure ]

Social food movements

2019-11-21T07:26:20Z

Lin:

Social food movements aspire to make food production and consumption more sustainable, strengthen the local food sector, connect people through food, create more awareness about the food we eat and also revive the joy of it. A variety of actors are involved in food movements, such as citizens, consumers, farmers and local producers, people in the gastronomic sector, but also government officials, municipalities, associations and researchers. Examples of initiatives that try to tackle unsustainability and injustice through a social food movement are the Slow Food movement and Veggie Thursdays, which are outlined below.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

With regard to cultural aspects, food movements can trigger the (renewed) acknowledgement of specific food practices and traditions. Food movements might also include aspects of health, such as the wish to improve one’s personal health through a certain diet’, or present a broader movement towards public health. This can be connected to the desire to build a supportive community, managing stress or doing physical exercise. Some social food movements might evolve with the ambition of changing certain habits concerning practices of eating on the individual, organisational or broader community level. As to aspects of leisure, some food movements focus on having fun with cooking, developing new recipes, enjoying the quality and flavour of food, hence developing a new appreciation and awareness of the food we eat.

The development of or participation in a social food movement can also involve environmental aspects. Changing one’s habits, taking up specific food choices or questioning certain food practices can be aimed at contributing to a more ecologically sustainable environment (and food system). For example by raising awareness of the variety of animal and plant breeds (biodiversity). Social food movements might have a political dimension by creating awareness about power asymmetries in the food system, transforming people’s agency in food choices and pointing out the exploitation of people, the environment and animals in the global food system.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

An example of such a food movement is Slow Food. Slow food is a global grassroots organisation, founded by the Italian journalist Carlo Petrini and a group of activists in Bra (Italy) in 1986. The movement grew with the development of several national branches in Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Japan, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Brazil, Kenya and South Korea. Originally, Slow Food started as a countercultural movement to fast food (such as McDonald’s). The movement builds on the idea of connecting the cultivation of taste with local traditional gastronomy and regional biodiversity, criticising the globalised and delocalised food production and fighting the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions. The Slow Food movement seeks to refresh people’s interest in the food they eat. It is based on the three principles of good (relating to pleasure, quality, flavour and healthiness of food), clean (referring to a production which does not harm the environment) and fair (about accessible prices for consumers and fair conditions and salary for producers)<ref>https://www.slowfood.com/</ref>. Since its foundation, the movement’s discourse broadened to issues such as global warming, animal welfare, food waste or indigenous rights. The aims, values and activities of the movement have evolved enormously over time and reach from community activities of local organisations to national organisations and the establishment of an international network. Hence, informally the Slow Food movement might be described as “instrumental branch of a more diffused movement.” <ref>Dumitru, A., Lema-Blanco, I., Kunze, I. & García-Mira, R. (2016). Slow Food Movement. Case-study report. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169</ref>

Another example is Veggie Thursday which is a social movement on vegetarianism. With the idea of introducing a vegetarian day per week in 2009, the city of Ghent and the EVA association (Ethic Vegetarian Alternative) wanted to encourage citizens to eat less meat and fish and fight climate change <ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/5322315/Ghent-declares-every-Thursday-Veggie-day.html</ref>. With that Ghent became the first city with an official veggie day. It has been adopted by many other actors in Belgium, including 30 schools in Ghent, established by many cities, such as Hasselt, Malines, Eupen and Sint-Niklaas and Brussels, and supported by several governments around the globe.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The social food movements mentioned above don’t focus solely on urban areas. For example Slow Food works closely with farmers and producers outside cities, thus connecting both spaces. Food movements address issues of unsustainability for example by promoting vegetarianism and the reduction of one's ecological footprint. A particular feature of Slow Food is the movement’s commitment to a just and sustainable local and global development. For example by promoting fair pricing, preventing food waste and protecting indigenous knowledge on food practices. With their activities Slow food aims to empower people to make fair and sustainable food choices.

==Narrative of change==

Social food movements, such as Slow Food, address the problematic evolution of the global food system, which includes dynamics of injustice and unsustainability affecting people, the planet and animals. As a counter movement which “represents an act of rebellion against a civilisation based on the sterile concepts of productivity, quantity and mass consumption, destroying habits, traditions and ways of life, and ultimately the environment” <ref>Dumitru, A., Lema-Blanco, I., Kunze, I. & García-Mira, R. (2016). Transformative Social Innovation: Slow Food Movement. A summary of the case study report on the Slow Food Movement. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169</ref>, the Slow Food movement calls for rethinking and restructuring one’s everyday habits and concrete food life-style. In the Slow Food movement, such rethinking is triggered and promoted through the creation of a community of like-minded individuals, by critiquing the status quo, and by presenting alternative ways of thinking and doing. The grassroots movement invites people to imagine a new economic and food system based on new social relations. Initiatives such as Veggie Thursday present a more top-down approach for creating awareness and activating people to change their habits.

==Transformative potential==

Social food movements have transformative potential in the sense that they challenge mainstream understandings of how food is produced, processed, distributed and consumed, and unequal social relations that underlie these processes. For example the (market) relation between producers and consumers, and human-animal relationships. This is done by creating awareness, trigger discussion, promoting alternative (individual) lifestyles and behavioural change, and experimenting with different ways to organize the food system. Some of the initiatives might focus on individual change while others might focus more on empowering communities to gain control over their food subsistence. Slow food is an example of a translocal network that criticises the broader economic system and at the same time draws attention to very specific local situations. The risk of these social food movements is that they might reproduce existing inequalities between social groups. Some groups might have limited access to or might not be able to afford (the time and money) to participate in these alternative practices.

==Illustration==

The '''Slow Food Convivium Freiburg (SFFR)''' was founded in 1997. It presents one of the first local organisations of the movement (so-called convivia) and counted 300 members in 2016. It operates on a regional level in the south-west of Baden-Württemberg, and therefore includes rural and urban areas. The activities that SFFR organizes are small-scale, like so-called snail tables, private cooking activities and tastings, education for school kids and adults or donations to the national or international movements. Through its various activities SFFR wants to mirror the broader movement’s philosophy, inspire its members and attract new people. In one of their projects, called “Junior slow mobil”, SFFR educates children on natural and local food. With a mobile kitchen they travel between the elementary schools in Freiburg and surroundings to cook with children. Through this practical approach SFFR tries to trigger a responsible enjoyment or sustainable pleasure of food. Educational activities are highly significant for the convivium, with the clear intention of reaching poor children in marginalised schools through the Junior slow mobil project.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Social food movements]]
[[Category: ECOVILLAGES]]
[[Category: TRANSITION TOWNS]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: INCONTEXT]]
== Suggested reading==
*[https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/33261761/Thesis_.pdf Mazel, A. G. (2019). Governing food. Media, politics and pleasure ]

Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons

2019-11-21T07:25:03Z

Lin:

Sharing in the context of urban sustainability and justice refers to a shift in the paradigm of individualistic or exclusive practices, which modern urbanism and urban lifestyle have assumed with regard to certain resources and services. Cooperatives are jointly-owned and horizontally/democratically governed enterprises, and can include consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or shared/hybrid cooperatives where ownership is shared between consumers, workers, and other stakeholders like non-profits. The concept of the commons represents a form of collective but decentralised control over resources, or forms of wealth, which (should) belong to all and must be actively protected and managed in a collective manner, for the collective good. Sharing is a central aspect of commoning practices, while commons governance often takes the form of cooperatives.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

During the last decade, a number of efforts have focused on gathering information about the sharing economy, sharing initiatives and innovations that enable sharing <ref>Schor J (2016) Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4(3). Addleton Academic Publishers: 7–22.</ref>. Examples of what is identified on the ground as sharing initiatives in urban contexts include co-working, co-living and co-housing -which can be more focused on sharing space than resources and services-, cooperatives, community-led management, co-finance and food sharing, among others. Food sharing, for example, is a very prominent example of how resources can be optimised in order to strengthen social relations, while also securing food for the most vulnerable, and avoiding food waste. Sharing practices, especially when referring to the long-term sharing of a resource, can become synonymous of commons-based projects and/or cooperatives, in the sense that what is shared is managed by those who share it. However, this is not necessarily the case, as sharing can be to a large extent governed by external rules and formal institutions. For example, food can be shared between those businesses or households that have it in excess, and those organisations or groups that are in demand. This can be regularised by rules on quality, means of transport, and sanitary checks. However, food sharing can also mean the cultivation of food in a community garden and the distribution of the produce among participants in an informal manner. While one is a facilitated offer that does not necessitate social interaction between the two parties, the second is an example of a commons governance. With urban sustainability in mind, the idea of cooperatives and commons has been very much applied to the local production/distribution of “clean” energy, services such as bicycle-repairing, but also community gardens, social centers, and other public or private spaces which are reclaimed by citizen groups, reconfiguring their use, transforming and maintaining them. Cooperatives are often integrated or themselves constitute forms of urban commons. Whereas in cooperatives the purpose and different roles within the “enterprise” are usually well-defined, in other forms of urban commons these are not always as clear.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

‘Sharing cities’ is an idea and an approach of how cities can battle against some of their main challenges (e.g. poverty, health issues, housing needs, lack of space, lack of available land etc.), through the actions and networks of citizens and supported by committed city governments. The Sharing Cities network emerged in 2013 from a non-profit organisation based in San Fransisco (Shareable <ref> https://www.shareable.net/about/</ref>) which set out to be a news, action and connection hub for cities and urban issues. Now, the ‘Sharing City Network’ comprises local communities and group of activists in more than 50 cities, who engage in a cooperative process by organizing sharing projects. The Network thus acts at multi-territorial and transnational level to collect information and promote sharing. They have brought together a collection of over a hundred sharing-related case studies and model policies from more than 80 cities in 35 countries <ref>Sharing Cities. Activating the Urban Commons. Available for download here: https://www.sharingcities.net/</ref>, which covers examples of housing (e.g. cooperative Housing, short-term rental, open-source design), food (surplus food redistribution, community gardens, farmers markets), work (e.g. FabLabs, cooperative ownership, community wealth, maker-spaces, social entrepreneur networks), waste (citizen compost initiative, repair café, worker-owned recycling cooperative) and more. This shows the breadth of implementations that the sharing idea can have in cities, and the connection with cooperatives and commons projects.

A strong component of what we observed as urban sustainability-oriented cooperatives are those dedicated to, or include, the local production and consumption of clean(er) energy (see Rescoop <ref>https://www.rescoop.eu/</ref> for a collection of identified such projects, geographically referenced). One example stemming from the results of the INCONTEXT (2010-2013) project <ref>https://incontext-fp7.eu/</ref> is the Emission-Zero initiative in Les Vents d'Houyet <ref>http://www.vents-houyet.be/</ref>, Belgium. After its initial phase of experimenting with raising awareness and spreading information on renewable energy, now it is focused on raising capital for and volumes of renewable energy. The cooperative connects about 1000 cooperators and 10 000 affiliated members (2011). It built seven wind turbines that are now jointly owned (and democratically managed) by the cooperative.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The idea of cooperativism, sharing, and common management of resources is not new. However, it has been intensely rediscovered in modern cities of today, due to increasing pressures that urban citizens experience on the physical environment (pollution, lack of green space, lack of healthy food), their livelihoods (non-affordable housing, precarious employment) and their political recognition and participation (lack of public space, mistrust in governmental institutions). As a response, urban commons, sharing and cooperatives are seen to operate mostly at the level of cities (but also in the digital sphere) as urban densities provide an adequate ground for sharing/commoning to be taken on board, both as viable alternatives or solutions to pressing problems related to lack of resources (including land, space, housing, food but also knowledge and expertise) and because population dynamics help these initiatives to build momentum. Recently, the rise of such initiatives in cities such as Barcelona or Ghent, has called for a more translocal vision (see Commons Transition Plan for Ghent<ref>http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-plan-city-ghent/</ref>, and the Electoral Program of Barcelona En Comu <ref>https://barcelonaencomu.cat/ca/programa-2019</ref>). Moreover, many such initiatives (like consumer coops, urban agriculture initiatives), combine the use of both urban and rural territories and their interaction, in a way also helping in reconceptualising the relations and dependencies between urban-rural areas in metabolic, social and environmental terms.

(Re)claiming urban commons from solely profit-seeking actors and/or central institutions governed by distant and rigid bureaucracies that operate in increasingly neoliberal fashion, is part of reclaiming justice in the city. Through sharing, commoning and cooperativism, resources and participation in governance can become more widely accessible and possible. Most sharing food initiatives, such as community gardens, collaborative cooking and eating in community kitchens, surplus food sharing initiatives, can indeed address distributive justice by enabling socially vulnerable people to access healthy food.However, initiatives also face contradictions and challenges with regard to justice, as they are embedded in historical patterns of exclusion and discrimination, and current neoliberal rationalities. Some, for example, assume the withdrawal of the state from certain domains and take on individual responsibilities for aspects that should be of common and public concern. In the case of Gela (‘GEmeinsam LAndwirtschaften’)<ref>https://www.gaertnerhof-staudenmueller.de/gela-familien/</ref>, the arrangement between consumer groups and organic farm producers ensures security of income for the farmers and healthy food for urban citizens. However, if both those aspects are not supported by more universal public policy, these benefits might only accrue to those who can afford to invest and be part of such initiatives. Similarly, in the example of co-working, while sharing the cost of a larger space might be enabling for small enterprises, individual artists, or craftspeople to advance their work, circumventing high rentals in city centers, the type of business promoted and the inclusivity of some such spaces varies to a great extent. The Impact Hub [https://impacthub.net], for example, is a network of 16.000 social entrepreneurs around the world, who all have very different visions, products and services, and thus very different relations to issues of inequality, ecology and justice.

Socio-environmental sustainability is not necessarily central to the goals of commoning/cooperative projects, but sustainability issues have increasingly become a central preoccupation of citizens and movements, thus are being increasingly reflected also in such projects. The community-supported agriculture initiative studied under INCONTEXT project, for example, has a strong sustainability perspective as it promotes organic food of proximity, reducing the use of agrochemicals and avoiding embedded energy consumption (transportation). Many of the sharing initiatives directly address issues of sustainability, as they have to do with the reduction of waste (through recycling/repairing/reusing materials, avoiding food waste) or the production of renewable/cleaner energy (through cooperatives), or by optimising the use of space and resources (in co-housing or co-working arrangements). Moreover, in places of sharing and conviviality, it is also the case that ideas (often about sustainability) circulate faster and with more potential for innovation, which in turn can enable sustainable transformations. The idea of sharing can indeed link sustainability and justice as it can enable redistribution of scarce resources in innovative ways. However, when justice is not an explicit concern in the development of these projects, they do risk of becoming enclaves of privilege, where those with access can benefit from each other and from niche services/knowledge.

At the same time, environmentalists find that working directly with citizens brings more promising results than with upper-level governments. Many dedicated organizations and NGOs that work towards increasing the share of renewables in energy, for example, are now looking at cooperative or public ownership for renewable energy facilities as a way of reducing the increasing resistance to big wind turbine facilities. However, aspects of sustainability are envisioned and implemented at different scales and in different ways in cooperative/commons projects. SomEnergia<ref>https://www.somenergia.coop/</ref> is an energy cooperative in Barcelona, which not only aims to produce local renewable energy but also promotes a degrowth perspective to energy use so that overall energy consumption be reduced.

==Narrative of change==

Cooperatives and other common-based projects that practice sharing are addressing interwoven problems of unequal and insufficient access to resources, knowledge, and services that urban citizens deem valuable, if not necessary, for their well being. They also address environmental concerns at various scales (from global warming to environmental health issues) which have deep justice implications as they differentially impact urban populations. Whereas a lot of projects are struggling to “fill the gap” that formal institutions leave unaddressed (e.g. making use of derelict land, making viable and accessible the production/consumption of healthy and organic food), and thus achieving change by “taking things in their own hands”. However, an underlying premise in some cases under this approach is also that by fomenting and practicing equal participation, common management of resources and direct democratic control over processes, wider socio-cultural and systemic change will also be enabled and dominant institutions will be challenged.

A great challenge for coop/commons and, to certain extent, sharing projects is the ability to continue without burdening the community which sustains them. Many times, especially when projects do not constitute an important part of the participants’ livelihood, members that assume a lot of voluntary responsibilities get tired and abandon. Long-term institutional support from municipalities and other public actors proves crucial for these projects' sustainability. This support means both shifting materials/assets into common ownership and promoting an ethics of sharing, but also implementing more pro-citizen, socially just approach to urban development and the decisions around it.

==Transformative potential==

There is indeed a growing expectation that bottom-up and citizen-led common-based projects will challenge dominant institutions that reproduce power structures and prioritise profit-based values while not accounting for environmental and social externalities. It is seen that at city level, as urban governments work more closely together in domains like renewable energy and urban economy, and as the most progressive of those governments build synergies between public and common domains, socio-ecological transformation through citizen-led and -owned initiatives becomes possible.

As SHARECITY (2015-2020) project <ref>https://sharecity.ie/</ref> observes, for example, sharing is increasingly being identified as a transformative mechanism towards sustainable cities as it can help reduce consumption, conserve resources, prevent waste and provide new forms of socio-economic relations. This can pose challenges to dominant institutions and powerful interests which depend on ever-increasing production and consumption patterns, that is, of the growth of the formal economy. Research has shown that configurations of community-based initiatives such as cooperatives and commons-based projects do provide a fertile ground for productive transformations, as long as they constructively deal with the contradictions and challenges that they face, and thus allowing for more resilient strategies and structures to emerge <ref>Sekulova, F. et al. (2017) ‘A ‘fertile soil’ for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical framework’, Environment and Planning A. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 49(10), pp. 2362–2382.</ref>. But research has also shown that inequality can be reproduced within micro-level interactions in sharing economies <ref>Schor, J. B. et al. (2016) ‘Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy’, Poetics. Elsevier, 54, pp. 66–81.</ref>. Not all sharing initiatives are challenging socio-economic power relations, even as they do contribute to new forms of thinking and doing with regards to sharing. This reflects the tension on what type of transformations are sought, and towards what direction.

==Illustrations==

* In Colombes, Paris (France), a pilot implementation of ideas that stemmed from the R-URBAN project <ref>http://r-urban.net/en/</ref> and is called Agrocité <ref>http://r-urban.net/blog/projects/agrocite/</ref>, aims at initiating locally closed ecological cycles that will support the emergence of alternative models of living, producing and consuming between the urban and the rural. Since 2012, a “bottom up strategy of resilient regeneration” started including a micro-farm for collective use, a mini recycling plant and cooperative eco-housing and, currently, 400 citizens are co-managing the project following also sustainability principles of reduced water use and reducing waste.

* At transnational level, the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)<ref>https://www.ica.coop/en/about-us/international-cooperative-alliance</ref> is a a non-governmental co-operative federation or, more precisely, a co-operative union representing 313 co-operative federations and organisations in 109 countries (see also the Case Study Report, by TRANSIT project <ref>Picabea, F., Kunze, I., Bidinost, A., Phillip, A. and Becerra, L (coord.) (2015) Case Study Report: Cooperative Housing. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.Available at: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf</ref>.

* In Finland, the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Recycling Centre <ref>https://www.kierratyskeskus.fi/in_english</ref> is an example of a community-based initiative that assists in the recycling and recirculation of things that people donate, offering a sustainable and affordable way of purchasing furniture, clothes and bicycles, amongst many other goods. The initiative grew from a small grass-root activity to an influential actor in the recycling and re-using business. In 2014, they recirculated over 3 million items in their five shops (see also PATHWAYS project<ref>https://www.path-ways.eu/</ref>).

==References==

<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: INCONTEXT]]
[[Category: SomEnergia]]
[[Category: SHARECITY]]

Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons

2019-11-21T07:21:22Z

Lin:

Sharing in the context of urban sustainability and justice refers to a shift in the paradigm of individualistic or exclusive practices, which modern urbanism and urban lifestyle have assumed with regard to certain resources and services. Cooperatives are jointly-owned and horizontally/democratically governed enterprises, and can include consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or shared/hybrid cooperatives where ownership is shared between consumers, workers, and other stakeholders like non-profits. The concept of the commons represents a form of collective but decentralised control over resources, or forms of wealth, which (should) belong to all and must be actively protected and managed in a collective manner, for the collective good. Sharing is a central aspect of commoning practices, while commons governance often takes the form of cooperatives.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

During the last decade, a number of efforts have focused on gathering information about the sharing economy, sharing initiatives and innovations that enable sharing <ref>Schor J (2016) Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4(3). Addleton Academic Publishers: 7–22.</ref>. Examples of what is identified on the ground as sharing initiatives in urban contexts include co-working, co-living and co-housing -which can be more focused on sharing space than resources and services-, cooperatives, community-led management, co-finance and food sharing, among others. Food sharing, for example, is a very prominent example of how resources can be optimised in order to strengthen social relations, while also securing food for the most vulnerable, and avoiding food waste. Sharing practices, especially when referring to the long-term sharing of a resource, can become synonymous of commons-based projects and/or cooperatives, in the sense that what is shared is managed by those who share it. However, this is not necessarily the case, as sharing can be to a large extent governed by external rules and formal institutions. For example, food can be shared between those businesses or households that have it in excess, and those organisations or groups that are in demand. This can be regularised by rules on quality, means of transport, and sanitary checks. However, food sharing can also mean the cultivation of food in a community garden and the distribution of the produce among participants in an informal manner. While one is a facilitated offer that does not necessitate social interaction between the two parties, the second is an example of a commons governance. With urban sustainability in mind, the idea of cooperatives and commons has been very much applied to the local production/distribution of “clean” energy, services such as bicycle-repairing, but also community gardens, social centers, and other public or private spaces which are reclaimed by citizen groups, reconfiguring their use, transforming and maintaining them. Cooperatives are often integrated or themselves constitute forms of urban commons. Whereas in cooperatives the purpose and different roles within the “enterprise” are usually well-defined, in other forms of urban commons these are not always as clear.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

‘Sharing cities’ is an idea and an approach of how cities can battle against some of their main challenges (e.g. poverty, health issues, housing needs, lack of space, lack of available land etc.), through the actions and networks of citizens and supported by committed city governments. The Sharing Cities network emerged in 2013 from a non-profit organisation based in San Fransisco (Shareable <ref> https://www.shareable.net/about/</ref>) which set out to be a news, action and connection hub for cities and urban issues. Now, the ‘Sharing City Network’ comprises local communities and group of activists in more than 50 cities, who engage in a cooperative process by organizing sharing projects. The Network thus acts at multi-territorial and transnational level to collect information and promote sharing. They have brought together a collection of over a hundred sharing-related case studies and model policies from more than 80 cities in 35 countries <ref>Sharing Cities. Activating the Urban Commons. Available for download here: https://www.sharingcities.net/</ref>, which covers examples of housing (e.g. cooperative Housing, short-term rental, open-source design), food (surplus food redistribution, community gardens, farmers markets), work (e.g. FabLabs, cooperative ownership, community wealth, maker-spaces, social entrepreneur networks), waste (citizen compost initiative, repair café, worker-owned recycling cooperative) and more. This shows the breadth of implementations that the sharing idea can have in cities, and the connection with cooperatives and commons projects.

A strong component of what we observed as urban sustainability-oriented cooperatives are those dedicated to, or include, the local production and consumption of clean(er) energy (see Rescoop <ref>https://www.rescoop.eu/</ref> for a collection of identified such projects, geographically referenced). One example stemming from the results of the INCONTEXT (2010-2013) project <ref>https://incontext-fp7.eu/</ref> is the Emission-Zero initiative in Les Vents d'Houyet <ref>http://www.vents-houyet.be/</ref>, Belgium. After its initial phase of experimenting with raising awareness and spreading information on renewable energy, now it is focused on raising capital for and volumes of renewable energy. The cooperative connects about 1000 cooperators and 10 000 affiliated members (2011). It built seven wind turbines that are now jointly owned (and democratically managed) by the cooperative.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The idea of cooperativism, sharing, and common management of resources is not new. However, it has been intensely rediscovered in modern cities of today, due to increasing pressures that urban citizens experience on the physical environment (pollution, lack of green space, lack of healthy food), their livelihoods (non-affordable housing, precarious employment) and their political recognition and participation (lack of public space, mistrust in governmental institutions). As a response, urban commons, sharing and cooperatives are seen to operate mostly at the level of cities (but also in the digital sphere) as urban densities provide an adequate ground for sharing/commoning to be taken on board, both as viable alternatives or solutions to pressing problems related to lack of resources (including land, space, housing, food but also knowledge and expertise) and because population dynamics help these initiatives to build momentum. Recently, the rise of such initiatives in cities such as Barcelona or Ghent, has called for a more translocal vision (see Commons Transition Plan for Ghent<ref>http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-plan-city-ghent/</ref>, and the Electoral Program of Barcelona En Comu <ref>https://barcelonaencomu.cat/ca/programa-2019</ref>). Moreover, many such initiatives (like consumer coops, urban agriculture initiatives), combine the use of both urban and rural territories and their interaction, in a way also helping in reconceptualising the relations and dependencies between urban-rural areas in metabolic, social and environmental terms.

(Re)claiming urban commons from solely profit-seeking actors and/or central institutions governed by distant and rigid bureaucracies that operate in increasingly neoliberal fashion, is part of reclaiming justice in the city. Through sharing, commoning and cooperativism, resources and participation in governance can become more widely accessible and possible. Most sharing food initiatives, such as community gardens, collaborative cooking and eating in community kitchens, surplus food sharing initiatives, can indeed address distributive justice by enabling socially vulnerable people to access healthy food.However, initiatives also face contradictions and challenges with regard to justice, as they are embedded in historical patterns of exclusion and discrimination, and current neoliberal rationalities. Some, for example, assume the withdrawal of the state from certain domains and take on individual responsibilities for aspects that should be of common and public concern. In the case of Gela (‘GEmeinsam LAndwirtschaften’)<ref>https://www.gaertnerhof-staudenmueller.de/gela-familien/</ref>, the arrangement between consumer groups and organic farm producers ensures security of income for the farmers and healthy food for urban citizens. However, if both those aspects are not supported by more universal public policy, these benefits might only accrue to those who can afford to invest and be part of such initiatives. Similarly, in the example of co-working, while sharing the cost of a larger space might be enabling for small enterprises, individual artists, or craftspeople to advance their work, circumventing high rentals in city centers, the type of business promoted and the inclusivity of some such spaces varies to a great extent. The Impact Hub [https://impacthub.net], for example, is a network of 16.000 social entrepreneurs around the world, who all have very different visions, products and services, and thus very different relations to issues of inequality, ecology and justice.

Socio-environmental sustainability is not necessarily central to the goals of commoning/cooperative projects, but sustainability issues have increasingly become a central preoccupation of citizens and movements, thus are being increasingly reflected also in such projects. The community-supported agriculture initiative studied under INCONTEXT project, for example, has a strong sustainability perspective as it promotes organic food of proximity, reducing the use of agrochemicals and avoiding embedded energy consumption (transportation). Many of the sharing initiatives directly address issues of sustainability, as they have to do with the reduction of waste (through recycling/repairing/reusing materials, avoiding food waste) or the production of renewable/cleaner energy (through cooperatives), or by optimising the use of space and resources (in co-housing or co-working arrangements). Moreover, in places of sharing and conviviality, it is also the case that ideas (often about sustainability) circulate faster and with more potential for innovation, which in turn can enable sustainable transformations. The idea of sharing can indeed link sustainability and justice as it can enable redistribution of scarce resources in innovative ways. However, when justice is not an explicit concern in the development of these projects, they do risk of becoming enclaves of privilege, where those with access can benefit from each other and from niche services/knowledge.

At the same time, environmentalists find that working directly with citizens brings more promising results than with upper-level governments. Many dedicated organizations and NGOs that work towards increasing the share of renewables in energy, for example, are now looking at cooperative or public ownership for renewable energy facilities as a way of reducing the increasing resistance to big wind turbine facilities. However, aspects of sustainability are envisioned and implemented at different scales and in different ways in cooperative/commons projects. SomEnergia<ref>https://www.somenergia.coop/</ref> is an energy cooperative in Barcelona, which not only aims to produce local renewable energy but also promotes a degrowth perspective to energy use so that overall energy consumption be reduced.

==Narrative of change==

Cooperatives and other common-based projects that practice sharing are addressing interwoven problems of unequal and insufficient access to resources, knowledge, and services that urban citizens deem valuable, if not necessary, for their well being. They also address environmental concerns at various scales (from global warming to environmental health issues) which have deep justice implications as they differentially impact urban populations. Whereas a lot of projects are struggling to “fill the gap” that formal institutions leave unaddressed (e.g. making use of derelict land, making viable and accessible the production/consumption of healthy and organic food), and thus achieving change by “taking things in their own hands”. However, an underlying premise in some cases under this approach is also that by fomenting and practicing equal participation, common management of resources and direct democratic control over processes, wider socio-cultural and systemic change will also be enabled and dominant institutions will be challenged.

A great challenge for coop/commons and, to certain extent, sharing projects is the ability to continue without burdening the community which sustains them. Many times, especially when projects do not constitute an important part of the participants’ livelihood, members that assume a lot of voluntary responsibilities get tired and abandon. Long-term institutional support from municipalities and other public actors proves crucial for these projects' sustainability. This support means both shifting materials/assets into common ownership and promoting an ethics of sharing, but also implementing more pro-citizen, socially just approach to urban development and the decisions around it.

==Transformative potential==

There is indeed a growing expectation that bottom-up and citizen-led common-based projects will challenge dominant institutions that reproduce power structures and prioritise profit-based values while not accounting for environmental and social externalities. It is seen that at city level, as urban governments work more closely together in domains like renewable energy and urban economy, and as the most progressive of those governments build synergies between public and common domains, socio-ecological transformation through citizen-led and -owned initiatives becomes possible.

As SHARECITY (2015-2020) project <ref>https://sharecity.ie/</ref> observes, for example, sharing is increasingly being identified as a transformative mechanism towards sustainable cities as it can help reduce consumption, conserve resources, prevent waste and provide new forms of socio-economic relations. This can pose challenges to dominant institutions and powerful interests which depend on ever-increasing production and consumption patterns, that is, of the growth of the formal economy. Research has shown that configurations of community-based initiatives such as cooperatives and commons-based projects do provide a fertile ground for productive transformations, as long as they constructively deal with the contradictions and challenges that they face, and thus allowing for more resilient strategies and structures to emerge <ref>Sekulova, F. et al. (2017) ‘A ‘fertile soil’ for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical framework’, Environment and Planning A. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 49(10), pp. 2362–2382.</ref>. But research has also shown that inequality can be reproduced within micro-level interactions in sharing economies <ref>Schor, J. B. et al. (2016) ‘Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy’, Poetics. Elsevier, 54, pp. 66–81.</ref>. Not all sharing initiatives are challenging socio-economic power relations, even as they do contribute to new forms of thinking and doing with regards to sharing. This reflects the tension on what type of transformations are sought, and towards what direction.

==Illustrations==

* In Colombes, Paris (France), a pilot implementation of ideas that stemmed from the R-URBAN project <ref>http://r-urban.net/en/</ref> and is called Agrocité <ref>http://r-urban.net/blog/projects/agrocite/</ref>, aims at initiating locally closed ecological cycles that will support the emergence of alternative models of living, producing and consuming between the urban and the rural. Since 2012, a “bottom up strategy of resilient regeneration” started including a micro-farm for collective use, a mini recycling plant and cooperative eco-housing and, currently, 400 citizens are co-managing the project following also sustainability principles of reduced water use and reducing waste.

* At transnational level, the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)<ref>https://www.ica.coop/en/about-us/international-cooperative-alliance</ref> is a a non-governmental co-operative federation or, more precisely, a co-operative union representing 313 co-operative federations and organisations in 109 countries (see also the Case Study Report, by TRANSIT project <ref>Picabea, F., Kunze, I., Bidinost, A., Phillip, A. and Becerra, L (coord.) (2015) Case Study Report: Cooperative Housing. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.Available at: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf</ref>.

* In Finland, the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Recycling Centre <ref>https://www.kierratyskeskus.fi/in_english</ref> is an example of a community-based initiative that assists in the recycling and recirculation of things that people donate, offering a sustainable and affordable way of purchasing furniture, clothes and bicycles, amongst many other goods. The initiative grew from a small grass-root activity to an influential actor in the recycling and re-using business. In 2014, they recirculated over 3 million items in their five shops (see also PATHWAYS project<ref>https://www.path-ways.eu/</ref>).

==References==

<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: Sustainable food supply chain]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Sustainable food supply chains

2019-11-21T07:18:21Z

Lin:

Socio-environmental research and policy-making regarding sustainable food supply chains is essential in the creation of sustainable and just cities.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Research and policy on sustainable food supply chains can focus on the environmental benefits of short food supply chains (SFSCs), the central role of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in creating sustainable urban food supply chains, and the various policy levels at which this topic needs to be addressed (bottom-up and top down). The particular approaches discussed in this overview aim to develop research based policy recommendations, with emphasis on knowledge brokerage and assessment tools. Relevant actors involved include SMEs, researchers, civil society and policymakers. The FOODMETERES case study of the Milan region e.g. contained a food-chain analysis and knowledge sharing opportunities regarding milk, rice, fruit and vegetable supply chains around Milan. Workshops were conducted for exchange and best practices. The region has an agricultural park and is located in a fertile area and therefore direct farm-customer sales are prominent. The food chain analysis looked at the strengths and weaknesses of the food system, the relationship between agriculture and urban development pressure, the impact of the agricultural park on food supply, and identified new growth strategies for the system.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

'''Food-Chain Analysis with a focus on SMEs''', e.g. in the FOODMETRES project (2012-2015): <ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105259/reporting/en </ref> Studies and offers a set of tools (various assessments, innovation storyline, and knowledge brokerage tools) to help diversify agriculture and shorten food supply chains in urban areas. Tools are targeted at bottom-up and top-down (e.g. European data driven) processes of change to bridge international and local dimensions. SMEs are specifically targeted in the analysis, since they are active in metropolitan food chains.

'''Short food supply chains''', e.g. in the FOODLINKS project (2011-2013):<ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/97103/reporting/en </ref> Aims to create SFSCs between urban areas and food producers due to their social and environmental benefits. „Short” refers to both physical and social distance. Social distance refers to the opportunity for the producer and the consumer to interact and share information. There are no or very few intermediaries in SFSCs. Physical distance covers the distance a product has travelled between points of production and sale. While the approaches Short food supply chains and Sustainable food provision have much in common, e.g. a multi-stakeholder focus, SFSCs have less of a focus on environmental benefits than Sustainable food provision.

'''Urban Food Strategy''', e.g. in the SUPURBFOOD project (2012-2015)<ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105008/reporting/en </ref>: Along with housing, food remains one of the most important commodities to ensure social security. An Urban Food Strategy (UFS) connects different stakeholders (civil society, local producers, policy-makers etc.) to engage in the several stages of the food system and provides fair food access to consumers as well as fair compensation to local producers.

It is difficult to ascertain the development stage and level of maturity of these approaches. Concern over urban food supply chains is not new, however, until the late 90s, food systems hadn’t been considered in urban policies (Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999)<ref> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007558805953 </ref>. According to literature, the topics of cities and food appear to have been connected around the 2000s, but until 2017 there remained a lack of an (urban) food systems approach in EU food policy. Although the supposed benefits of applying SFSCs and food chain analysis is known, the overall success of the approach application is unclear. One can assume, based on the high prevalence of new urban food policies (in Europe and NA) since the 2000s, that the approaches have been successful. One limitation may be that the supply-focus largely ignores consumer demand and behaviour, and therefore an important determinant of the urban market for food. However, use of demand-supply models mitigates this. Regarding transferability, any context-specific recommendations for food supply chains will not be transferable. Each urban area has a unique food production/consumption context, especially concerning the role of SMEs and agricultural conditions. But the analysis tools and general concepts are transferable.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

'''Urban'''. The approaches are all focused on the urban food system and its relationship with nearby agricultural production sites.

'''Sustainability'''. Approaches are concerned highly with environmental sustainability, since SFSCs, for example, reduce distance travelled for food, mineral recycling, water use, multifunctional land use etc.

'''Justice'''. Food supply chain approaches pay attention to procedural justice in applying a multi-stakeholder, participatory method of analysing and innovating urban food supply chains. There is a focus on social cohesion, too, via new methods of food production (i.e. urban gardens), and food security is a focus of urban food management (this is a type of recognition justice regarding food needs of vulnerable groups). However, many of the case studies from projects were focused on good, healthy, local food provision, rather than reducing food injustices (especially distributional justice of these local/good products).

'''Linking sustainability and justice'''. The approaches per se link environmental sustainability and justice. They make the connection between food security for urban residents and local, affordable, sustainable food production. However, the approaches reviewed here are mostly biased towards environmental sustainability, and the outcomes may actually not improve fairness in food access. For example, SFSCs have the potential to address environmental and justice concerns, but it is possible that SFSC policies only address concerns over distance travelled by food, and not socioeconomic access to that food. The Urban Food Strategy, on the other hand, explicitly seeks to achieve social security through food production and consumption.

==Narrative of change==

Striving towards sustainable food supply chains addresses a variety of problems: the environmental impacts of food production and transportation, the marginalization of small-scale farmers, inequalities in access to affordable, healthy food, and the longer-term resilience of food chains in the face of natural resource depletion, climate change and global population growth. Studying food supply chains and implementing policies will reconnect urban residents to their food through local production/distribution, which also empowers SMEs/farmers/marginalized groups and promotes environmental sustainability.

==Transformative potential==

The realization of sustainable food supply chains has high transformative potential because it challenges power relations within global and urban food systems. It addresses the food system as a whole and problematizes the power relations between large food retailers, the globalized food trade, and citizens. It empowers local, small scale, and often organic, farmers. It also aims to address the inequity in access to good, sustainable, local food which is based on affordability and general accessibility. However, if justice considerations are sidelined and only the “local” and “ecological” aspects are considered, the approaches risk reinforcing this inequity in accessibility to good food. This could happen, for example, if the prices of local food remained high, or if local food grocery stores/farmers markets were found in affluent neighbourhoods only. There may be an inequity of information too, in which affluent groups are more aware and connected with SFSC initiatives.

==Illustration of approach==

An example of SFSC in practice is '''direct food sales Brin d’Herbe in Rennes''', France, as presented in the FOODLINKS project: “Brin d’Herbe is a group of 20 farmers near Rennes, France, who have been selling farmhouse and organic products in two stores on the outskirts of Rennes for twenty years. The main products are meat (60 percent of the turnover), fruit & vegetables, bakery and dairy products, cheeses, eggs, honey, and cider. They have about 1000 customers per week. The shop opens three days a week. The turnover is 1.5 million Euros per year. <ref> http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/foodlinks-good-examples/short-food-supply-chains/foodlinks-grass-blade.html</ref> To run the shop, farmers are organized in a specific form of association that allows them to maintain their identity and operational autonomy vis a vis consumers, and at the same time to define a common space of coordination. This aspect is also a regulatory requirement, as in this way the shop can be classified as a „direct selling“ activity. The legal status of the organisation is a "GIE = Groupement d'Interet Economique" (economic interest group). In addition, Brin d'Herbe runs a cooperation with limited liability, which enables them to carry out retail activities.” Additionally, funding for the initiative was claimed to benefit from a “favourable tax regime”.

Successful cases of Urban Food Strategies in practice come from '''Bristol (UK) and Malmö (Sweden)'''. In Bristol the UFS was mainly pushed by an active civil society which led to the creation of Bristol’s Food Policy Council, which supports urban food growing networks and its people involved (see: Bristol Food Network). In Malmö, the implementation of the UFS was mainly led by Malmö municipality which set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through food procurement, by replacing meat with lentils and pulse and by aiming to only serve organic food by 2020 (see: [https://malmo.se/download/18.d8bc6b31373089f7d9800018573/Foodpolicy_Malmo.pdf/ Policy for sustainable development and food, the City of Malmö]).

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sustainable food supply chains]]
[[Category: Social food movements]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: (Impact) evaluation and assessment framework]]
[[Category: FOODLINKS]]
[[Category: FOODMETRES]]
[[Category: SUPURBFOOD]]

Sustainable households

2019-11-21T07:13:12Z

Lin:

Increased fossil fuel use is a major cause of global warming, leading to Climate Breakdown<ref>George Monbiot, Sep 2013, Guardian UK: Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-global-warming</ref>. With much energy being used to heat or cool poorly designed or insulated buildings, this approach examines initiatives seeking to improve energy efficiency, namely the energy performance of building as a means of lowering carbon emissions to create carbon-neutral habitats, communities and cities<ref>Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance https://carbonneutralcities.org/about/</ref>. It also examines supply of renewable energy as a means to mitigate climate change, provide access to affordable clean energy and create job opportunities.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Sustainable households looks into technical interventions in small to medium-sized cities and household level so that they become technologically smarter, more energy efficient and/or reduce energy vulnerability, and increase renewable energy supply. Although the focus is on technological interventions, most approaches consider how to involve and engage relevant citizens and communities in the process. The approaches range from analysis of case-studies to planning, implementation and evaluation of interventions aimed at reducing energy demand and/or increasing renewable energy supply (e.g. thermal retrofitting of households, renewable energy production and use, job training, smart-meters, ICT-enabled urban management system).

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

The approaches included in this cluster range from exploring low-carbon pathways and benefits of interventions at a household and community level mostly in the EU and US, such as through retrofitting buildings and creating solar projects and jobs, to making concepts like “Smart Zero Carbon Cities” a reality in Europe based on an integrated approach for mobility, energy and ICT infrastructure.

Scalability of the impact seems to be an issue of concern. The SmartEnCity project aims to improve energy efficiency and increase renewable energy supply at a systemic level. As such, the strategies and actions developed in the pilot cities (e.g. retrofitting packages at a neighbourhood level, biomass district heating system, smart street light control system; technical consultations and community meetings) have been designed so that the process can be replicated in other cities. It also strives to work in a networked way, whereby they created a network of further cities to share experiences, knowledge, challenges and best practices gained through the approaches to support project replication at an European scale.

The relationship between low-carbon transitions and energy-related vulnerability and inequalities at the household or community level is also a major focus-area. To this effect, GRID Alternatives saw a need and opportunity after the 2001 energy crisis in California (USA) to serve low-income communities in the country with solar power. They have been since implementing projects that make solar technology practical and accessible for low-income communities, while providing pathways to clean energy jobs, with a “people-first” approach, where families, housing providers, utility companies, municipalities and government agencies all win from investments in solar energy. Examples of projects are no-cost solar installations for low-income households, technical assistance and solar installation for multifamily affordable housing providers, energy access for off-grid communities.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

All approaches focus on urban interventions, from individual household level through community and neighborhood/district level. Some approaches are being implemented in different pilot cities. Aspects of distributional justice are addressed when it comes to prioritizing low-income communities (like making solar energy accessible and affordable to these communities, or retrofitting buildings in vulnerable neighborhoods). Some of the smart zero carbon solutions are also taking into account procedural justice, given their are developed in co-creation with the communities they target but also with city planners and developers.

An emergent justice concern about urban environmental improvements is that these tend to increase quality of life and property values – especially as urban environmental consciousness grows. The consequence of such improvements is that they price out vulnerable residents and drawing in new and wealthier residents, a phenomena called green gentrification i.e. the exclusion of the most economically vulnerable human population from affording sustainable households and accessing green spaces<ref>BCNUEJ - Barcelona Laboratory for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability, published studies on green gentrification http://www.bcnuej.org/green-gentrification/</ref>.

==Narrative of change==

Climate change is one of the most important challenges that our society is facing. Energy demand and CO2 emissions are particularly high in urban areas. How can cities turn climate-related challenges into an opportunity and create growth? How to achieve the transition of municipalities into sustainable and resource-efficient urban areas? In particular how can low-carbon transitions drive economic growth and environmental benefits in communities most impacted by underemployment, pollution and climate change?

Cities allow for more alternatives in energy-efficient housing, eco-friendly transport and energy service provision. Transforming European cities into sustainable, smart and resource-efficient urban environments needs systems-level and replicable strategies aimed at improving energy efficiency and increasing the supply of renewable energy. A successful transition to a low-carbon society through clean, renewable energy also needs to include everyone, making this energy accessible to underserved communities.

==Transformative potential==

The approaches linked to solar power and jobs by GRID-Alternatives make an explicit commitment to equity and in particular to give voice to specific communities. Their premise is that low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately bear the burden of environmental injustice and climate change. As such, their focus is to provide opportunities stemming from solar energy to the communities most impacted by these issues as a key to creating equitable and lasting solutions.

Another voice that is intentionally picked-up is that of the many small and medium-sized cities in Europe, in comparison to the capital cities “which are usually in the spotlight” as defined in the SmartENCity project. The project is weaving a network of cities to share learnings and best practices from the approaches while incentivizing non-capital cities to become a Smart Zero Carbon City front runner. It also does so based on an integrated action oriented approach that supports strong citizen participation.

==Summary of relevant approaches==

'''SmartEnCity in Tartu, Estonia – Retrofitting "khrushchyovkas" into “Smartkovskas”'''<ref>SmartEnCity: Tartu retrofitting package https://smartencity.eu/about/solutions/tartu-retrofitting-package/</ref>

Tartu, in Estonia, is one the lighthouse cities for the SmartEnCity project. One of the lighthouse projects is piloting a series of retrofitting solutions in ca. 22 khrushchyovkas in the city center. The objective is to transform khrushchyovkas (a type of panel buildings that were constructed during Nikita Khruschchev´s rule starting from the 1950s) into “smartovkas” (i.e. high-quality living environments that inspire the community to make environmentally aware decisions and to change their patterns of consumption behavior) through a drastic reduction in the energy use of the buildings. With an average life cycle of 30-40 years, many of the khrushchyovkas have already outlived their time, meaning that the shortcomings in quality are becoming increasingly evident and might even pose a threat to their residents.

Technical interventions include insulation of all the outer walls of the buildings and roofs, replacing all windows and front doors to reduce heat loss, reconstructing the central heating system and installing thermostatic valves that allow to adjust room temperature in the range of 18-23°C, adding low-temperature cooling systems to complement the district heating system, installing 400-500 kWp PV panels to provide additional energy for the buildings, and setting up a smart home system.

Another of the main aims of the retrofitting activities is to encourage behavioral changes in the way residents consume energy and adapt to new technologies. Several citizen engagement solutions have been taken for boosting participation and interest in the project. These include regular information meetings, technical consultations, study trips to similar construction sites and forum discussions. Once the retrofitting activities have been completed, these awareness-raising actions will be replaced by a social innovation model that focuses on how to motivate residents to use the installed smart devices and to save energy.

The planned retrofitting package tackles one of the greatest challenges of Europe’s existing building stock – quickly deteriorating precast panel apartment buildings that were quickly produced in response to housing shortages.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sustainable households]]
[[Category: Energy and Mobility solutions]]
[[Category: SmartEnCity]]
[[Category: GRID Alternatives]]
[[Category: TRANSFAIR]]

Transition towns

2019-11-21T07:11:07Z

Lin:

Transition Towns refer to community-based initiatives that work towards local resilience in response to peak oil, climate change and the economic crisis. These Transition Town initiatives are part of the Transition Network, a network of 1000+ community initiatives across the world, which refers to itself as “a movement of communities coming together to reimagine and rebuild our world”.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
Transition Town initiatives provide spaces for experimentation where citizens can build community resilience and pioneer alternative economic and social solutions. This includes the (re)discovery of (new combinations of) old and new skills and services to increase socio-ecological and socio-economic independence, and experimenting with permaculture design principles for urban farming and local food production, cooperative production of renewable energy, time banks and other complementary currencies [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912004259 Seyfang & Longhurst 2013].

The [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/ TRANSIT research project] includes a number of [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transition-towns case-studies on transition initiatives and the Transition Network] as manifestations of social innovation in the sense that they explicitly engage with changing social relations, involving new ways of doing, thinking and organising. In research project [http://www.tess-transition.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/TESS-booklet_-Community-Climate-Action-across-Europe.pdf TESS] the Transition Black Isle (Scotland) was one of the case studies. Transition Town Halle was studied as a [http://glamurs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WP5_Deliverable_5.6.pdf case study in the GLAMURS project] and supported by the BASE project the cases of Transition Town Initiatives in [http://www.transitionresearchnetwork.org/uploads/1/2/7/3/12737251/2.3_transition_in_bristol.pdf Bristol] (UK) and [http://www.transitionresearchnetwork.org/uploads/1/2/7/3/12737251/2.1_transition_in_peterborough.pdf Peterborough] (Canada) were described.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
The Transition Network originated around 2006 in the United Kingdom (UK) and has since rapidly spread across the world. [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/155%20TSI%20Narrative_Transition%20Movement_Upload.pdf Longhurst (2015)] indicates that in 2014 the growth of the movement led to the proliferation of 1120 transition initiatives in 43 countries (see also [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013002197?via%3Dihub Feola and Nunes 2014]) .

There have been many empirical studies on the Transition Network and local initiatives, ranging from urban studies and critical geography to research fields focused on degrowth and sustainability transitions (e.g. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00868.x Mason, K. and Whitehead, M. 2012], [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718509001092?via%3Dihub Bailey et al. 2010], [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ad.1432 Hopkins 2012], [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c10222 Seyfang & Haxeltine 2012]).

Transition Town Totnes (TTT) in the UK is the first and longest running Transition Initiative, which was launched in September 2006. It is also the location of the Transition Network who share an office building with the local Totnes initiative. TTT describes itself as “a community-led and run local charity that exists to strengthen the local economy, reduce our environmental impact, and build our resilience for a future with less cheap energy and a changing climate, (...) a collection of local volunteers with a small staff team, who come together to work on projects” <ref>https://www.transitiontowntotnes.org/ </ref>. Their work “ranges from increasing low impact affordable housing, sharing skills, creating livelihoods, reducing energy costs and carbon emissions, growing our local food economy and working in partnership with other local projects” <ref> https://www.transitiontowntotnes.org/</ref>.

[https://1192budapest.wixsite.com/atalakulowekerle/about-transition-wekerle Transition Wekerle], launched in 2008 (re-named in 2011), was the first official Transition initiative in Hungary, and helped develop the [https://kozossegek.atalakulo.hu/transition-communities-hungary Hungarian Transition Hub]. According to its own website, Transition Wekerle “relies heavily on the cooperation of individuals, local NGOs and local institutions” and “focuses on local food, local energy and local economy in order to lighten our eco-footprint, promote active citizenship, new ways of cooperation and solidarity”. Their initiative ranges from “improving the energy efficiency of old homes through insulation, collecting fruit and vegetable donations at the local market for poverty-stricken families and promoting urban gardening by organising seed-swap events” <ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/blog/a-her-story-of-transition-wekerle-an-experience-of-local-community-activism-in-hungary </ref>.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
The approach of the Transition Network is explicitly designed to be applicable anywhere, including the urban context. In fact, one of the interesting things about the Transition Network is that it enables people to experiment with approaches and solutions that may originally have been associated with rural areas (e.g. permaculture, organic agriculture, renewable energy, ecovillages) and do so in their urban neighbourhoods. As argued by [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0042098013480966 North & Longhurst 2013]: “the question of how the Transition model can be applied in urban settings has not been clear, leading to the implicit assumption that urban Transition initiatives are more complex and difficult. In contrast, [we argue that] the plasticity of Transition politics means that, in some cases, an urban context might be more productive for the development of Transition initiatives because it allows for a greater diversity of political action as well as providing a density of networks and resources that can be critical for the survival of grassroots interventions”.

The Transition Network explicitly aims to contribute to both social justice and ecological sustainability, although these are primarily framed in terms of resilience rather than sustainability. The first two principles that the Transition Network emphasizes on their website and in “The Essential Guide to Doing Transition”<ref> https://transitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-Essential-Guide-to-Doing-Transition-English-V1.2.pdf </ref> are formulated as follows:

We respect resource limits and create resilience – The urgent need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and make wise use of precious resources is at the forefront of everything we do.
We promote inclusivity and social justice – The most disadvantaged and powerless people in our societies are likely to be worst affected by rising fuel and food prices, resource shortages and extreme weather events. We want to increase the chances of all groups in society to live well, healthily and with sustainable livelihoods.

The striving for inclusivity is also reflected in sharing Transition initiatives and approaches in an explicitly accessible and open format and tone to enable everyone to “Getting Transition started in your street, community, town or organisation”.

==Narrative of change==
The narrative of the Transition Network has evolved over time, through three main iterations. The original approach, based on ‘The 12 Steps of Transition’ <ref> Hopkins, R., 2008. The Transition Handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience. Green Books, Totnes, Devon </ref> was replaced by a more open set of 43 ‘ingredients’ <ref> Hopkins, R., 2011. The Transition Companion: Making Your Community More Resilient in Uncertain Times. Chelsea Green Publishing </ref>, a more focused set of which featured in the most recent (2018) version of “The Essential Guide to Doing Transition” <ref> https://transitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-Essential-Guide-to-Doing-Transition-English-V1.2.pdf </ref>. These ingredients include:
Healthy groups: Learning how to work well together
Vision: Imagining the future you want to co-create
Involvement: Getting the wider community involved and developing relationships beyond friends and natural allies
Networks & partnerships: Collaborating with others
Practical projects: Inspiring others and building new infrastructures
Part of a movement: Scaling up your impacts by linking up with transitioners elsewhere:
Reflect & celebrate: Reflecting on how you're doing and celebrating the difference you're making

Underlying these ingredients are a number of principles <ref> https://transitionnetwork.org/about-the-movement/what-is-transition/principles-2/ </ref> and an outspoken emphasis on the necessity of finding a balance between “the head, the heart and the hands”. The narrative of the Transition Network is explicitly aiming to be “inspirational, positive and evolving” and places much emphasis on storytelling. As formulated on the website, “one of the key ways in which the approach has spread to “over 50 countries, in thousands of groups: in towns, villages, cities, Universities, schools (...) is through telling inspiring stories” <ref> https://transitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-Essential-Guide-to-Doing-Transition-English-V1.2.pdf </ref>.

Interestingly, the concept of Transition Towns was initially formulated as a response to the ‘game-changers’ of Peak Oil and Climate Change, focusing on a guiding metaphor of ‘energy descent’ (drastic reductions in levels of energy usage) to prepare communities for a future where fossil-based energy would be absent or prohibitively expensive. After the economic crisis of 2008, the movement explicitly adopted financial instability as a 'third driver', although the alternative economics of writers like David Fleming, Richard Douthwaite and E.F. Schumacher had been influential on Transition thinking from the start.

According to [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/155%20TSI%20Narrative_Transition%20Movement_Upload.pdf Longhurst 2015], the Transition approach is “underpinned by a theory of change that is based on community based activism stimulating wider systemic change towards a post-fossil fuel, high well being society. (...) Transition initiatives provide a supportive experimental space for citizens to work towards changing their systems at a local level. It is a positive and engaging process that is intended to encourage people to engage in areas where they are passionate about change and work towards the building of new localised systems of provision (e.g. energy, food). The theory of change is set out in a set of narratives about why a transition is required and how it should be undertaken. It is offered as a rational and necessary response to the threats of peak oil, climate change and the global economic crisis. It proposes a set of processes for organizing initiatives and projects. The model is innovative in the way that it
brings together various ideas and practices into a coherent model. It combines ideas from ecology, addiction studies, system thinking, permaculture, with techniques for participatory community organizing and engagement”<ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/155%20TSI%20Narrative_Transition%20Movement_Upload.pdf </ref>.

==Transformative potential==
From the [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/155%20TSI%20Narrative_Transition%20Movement_Upload.pdf TRANSIT case-study report summary]: “Assessing exactly how it contributes towards change is difficult to clearly establish if the various dimensions of change outlined above are taken into account. The extent to which it has influenced the beliefs and behaviour of the various actors who have been involved or engaged by Transition activities would need further, detailed empirical investigation. Furthermore, the way in which the model is implemented differently in different countries adds a further layer of complexity in terms of understanding the possible impact. Some broad observations can be made:
The growth of the movement has led to the proliferation of 1120 TIs in 43 countries (April 2014).
Locally created ‘experimental space’ has led to new kinds of innovation emerging.
Some projects have a tangible localised effect on their community.
The Transition narrative has diffused widely. It has contributed to the discourse around the necessity and nature of a Transition as well as being part of the wider anti-growth / anti-capitalist discourse.
The Transition model has contributed towards the argument that community based movements can contribute to social change, influencing government policy”.

One of the critiques towards the Transition Towns movement has been its focus on positive action and lack of overt resistance and protest towards existing structures, or in other words its “apolitical pragmatism that masks latent tensions” in the urban context (Mason & Whitehead 2011)<ref> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00868.x </ref> and its “insistence on inclusiveness and positive responses and consequent refusal to take positions in direct opposition to institutions or projects” (Connols & McDonalds 2010)<ref> https://academic.oup.com/cdj/article/46/4/558/361575 </ref>. On that basis one could argue that the transformative potential of the Transition Towns movements lies primarily in the (contributing) to supplementing and altering current power relations, rather than overtly challenging or replacing them. Several studies have described the danger of co-optation by established institutions and/or paradigms. The movement's internal narrative, centred on peak oil, is explicitly transformative, though the extent to which that translates into overt challenges to current power relations varies. See for example [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-10-4792-3_10 Alexander and Ruthford 2018]. On the other hand, one could argue that the grassroots community work of Transition Towns, also has the potential to challenge and replace current power relations by showing that alternative social relations are possible. As argued by [https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v16i2.1032 Lara Monticelli (2018)], movements like Transition Towns are focused on ‘prefiguring’ their future vision, i.e. “embody their ultimate goals and their vision of a future society through their ongoing social practices, social relations, decision-making philosophy and culture” and “not only opposing capitalism but also prefiguring post-capitalist societies. These movements are re-thinking and re-politicising conventional modes of production, consumption and living by defending, restoring and creating spaces of resistance and experimentation” (Monticelli 2018: 509-515)<ref> https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/1032</ref>.

==Illustrations==
Examples of Transition Town initiatives studied in the TRANSIT project:

Social Innovation Initiatives in the [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii Critical Turning Points-database]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/transition-towns-1 Omstilling Ry (Transition Ry – Denmark)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/transition-towns-3 Transition Norwich (UK)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/transition-towns-4 Transition Town Tooting (UK)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/transition-towns-2 Transition Bro Gwaun (UK)]

Social Innovation Initiatives studied in-depth
*[http://transitionnorwichnews.blogspot.com/ Transition Norwich (UK)]
*[http://transitiontowntooting.blogspot.com/ Transition Town Tooting (UK)]
*[https://transitionbrogwaun.org.uk/ Transition Bro Gwaun (UK)]

In research project TESS <ref> http://www.tess-transition.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/TESS-booklet_-Community-Climate-Action-across-Europe.pdf </ref>
*Transition Black Isle (Scotland)

In the GLAMURS project
*[http://glamurs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WP5_Deliverable_5.6.pdf Transition Town Halle ]

Supported by the BASE project a book on transition was written with the cases of
*Transition Town Initiative [http://www.transitionresearchnetwork.org/uploads/1/2/7/3/12737251/2.3_transition_in_bristol.pdf Bristol](UK)
*Transition Town Initiative [http://www.transitionresearchnetwork.org/uploads/1/2/7/3/12737251/2.1_transition_in_peterborough.pdf Peterborough] (Canada)

==References==
<references />

==Further reading ==
Link to other wiki: http://wiki.ecolise.eu/index.php?title=Transition_movement

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Transition towns]]
[[Category: Ecovillages]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: BASE]]
[[Category: TESS]]
[[Category: Transition wekerle]]

Right to housing

2019-11-21T07:06:12Z

Lin:

The right to housing indicates the right of all individuals to have access to adequate shelter.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
In accordance with the right to housing, everyone from vulnerable and poor urban citizens to wealthier classes, should be provided with access to housing. As Michalis Gouldis from Housing Europe put it “when comes to just and sustainable cities, housing is the first topic that needs to be addressed. To solve social exclusion first, you have to give people a roof, then you think about the rest. If you see it as a ladder, housing is the very first step!”. In Europe, the right to housing is granted by several international and european laws. The network [http://www.housingrightswatch.org/page/eu-housing-rights Housing Right Watch], categorizes these laws into three clusters: United Nations housing rights<ref> http://www.housingrightswatch.org/page/un-housing-rights </ref>, Council of Europe housing rights<ref> http://www.housingrightswatch.org/page/council-europe-housing-rights </ref> and EU housing rights <ref>http://www.housingrightswatch.org/page/eu-housing-rights </ref>. In addition, each European country has its national laws on housing <ref> http://www.housingrightswatch.org/content/country-info </ref>. The EU funded project [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102183/brief/en TENLAW], for instance, explored all the national laws per member state to inform citizens about their rights as tenants. If on the one hand housing can be provided through formal procedures (e.g. existing law enforcement), on the other hand there are multiple informal practices (e.g. squatting vacant spaces). There are numerous existing approaches where citizens, social movements and non-governmental organizations act to fill the gaps of an absent state which fails in ensuring right to housing.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Anti-gentrification toolkit ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/188216/brief/en AGAPE] 2014-2016): This approach responds to the increasing episodes of evictions, speculation and privatization on the urban European housing market. The anti-gentrification toolkit for policy makers and activists collects anti-eviction, anti-speculative, anti-privatization practices performed mainly in Southern European cities. For instance, tenants union lobbying has proved to be a successful practice in mitigating evictions. Similarly, social centers and housing movements have resisted displacement by squatting and re-claiming the right to use vacant urban spaces.

Tenancy and housing law ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102183/brief/en TENLAW] 2012-2015): In a number of cases around Europe national tenancy and housing law ensures citizens with housing rights. However, it often occurs that these laws are not enforced because of the inaccessible language or tenant’s lack of knowledge. The project TENLAW has developed an accessible brochure “My right as a tenant in EU” to inform citizens about their rights. Existing housing law is a legal and effective approach for citizens to see their right to housing respected. However, it might also be a limited one given that the legal system is not always a just one.

Household resilience ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/111253/brief/en RESCuE] 2014-2017): A large number of vulnerable households in Europe has proven to be successful in mitigating poverty through self-initiatives which replace the absence of government’s support. Networks such as family, friends, church and other religious associations, schools, urban gardening, foodbanks, cultural events (and the list is still long and can be viewed on [http://rescueproject.net/exhibition/ RESCuE online exhibition]) can strengthen household resilience against poverty. The project RESCuE was able to prove that housing is a fundamental aspect from which a great number of household resilience actions can be started or can take place.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
The right to housing addresses living conditions of vulnerable urban citizens which either have no access to housing or do not have access to adequate housing. As such, the right to housing has an inherent strong focus on social justice as all approaches’ goal is to provide vulnerable citizens with decent living standards, reducing the gap with wealthier classes who are able to fulfil all their needs. The underlying message is that social justice can be achieved through formal government interventions. When such interventions are lacking, governments risk to create socially unjust dynamics: lack of housing, lack of affordable-habitable-safe housing, gentrification, evictions and privatization of the public urban space.

Approaches aimed at granting the right to housing do not necessarily seek to achieve environmental sustainability as the end goal. Yet, sustainability proves to go hand in hand with the pursuit of social justice when comes to provide everyone with a home. In urban areas, for instance, speculation and privatization often occur with the development of new city districts which require extensive input of natural capital; whereas most housing movements (e.g. housing for all) advocate for the reuse (and when needed the renovation) of existing vacant spaces as a solution to allocate social vulnerable citizens. In this sense, there is no need for further natural resources input, but rather the desire to “recycle” existing vacant spaces or revisit the way in which existing housing is unjustly tenured on the free market.

Overall, approaches to achieve right to housing for all can be implemented sustainably or can directly promote sustainability. The end goal, however, remains achieving social justice.

==Narrative of change==
Housing is a basic need and everyone should have access to affordable, adequate and safe shelter. Homelessness is the most severe form of neglection of the right to housing. However, as Michalis Gouldin points out “nowadays professionals who cover fundamental roles in our urban centres, such as teachers and nurses, cannot afford to live in the cities where they work because of the high prices”. As the private market owes an increasing number of housing stocks, it becomes harder for public institutions to enforce the right to housing by, for instance, keep rent prices affordable. This also has an impact on social and public housing as co-operatives or local municipalities themselves struggle to create housing opportunities for vulnerable citizens because of the large dominance of real estate market on urban housing stock. Pilar Garrido, lectures in Constitutional and Autonomous Community Law at the UPV/EHU University of the Basque Country, talks about the need for a “change of paradigm” (Garrido, 2012) <ref> https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/127089-the-effective-exercising-of-the-right-to-housing-is-calling-for-a-new-relationship-between-ho/en </ref>. A new paradigm is needed where all individuals and families, with no descrimination, have access to affordable, habitable and safe housing and where they are protected from evictions.

==Transformative potential==
On a conceptual level, right to housing challenges the model of neoliberal economy which seeks to reduce government spending for public purposes (e.g. social and public housing) in favor of private sector interventions. The concept of "housing for all" is in inherent conflict with the ebbs and flows of a speculative neoliberal market. To challenge this, does not necessarily mean to abolish individuals’ and companies’ right to property, it rather puts pressure on public institutions to intervene and redefine the rules and boundaries under which the housing market operates.The increasing number of social movements demanding action in this direction indicates that the transformative potential of public institutions in very high (see for instance Berlin protests in April 2019 again rise in rent prices<ref> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47839821 </ref>).
Beside public institutions, there are many non-governmental actors which in a way or another try to grant vulnerable citizens the right housing. These are housing movements, churches, charity associations, unions, cooperatives, family and friend’s networks, and NGOs. These informal actors seek to provide housing based on a solidarity alternative view, which is opposing the dominant neoliberal and capitalist logic of providing housing services for profits. An example is the [https://moba.coop/ Moba cooperative], further explained in the next section.

==Illustration of approach==
'''Cooperatives'''

The nature of housing cooperatives varies greatly across Europe, for this reason one cannot easily generalize on the role and the work they do. An interesting network of housing cooperatives which shares with a similar model is the [https://moba.coop/ MOBA Housing Cooperative Network], spread across eastern and southern Europe. Their final goal is to make housing more affordable and accessible to less wealthier citizens. Their strength lies in holding responsibility for all processes regarding the properties (e.g. contract, payment, construction works...). As they explained, the model "is centered around a cooperative of inhabitants that collectively develops, finances, maintains and operates a multi-apartment building. Because it controls the entire trajectory (and does not need to make profit), the resulting apartments are much more affordable for the inhabitants”.<ref> https://moba.coop/ </ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Right to housing]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]]
[[Category: Reconceptualising urban justice and sustainability]]
[[Category: TENLAW]]
[[Category: MOBA Cooperative]]

Right to housing

2019-11-21T07:04:50Z

Lin:

Regeneration of disused urban land

2019-11-21T07:00:09Z

Lin:

A considerable percentage of land cover in most contemporary cities lies vacant or in deep neglect, often leading to social and economic problems. These areas are often brownfield sites or post-industrial areas, whose regeneration to improve urban biodiversity and provide additional ecosystem services<ref>Timon McPhearson: Vacant Land in Cities Could Provide Important Social and Ecological Benefits - Published in: The Nature Of Cities (August 2012) https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/08/21/vacant-land-in-cities-could-provide-important-social-and-ecological-benefits/</ref> can lead to a more ecologically sound built environment and improvement of amenities and contact with nature for local communities who have faced, at times, decades of social neglect and social fragmentation.

''This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.''

==General introduction to approach==
Regeneration of disused urban space focuses on sustainable, socially and economically beneficial, remediation and revitalization of disused urban spaces such as landfills and other brownfield sites. This remediation is done to create productive green infrastructure through: nature based solutions, co-creation, and sustainable business models (proGIreg) and a ‘Brownfield Navigator’ decision support tool (HOMBRE). All these measures follow the same aim: to make better social, economic, and environmental use of these spaces, but their methods are different (i.e. nature based solutions (NBS) vs a strategic decision-making tool). Both projects involve multiple stakeholders, including: local citizens, governments, businesses, NGOs and universities, urban planners.

ProGIreg<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/</ref> (Green Cities for Climate and Water Resilience, Sustainable Economic Growth, Healthy Citizens and Environments, 2018 - 2023) is exploring the use of Carbon-neutral methods to restore soil fertility and involves combining the poor quality soil with compost from organic waste and biotic compounds. At the heart of the HOMBRE<ref>http://www.zerobrownfields.eu/index.aspx</ref> (Holistic Management of Brownfield Regeneration, 2010 - 2014) project, for exmaple, was the ambition to create a paradigm shift towards a ‘Zero Brownfields’ approach, where Brownfields become areas of opportunity that deliver useful services for society, instead of derelict areas that are considered useless. In this context, new synergies between different types of services are brought into consideration, in order to leverage change. The “Zero Brownfields” perspective was an elaboration of a circular land management framework that was previously developed (by an earlier EU project; CircUse<ref>Cordis EU Project: CIRCUSE: Managing land use for the benefit of all https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/germany/circuse-managing-land-use-for-the-benefit-of-all</ref> -Managing land use for the benefit of all). This perspective promotes sustainable urban development by limiting the use of new green spaces and by reusing previously used or underused land. The territorial cooperation often involved means that different regions, in different countries, could pilot different aspects of sustainable land use, using an approach based on the motto: “avoid – recycle – compensate”.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Regeneration of disused urban spaces takes many forms, but brownfield development is central to the approach. Brownfield development is a process of regeneration for land that has become abandoned, derelict, or contaminated after its previous use (e.g. industry, unused large-scale unused transportation infrastructure). According to Grimski and Ferber (2001)<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228865814_Urban_brownfields_in_Europe Grimski and Ferber (2001)</ref>, in the 1980s, the UK, France and Germany were forerunners in initiatives for derelict land recycling programmes. These programmes aimed at reducing the use of greenfield sites, preserving architectural heritage, general urban renewal, employment creation and improved environmental quality. Structural (economic) policy remains dominant in brownfield remediation programmes, but ecological objectives are becoming more prominent. Other than brownfield regeneration, different NBS tools are used both within and in addition to brownfield regeneration. In general, NBS used in regeneration is a relatively developed/mature approach which has been studied and applied in widespread contexts. The term “NBS” has been used only since the 2000s. Meanwhile, brownfield remediation is also a mature practice, but the use of HOMBRE’s Brownfield Navigator tool may be still more experimental and not wide spread. The NBS for remediation are still being tested in proGIreg (project in progress), and the brownfield navigator seems to have gotten some degree of attention and use. The largest limitation, in general, is the large remediation costs that create a barrier to undertaking this approach. Remediation (decontamination and regeneration) is extremely costly, and the initial land value is usually very low. The level of transferability for this approach is high and applies to all urban areas with disused spaces, particularly post-industrial urban areas. Though high remediation cost requires a context which financially supports the approach. I.e. Renaturation of the post-industrial Ruhr region is extremely costly, and is financed by industry foundations and the government etc. And while the general approach is highly transferable, the specific regeneration solutions are strongly context-dependent.

ProGIreg is active since 2018 in urban areas that lack quality green spaces and suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. It is implementing 8 types of nature-based solutions (NBS) using the Living Labs approach developed with and by local communities in four front-runner cities. Their “New regenerated soil” approach is being tested in 2 cities; Turin, Italy and Ningbo, China. Local authorities in Turin have identified the need for additional arable soil for new green spaces and have decided to use the Sangone Park for producing and testing regenerated soil. This soil was ideal for urban forestry and the aim is to make the regenerated soil available for use in public green spaces throughout the city. In Ningbo sediments from the urban lake are being used as fertilizer for the regeneration of soil for an area of 20 hectares. HOMBRE developed the framework and strategy for circular land management into the HOMBRE Zero Brownfield Framework. This assessed various brownfield case studies of varying scales located in different parts of Europe. From their analysis, guidelines were developed and a technical tool created to assist stakeholders and cities: The Brownfield Navigator (BFN), an “interactive tool with alternatives and out-of-the-box solutions for regeneration sites is available to anybody working on regeneration plans”.<ref>Deltares: Site regeneration? The brownfield navigator is now available. https://www.deltares.nl/en/news/site-regeneration-brownfield-navigator-now-available/</ref> The brownfield case studies assessed included rural and urban areas with previous or ongoing industrial or mining uses(in Germany, Italy, UK, Poland and Romania)

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Regenerating of disused urban land can be done in purely urban contexts (e.g. post-industrial areas) or in brownfields that can transcend urban/rural boundaries. Whereas HOMBRE is concerned with all aspects of Brownfield sites and strategies to eliminate them in the future, ProGIreg is active in post-industrial urban areas suffering from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Whereas soil and land regeneration can benefit surrounding neighbourhoods by creating more, safer and more accessible green/blue areas, not all such projects have included questions of justice in their design. One way in which some projects (e.g. ProGIreg) have inserted justice in their objectives, is by selecting, disadvantaged areas to work in and by seeking to activate citizen involvement in regeneration of urban areas of varying scales through Co-design, involving all relevant stakeholders from the very start of the project and engaging them as equal co-creators.

Regarding sustainability and the remediating of brownfield sites that are contaminated/heavily damaged, outcomes may not necessarily be ecologically sustainable if the remediation is aimed at intensive human recreational use such as new housing developments or business parks. While tackling urban sprawl to ensure a more sustainable built environment, opportunities for new strategies now exist; encouraging urban gardening, community gardens and urban farming, areas for renewable energy generation (non-food biomass production), mitigation of heat island effects and the use of tree planting to improve urban air quality (filtering and retaining air particles and contaminants generated by traffic and industry) while also providing habitat for migrating birds and other species to increase biodiversity. The ProGIreg project works on soil regeneration, as one approach to sustainability, seeking to identify and improve areas in cities through NBS including: biodiversity, the carbon cycle, soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, citizen involvement, education and empowerment. Citizen science and active citizen participation also include sustainable education and nature appreciation. Regeneration of these spaces does not necessarily increase justice, since it depends on the intended use of the spaces afterwards. However, disused areas may be more frequently found in lower-income/less desirable areas and therefore their restoration could contribute to distributional justice (e.g. green space provision). Yet, very intensive biomass production could also involve burdens for rather poor residents locally, to the benefit of wealthy users or investors elsewhere. The process of regeneration may enhance procedural justice, like in the co-creation aspect of the proGIreg project.

==Narrative of change==
The approach cluster aims to make use of the potential social, environmental, and economic benefits of disused (toxic, damaged) land in urban areas. The process creates this change through co-creation between many stakeholders and smart tools and NBS that assess each situation in order to be effective and efficient in remediation efforts.

==Transformative potential==
Regeneration projects usually try to overcome power relations that may have blocked the usage of unused land after being dismissed. They usually do not interfere with the power relations that led to the damaging of the land in the first place. However, regeneration initiatives may help indirectly with problematizing the damaging practice and also challenge the way in which disused land is viewed. This may increase transparency and accountability in the relation between previous owners and users of the land with government regulators and future user groups. More likely, however, government-funded redevelopment may distract from responsibility for past damages. Since the impact of regeneration initiatives is confined to specific sites, (rather than the socio-economic system on a larger scale), we consider its transformative potential to be rather limited. While HOMBRE’s approach has a limited transformative potential, ProGIreg’s attempt to make urban transformation work with and for citizens indicates that a high transformative potential might be achieved. ProGIreg’s report<ref>ProGIreg Deliverable 2.3: Co-designing Nature-based Solutions in Living Labs, pages 25-28 http://www.progireg.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/D2.3_Report_on_WS_round_1_in_FRC_proGIreg_ICLEI_2019-04-30.pdf</ref> from the end of 2018 had a considerable amount of exploration into levels of citizen engagement and what full empowerment could mean.

==Illustration of approach==
An example of urban space regeneration is the regeneration of Dortmund<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/dortmund/</ref> , Germany’s industrial and landfill regions around the Emscher River (Huckarde district) using NBS (pollinator diversity, aquaponics, accessible green corridors, community urban farms and gardens, leisure activities and renewable energy projects).

This effort includes many actors working collaboratively, including: the City of Dortmund, RWTH Aachen University, Die Urbanisten (local NGO), ICLEI, a network of 7 other cities (involved in the proGIreg project), urban design companies, and other NGOs focused on social considerations of the new developments (to ensure they improve citizens’ quality of life). In this effort, living labs have been used to strive for community-led solutions. Regarding regeneration efforts in the Dortmund region as a whole, the Foundation for Industrial Heritage (which is financially supported by the RAG-Stiftung) and the Emschergenossenschaft are also heavily involved in regeneration of Dortmund’s disused urban spaces from its historical industrial use.
The regions’ regeneration activities have social equality considerations at their core. Therefore, there is a strong connection here between urban, sustainability, and justice in this case. All of the initiatives are in urban spaces, aimed at renaturating the contaminated sites, and making them accessible to the community in efforts to increase quality of life and social cohesion in a context of racial and economic tensions.
Regarding (limits to) transferability, this approach is enabled in the Dortmund case partly due to the financial support enabled by a governance system that holds industry responsible for regeneration (German law requires industrial firms to decontaminate and decommission their unused sites), and a strong network of different actors working towards the same goal. Another enabling contextual factor is the population density and need for urban green space and green infrastructure in the Ruhr region, which provides motivation for the regeneration.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Soil and land regeneration]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: ProGlreg]]
[[Category: HOMBRE]]
[[Category: CircUse]]

Regeneration of disused urban land

2019-11-21T06:55:30Z

Lin:

A considerable percentage of land cover in most contemporary cities lies vacant or in deep neglect, often leading to social and economic problems. These areas are often brownfield sites or post-industrial areas, whose regeneration to improve urban biodiversity and provide additional ecosystem services<ref>Timon McPhearson: Vacant Land in Cities Could Provide Important Social and Ecological Benefits - Published in: The Nature Of Cities (August 2012) https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/08/21/vacant-land-in-cities-could-provide-important-social-and-ecological-benefits/</ref> can lead to a more ecologically sound built environment and improvement of amenities and contact with nature for local communities who have faced, at times, decades of social neglect and social fragmentation.

''This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.''

==General introduction to approach==
Regeneration of disused urban space focuses on sustainable, socially and economically beneficial, remediation and revitalization of disused urban spaces such as landfills and other brownfield sites. This remediation is done to create productive green infrastructure through: nature based solutions, co-creation, and sustainable business models (proGIreg) and a ‘Brownfield Navigator’ decision support tool (HOMBRE). All these measures follow the same aim: to make better social, economic, and environmental use of these spaces, but their methods are different (i.e. nature based solutions (NBS) vs a strategic decision-making tool). Both projects involve multiple stakeholders, including: local citizens, governments, businesses, NGOs and universities, urban planners.

ProGIreg<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/</ref> (Green Cities for Climate and Water Resilience, Sustainable Economic Growth, Healthy Citizens and Environments, 2018 - 2023) is exploring the use of Carbon-neutral methods to restore soil fertility and involves combining the poor quality soil with compost from organic waste and biotic compounds. At the heart of the HOMBRE<ref>http://www.zerobrownfields.eu/index.aspx</ref> (Holistic Management of Brownfield Regeneration, 2010 - 2014) project, for exmaple, was the ambition to create a paradigm shift towards a ‘Zero Brownfields’ approach, where Brownfields become areas of opportunity that deliver useful services for society, instead of derelict areas that are considered useless. In this context, new synergies between different types of services are brought into consideration, in order to leverage change. The “Zero Brownfields” perspective was an elaboration of a circular land management framework that was previously developed (by an earlier EU project; CircUse<ref>Cordis EU Project: CIRCUSE: Managing land use for the benefit of all https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/germany/circuse-managing-land-use-for-the-benefit-of-all</ref> -Managing land use for the benefit of all). This perspective promotes sustainable urban development by limiting the use of new green spaces and by reusing previously used or underused land. The territorial cooperation often involved means that different regions, in different countries, could pilot different aspects of sustainable land use, using an approach based on the motto: “avoid – recycle – compensate”.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Regeneration of disused urban spaces takes many forms, but brownfield development is central to the approach. Brownfield development is a process of regeneration for land that has become abandoned, derelict, or contaminated after its previous use (e.g. industry, unused large-scale unused transportation infrastructure). According to Grimski and Ferber (2001)<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228865814_Urban_brownfields_in_Europe Grimski and Ferber (2001)</ref>, in the 1980s, the UK, France and Germany were forerunners in initiatives for derelict land recycling programmes. These programmes aimed at reducing the use of greenfield sites, preserving architectural heritage, general urban renewal, employment creation and improved environmental quality. Structural (economic) policy remains dominant in brownfield remediation programmes, but ecological objectives are becoming more prominent. Other than brownfield regeneration, different NBS tools are used both within and in addition to brownfield regeneration. In general, NBS used in regeneration is a relatively developed/mature approach which has been studied and applied in widespread contexts. The term “NBS” has been used only since the 2000s. Meanwhile, brownfield remediation is also a mature practice, but the use of HOMBRE’s Brownfield Navigator tool may be still more experimental and not wide spread. The NBS for remediation are still being tested in proGIreg (project in progress), and the brownfield navigator seems to have gotten some degree of attention and use. The largest limitation, in general, is the large remediation costs that create a barrier to undertaking this approach. Remediation (decontamination and regeneration) is extremely costly, and the initial land value is usually very low. The level of transferability for this approach is high and applies to all urban areas with disused spaces, particularly post-industrial urban areas. Though high remediation cost requires a context which financially supports the approach. I.e. Renaturation of the post-industrial Ruhr region is extremely costly, and is financed by industry foundations and the government etc. And while the general approach is highly transferable, the specific regeneration solutions are strongly context-dependent.

ProGIreg is active since 2018 in urban areas that lack quality green spaces and suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. It is implementing 8 types of nature-based solutions (NBS) using the Living Labs approach developed with and by local communities in four front-runner cities. Their “New regenerated soil” approach is being tested in 2 cities; Turin, Italy and Ningbo, China. Local authorities in Turin have identified the need for additional arable soil for new green spaces and have decided to use the Sangone Park for producing and testing regenerated soil. This soil was ideal for urban forestry and the aim is to make the regenerated soil available for use in public green spaces throughout the city. In Ningbo sediments from the urban lake are being used as fertilizer for the regeneration of soil for an area of 20 hectares. HOMBRE developed the framework and strategy for circular land management into the HOMBRE Zero Brownfield Framework. This assessed various brownfield case studies of varying scales located in different parts of Europe. From their analysis, guidelines were developed and a technical tool created to assist stakeholders and cities: The Brownfield Navigator (BFN), an “interactive tool with alternatives and out-of-the-box solutions for regeneration sites is available to anybody working on regeneration plans”.<ref>Deltares: Site regeneration? The brownfield navigator is now available. https://www.deltares.nl/en/news/site-regeneration-brownfield-navigator-now-available/</ref> The brownfield case studies assessed included rural and urban areas with previous or ongoing industrial or mining uses(in Germany, Italy, UK, Poland and Romania)

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Regenerating of disused urban land can be done in purely urban contexts (e.g. post-industrial areas) or in brownfields that can transcend urban/rural boundaries. Whereas HOMBRE is concerned with all aspects of Brownfield sites and strategies to eliminate them in the future, ProGIreg is active in post-industrial urban areas suffering from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Whereas soil and land regeneration can benefit surrounding neighbourhoods by creating more, safer and more accessible green/blue areas, not all such projects have included questions of justice in their design. One way in which some projects (e.g. ProGIreg) have inserted justice in their objectives, is by selecting, disadvantaged areas to work in and by seeking to activate citizen involvement in regeneration of urban areas of varying scales through Co-design, involving all relevant stakeholders from the very start of the project and engaging them as equal co-creators.

Regarding sustainability and the remediating of brownfield sites that are contaminated/heavily damaged, outcomes may not necessarily be ecologically sustainable if the remediation is aimed at intensive human recreational use such as new housing developments or business parks. While tackling urban sprawl to ensure a more sustainable built environment, opportunities for new strategies now exist; encouraging urban gardening, community gardens and urban farming, areas for renewable energy generation (non-food biomass production), mitigation of heat island effects and the use of tree planting to improve urban air quality (filtering and retaining air particles and contaminants generated by traffic and industry) while also providing habitat for migrating birds and other species to increase biodiversity. The ProGIreg project works on soil regeneration, as one approach to sustainability, seeking to identify and improve areas in cities through NBS including: biodiversity, the carbon cycle, soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, citizen involvement, education and empowerment. Citizen science and active citizen participation also include sustainable education and nature appreciation. Regeneration of these spaces does not necessarily increase justice, since it depends on the intended use of the spaces afterwards. However, disused areas may be more frequently found in lower-income/less desirable areas and therefore their restoration could contribute to distributional justice (e.g. green space provision). Yet, very intensive biomass production could also involve burdens for rather poor residents locally, to the benefit of wealthy users or investors elsewhere. The process of regeneration may enhance procedural justice, like in the co-creation aspect of the proGIreg project.

==Narrative of change==
The approach cluster aims to make use of the potential social, environmental, and economic benefits of disused (toxic, damaged) land in urban areas. The process creates this change through co-creation between many stakeholders and smart tools and NBS that assess each situation in order to be effective and efficient in remediation efforts.

==Transformative potential==
Regeneration projects usually try to overcome power relations that may have blocked the usage of unused land after being dismissed. They usually do not interfere with the power relations that led to the damaging of the land in the first place. However, regeneration initiatives may help indirectly with problematizing the damaging practice and also challenge the way in which disused land is viewed. This may increase transparency and accountability in the relation between previous owners and users of the land with government regulators and future user groups. More likely, however, government-funded redevelopment may distract from responsibility for past damages. Since the impact of regeneration initiatives is confined to specific sites, (rather than the socio-economic system on a larger scale), we consider its transformative potential to be rather limited. While HOMBRE’s approach has a limited transformative potential, ProGIreg’s attempt to make urban transformation work with and for citizens indicates that a high transformative potential might be achieved. ProGIreg’s report<ref>ProGIreg Deliverable 2.3: Co-designing Nature-based Solutions in Living Labs, pages 25-28 http://www.progireg.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/D2.3_Report_on_WS_round_1_in_FRC_proGIreg_ICLEI_2019-04-30.pdf</ref> from the end of 2018 had a considerable amount of exploration into levels of citizen engagement and what full empowerment could mean.

==Illustration of approach==
An example of urban space regeneration is the regeneration of Dortmund<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/dortmund/</ref> , Germany’s industrial and landfill regions around the Emscher River (Huckarde district) using NBS (pollinator diversity, aquaponics, accessible green corridors, community urban farms and gardens, leisure activities and renewable energy projects).

This effort includes many actors working collaboratively, including: the City of Dortmund, RWTH Aachen University, Die Urbanisten (local NGO), ICLEI, a network of 7 other cities (involved in the proGIreg project), urban design companies, and other NGOs focused on social considerations of the new developments (to ensure they improve citizens’ quality of life). In this effort, living labs have been used to strive for community-led solutions. Regarding regeneration efforts in the Dortmund region as a whole, the Foundation for Industrial Heritage (which is financially supported by the RAG-Stiftung) and the Emschergenossenschaft are also heavily involved in regeneration of Dortmund’s disused urban spaces from its historical industrial use.
The regions’ regeneration activities have social equality considerations at their core. Therefore, there is a strong connection here between urban, sustainability, and justice in this case. All of the initiatives are in urban spaces, aimed at renaturating the contaminated sites, and making them accessible to the community in efforts to increase quality of life and social cohesion in a context of racial and economic tensions.
Regarding (limits to) transferability, this approach is enabled in the Dortmund case partly due to the financial support enabled by a governance system that holds industry responsible for regeneration (German law requires industrial firms to decontaminate and decommission their unused sites), and a strong network of different actors working towards the same goal. Another enabling contextual factor is the population density and need for urban green space and green infrastructure in the Ruhr region, which provides motivation for the regeneration.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category:Soil and land regeneration]]
[[Category:Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category:Experimentation labs]]

Participatory pollination

2019-11-21T06:41:50Z

Lin:

With governments being pushed to declare Biodiversity Emergency<ref>O'Sullivan, K. (2019). Government must declare ‘climate and biodiversity’ emergency. Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/government-must-declare-climate-and-biodiversity-emergency-1.3882649</ref> after recent UN warnings<ref>Jonathan Watts, J. (2019). Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life. Guardian, UK. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report</ref>, pollinators <ref>Pollinator on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollinator</ref> (birds, bees, ants etc) have been identified as essential to healthy and functioning ecosystems, their extinction could cause massive food shortages and possible societal breakdown<ref>Grossman E. (2013). Declining Bee Populations Pose a Threat to Global Agriculture. Published at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. https://e360.yale.edu/features/declining_bee_populations_pose_a_threat_to_global_agriculture</ref>, their role in protecting areas for biodiversity to flourish is now critical for human wellbeing (TEEB, 2010)<ref>TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/</ref>. Participatory processes to ensure natural pollination include citizen science approaches in projects based around nature-based solutions (NBS)<ref>https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Nature-based_solutions</ref>.

''This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.''

==General introduction to approach==

Participatory pollination is a citizen science approach of the ProGIreg<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/</ref> project that sees the creation of Living Labs to involve local citizens to create, monitor and promote awareness of pollinator-friendly spaces. ProGIreg (Productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration) began in 2018 and is active in urban areas in 8 different cities that face the challenge of post-industrial regeneration. ProGIreg have 8 types of [[nature-based solutions]] (NBS), 1 of which relates to Participatory pollination. Their “Pollinator biodiversity”<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/pollinator-biodiversity/</ref> NBS complements and links all other greening actions since pollinators are essential to a healthy and functioning ecosystem. To make urban areas more pollinator-friendly, cities can reduce pesticide usage and increase the size of green spaces and plant species diversity. Also green networks and corridors help prevent in-breeding of isolated populations, which can lead to species extinction. Monitoring the variety and amounts of bees and butterflies is a good way of assessing the pollinator-friendliness of a city, as outlined in recent ICLEI video<ref>(VIDEO) Professor Simona Bonelli: How to attract more butterflies and bees to your city https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1YsEUn6oos</ref> with proGIreg’s pollinators expert, Professor Simona Bonelli<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simona_Bonelli2</ref> from the University of Turin.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

ProGIreg is active in urban areas that lack quality green spaces and suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Living Labs<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> have been created in post-industrial districts in four front-runner cities, to develop, test and implement NBS. 4 follower cities will closely follow the progress and engage in city-to-city exchange to replicate NBS locally. This specific approach is at an initial stage, beginning June 2018, and will be tested in Living Labs in 2 of the 4 front-runner cities (Dortmund & Turin) and 1 of the 4 follower cities (Cascais, Portugal). The 3 areas differ in size: The Dortmund Living Lab is 215 ha, is situated about 2 km west of downtown Dortmund and includes the Emscher River. At its longest north-south extension, it is 4.8 km long, at its broadest extension in the northern part it is 1.25 km wide, at its most narrow section it is only 40 m wide. The Turin Living Lab area is the post-industrial “Mirafiori Sud” district (34,659 inhabitants on 11.5 km2) which is located along the river Sangone. The Cascais Living Lab Regeneration Area comprises part of the localities Tires and Zambujal in São Domingos de Rana, spanning about 0.42 km².

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The Participatory pollination approach is very urban focused and explicitly addresses justice by its selection of area of activity and addresses a host of sustainability issues. To make urban areas more pollinator-friendly, cities can reduce pesticide usage and increase the size of green spaces and plant species diversity. Also green networks and corridors help prevent in-breeding of isolated populations, which can lead to species extinction. Three areas are chosen for this approach, all suffering from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. These areas often lack quality green spaces, have a negative impact on human health and wellbeing and are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Regarding scale and type of areas, in Dortmund the approach includes a former-landfill site a neighbouring permaculture orchard, in Turin it includes a number of mental health spaces across the city. In the 1 follower city, Cascais, some local schools and community spaces are involved. ProGIreg’s citizen science approach involves joining with local citizens to create, monitor and promote awareness of the pollinator-friendly spaces. Assessing socio-cultural inclusiveness, ProGIreg outline in their document “Monitoring and Assess-ment Plan (Deliverable 4.1 - Link 2): In developing greener cities, social inclusiveness – defined as the cumulative social benefits created and supported by Green Infrastructure and NBS in cities – is derived through a balanced approach that combines both social (e.g., benefits to people) and inclusivity (e.g., equal accessibility to the benefit) impacts. The approach also seeks to generate direct economic benefits of NBS, where NBS will end up having a new productive activity after implementation, i.e. selling products and services produced by the new infrastructure or producing new income streams that previously did not exist, In regard to this approach, this would mean the sale of honey produced in NBS spaces<ref>ProGIreg Deliverable 4.1: Monitoring and Assessment Plan by CNR, pg 15: Direct economic and labour impacts of the implemented NBS http://www.progireg.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/D4.1_proGIreg_CNR_2019_03_29.pdf</ref>.

The approach’s environmental benefits are both at global and local scale, focusing on urban green and blue spaces of all typologies, the so-called Green and Blue Infrastructures. At global scale, there are direct and indirect interactions with the carbon biogeochemical cycle. GI directly interacts with the carbon cycle because its elements remove carbon dioxide (CO2) form the atmosphere, while, thanks to temperature regulation, reduce energy demands and the associated carbon emission. Thanks to a proper planning, conservation and management of green infrastructure, cities can play an important role for biodiversity<ref>ProGIreg Deliverable 4.1: Monitoring and Assessment Plan by CNR, pg 14 http://www.progireg.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/D4.1_proGIreg_CNR_2019_03_29.pdf</ref>. This approach identifies soil regeneration and aquaponics as contributions to solve the issues related to soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, which are actually increasing due to the global urbanisation process. The approach attempts to link sustainability and justice to a high degree, seeing NBS as having huge potential to address technical, social and economic challenges and to make urban transformation work with and for citizens.

==Narrative of change==

Acknowledging the need to create or protect areas, including in cities, for biodiversity to flourish is now critical for human wellbeing, this approach deals with a series of problems, principally that of maintaining or improving urban biodiversity through the creation of Participatory pollination projects in 3 European cities<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/pollinator-biodiversity/</ref>. This is one specific approach of an interconnected system of NBS being implemented in 8 cities. Recognizing that many post-industrial urban areas suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems, it seeks to engage local communities in a citizen science process, as part of a process to facilitate improved levels of citizen engagement. ProGIreg’s citizen science approach involves joining with local citizens to create, monitor and promote awareness of the pollinator-friendly spaces, as part of a wider strategy to increase citizen participation in construction of NBS in problematic urban areas through Living Labs<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> that are citizen-owned and co-developed by state, market and civil society stakeholders. Future uses of such NBS include possible economic activity, such as selling honey.

==Transformative potential==

This approach is at initial stages, so time will see if the high hoped for transformative potential is realised. Acting in currently problematic post-industrial urban areas, It seeks to engage and facilitate citizens to become involved in the urban regeneration of nature zones in their localities, to develop community dynamics to take collective ownership for these areas and in some instances bring about a situation where these NBS offer new economic opportunities. While this could be mere tokenist participation, such community engagement could lead to organized local communities having greater say in future scenarios for their territories.

==Illustration==

This approach seeks to improve urban biodiversity through the creation of participatory pollination projects in 3 European cities. The project is at initial stage, being tested since 2018 in Living Labs in 2 of the 4 front-runner cities (Dortmund & Turin) and 1 of the 4 follower cities (Cascais, Portugal).

*Dortmund, Germany: Pollinator-friendly plants will be introduced to the open slopes of the former-landfill site Deusenberg and the neighbouring permaculture orchard. Local citizens will help monitoring numbers and species variety.

*Turin, Italy: Turin will take a socially inclusive and bottom-up approach by working with doctors and patients of mental health centres to promote pollinator-friendly spaces across the Living Lab.

*Cascais<ref>Cascais Ambiente. (2019) Cascais Ambiente participa em projeto europeu para transformar áreas pós-industriais em centros verdes. (Portuguese only) https://ambiente.cascais.pt/pt/noticias/cascais-ambiente-participa-projeto-europeu-transformar-areas-pos-industriais-centros-verdes</ref>, Portugal: By running workshops for schools and the local community, Cascais will increase awareness of the importance of pollinators in the local ecosystem, encourage beekeeping and the reduction of pesticide-use.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Community gardens]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]
[[Category: Biodiversity]]
[[Category: ProGIreg]]

Pathways and scenarios

2019-11-19T10:25:49Z

Lin:

The use of pathways and scenarios is a tool for envisioning transitions.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions. All citations are from project websites/reports if not otherwise marked.

==General introduction to approach==
Pathways and scenario building is a tool to envision what we want our cities to look like in the future. With this goal in mind, it develops an action plan on how to get there. The tool can be applied to a diverse range of themes and topics, from climate action plans, to mobility scenarios and economic development concepts. Pathways and scenario building is supposed to provide a guideline or inspiration on how long-term plans or possible scenarios may be developed for your own city. Ideally, these plans should help create a more sustainable and just city.

In general, the history of scenario building can be described in three generations.
The first generation extrapolated trends using econometric and quantitative methods in order to predict the future as accurately as possible. The second generation recognised the difficulty of predicting certain events and shifted the focus from "Will something happen" to "What will we do if something happens". The third generation wants to shift the focus to "What do we want the future to look like" by reflecting on the structural and societal changes that are required to pursue sustainability.<ref>http://www.visionsandpathways.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/VP-2040_second_year_report1.pdf</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
Examples of pathways and scenario building, include:

'''Policy scenarios innovation that foster social cohesion:'''<ref>http://www.grincoh.eu/</ref>
This is about developing trajectories for growth, innovation and competitiveness in the context of fostering social cohesion in Central and Eastern Europe.

'''Envisioning & Pathways (co-creative) for low-carbon and resilient cities:''' <ref>https://veil.msd.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2554452/VEIL-VP2040-Report-Web.pdf</ref>
The focus is on developing visions and innovation pathways for creating thriving Australian cities that are low-carbon and resilient, adaptable in the context of change and robust under the physical and social challenges predicted with a changing climate.

'''Future mobility scenarios for older people:''' <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/284924/final1-goal-final-report.pdf</ref>
The goal was the development of an action plan that aimed to offer innovative solutions to solving transport needs of older people in the near future (in the European Community) by advising future research in the field. The action plan consists of a thorough review and interpretation of existing knowledge, future scenario assessments, taking into account societal, technological and other developments, stakeholder consultation, and recommendation for further research.

'''Climate Justice Pathway:''' <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/92442/reporting/en</ref>
The goal was to further develop the “contraction and convergence” framework. Contraction and convergence is a proposed framework that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide in order to combat climate change. From both the perspective of linking sustainability and justice, the “Climate justice pathway” is very promising. It is about bringing the field of environment and development together. The premise is that this will ultimately lead to equity across and within all nations and generations, while remaining within the capacity of the planet.

'''Finger Prints/Scenario building methodology:''' <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93527/reporting/en</ref>
“Finger prints” is part of a project (SECOA) which wants to understand and deal with the complex and dynamic problems that coastal city environments face.
“Finger prints” is a tool which explains the interrelationships between components of the conflicts in relation to time (the evolution of the process of conflict), and space (the hierarchy of the geographic dimension). The modelling has been carried out in continuity with the previous phase of data organization, taxonomy, and through the use of Feed-Forward Neural Networks (FFNN).

'''Knowledge integration for climate mitigation:''' <ref>http://owsgip.itc.utwente.nl/projects/complex/index.php/final-scientific-report</ref>
Involving practitioners from different scientific disciplines to work with each other and with external stakeholders will lead to more successful outcomes in this case for climate mitigation issues.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Envisioning pathways/development plans of whatever kind is applicable to urban contexts. Finding pathways to a "better" future is almost always targeting the realm of sustainability and plays an important role doing so.
“Climate justice pathway” definitely addresses sustainability issues, mainly the emission of greenhouse gases, and is working in response to develop solutions to these issues globally.

“Climate Justice pathway” and “Transport for elderly people” are inherently linked to concerns of justice aspects. “Transport for elderly people” pays respect to “interactional equity or justice as recognition” whereas “Climate Justice” is its own type of justice that links countries that emit lots of greenhouse gases with countries that suffer the most from those emissions.
In general - no matter which topic is touched upon - if a city wide envisioning process is done with or by a diverse community paying close attention to economic possibilities, alongside issues age, gender, ethnicity etc., it greatly adds to "procedural justice" as well as "justice as recognition". and has huge transformative potential.This has huge transformative potential.

If this is of interest to you; you may also find this wiki page interesting: [[Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]]

The link between sustainability and justice varies a lot. “Climate justice pathway” again clearly links both dimensions as argued in transformative potential.In addition, the technique of “envisioning” is likely to generate more positive outcomes (e.g economical, justice, sustainability) than not “envisioning” - unless obstructed by partial interests of powerful groups.

==Narrative of change==

If we understand modern scenario building as a process of thinking about "What do we want the future to look like" it helps with creating commonly shared goals and community identities.

The most modest assumption about this kind of scenario - building is that it will tell us more about the present than the future.
Even if we follow this assumption envisioning a positive future helps to identify injustices in the present that need to be tackled.

==Transformative potential==

Concerning power relations, just the “envisioning” (of future scenarios) itself has huge transformative potentials as it inherently means thinking about change and alternatives to the present.

A potential problem points to the question of “who” should actually envisions future scenarios. If we start off with the simple observation that “official” future scenarios are typically developed by people in and with power (city planners/thinkers/politicians), a major challenge within the envisionment of future scenarios emerges:
Do planners/politicians even want participation? If yes:
How can they ensure that different parts of the society get to participate (e.g. language barriers; age barriers; gender barriers; or even just the knowledge that one can participate). Admittedly, this might be very difficult to achieve and oftentimes only certain groups of people actually get to participate.
This again might lead to the reproduction of power relations (people in power develop future scenarios which potentially does not pay respect to the needs of people without power.)

To give an example:
A concept that wants to make the city more just (e.g. wants to find solutions for social housing) is not necessarily envisioned by people who experience unjust living conditions (e.g have no money for good housing). Therefore, it might be hard to tackle these problems as the people in power may not know about the potential problems, given that they have not experienced these problems firsthand.
These thoughts hold true for all kinds of future scenarios (e.g low-carbon cities; mobility concepts) but especially to those scenarios/pathways which are inherently about justice.

'''“Climate Justice pathway”'''
This is very transformative technique as it wants to change multiple paradigms concerning “who” has to “pay” for damages done to the environment.
The goal is to change power relations concerning greenhouse gas emissions: Globally, the countries that are affected the most by greenhouse gas emissions (e.g rising sea level; hurricanes) are most of the times not the countries with the lowest emissions. On a national/more local level companies produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, but they can not be accounted for the damages caused to the environment; the whole society has to pay that price through taxes or even their health (externalisation of costs). Furthermore, low-income communities are more vulnerable to consequences of climate change than high-income communities as they mostly have less adaptive resources, while also having less political influence. This approach is at its core about justice and equality.
The ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This can be done through global/national/local action plans to reduce emissions (which can provide incentives to lower emissions) or through holding the emitters accountable for their actions (e.g legally - which has happened several times in the last years <ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07007-7</ref>)

==Illustration of approach==

Visions and Pathways 2040 (VP2040)<ref>http://www.visionsandpathways.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/VP-2040_second_year_report1.pdf</ref>[which is the research project behind the envisioning & pathways approach] is a four-year research and engagement project funded by the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living (CRC LCL). Three universities are involved in this project. They are University of Melbourne, University of NSW and Swinburne University of Technology. Many industry and government partners are also involved. The project aims to develop innovations, visions and policy pathways for transforming Australian cities with the goal of rapid decarbonisation and increased resilience in the face of climate change.
Through its engagement program the project will gather stakeholder views on the dynamics of change and the possible future morphology of cities, such as their built infrastructure, systems of provision and lifestyles.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Pathways and scenarios]]
[[Category: Pathways and scenarios for post-carbon societies]]
[[Category: Energy and Mobility solutions]]
[[Category: Climate justice pathway]]
[[Category: Future mobility scenarios for older people]]
[[Category: Vision and pathways 2040]]

Pathways and scenarios

2019-11-19T10:23:42Z

Lin:

The use of pathways and scenarios is a tool for envisioning transitions.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions. All citations are from project websites/reports if not otherwise marked.

==General introduction to approach==
Pathways and scenario building is a tool to envision what we want our cities to look like in the future. With this goal in mind, it develops an action plan on how to get there. The tool can be applied to a diverse range of themes and topics, from climate action plans, to mobility scenarios and economic development concepts. Pathways and scenario building is supposed to provide a guideline or inspiration on how long-term plans or possible scenarios may be developed for your own city. Ideally, these plans should help create a more sustainable and just city.

In general, the history of scenario building can be described in three generations.
The first generation extrapolated trends using econometric and quantitative methods in order to predict the future as accurately as possible. The second generation recognised the difficulty of predicting certain events and shifted the focus from "Will something happen" to "What will we do if something happens". The third generation wants to shift the focus to "What do we want the future to look like" by reflecting on the structural and societal changes that are required to pursue sustainability.<ref>http://www.visionsandpathways.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/VP-2040_second_year_report1.pdf</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
Examples of pathways and scenario building, include:

'''Policy scenarios innovation that foster social cohesion:'''<ref>http://www.grincoh.eu/</ref>
This is about developing trajectories for growth, innovation and competitiveness in the context of fostering social cohesion in Central and Eastern Europe.

'''Envisioning & Pathways (co-creative) for low-carbon and resilient cities:''' <ref>https://veil.msd.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2554452/VEIL-VP2040-Report-Web.pdf</ref>
The focus is on developing visions and innovation pathways for creating thriving Australian cities that are low-carbon and resilient, adaptable in the context of change and robust under the physical and social challenges predicted with a changing climate.

'''Future mobility scenarios for older people:''' <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/284924/final1-goal-final-report.pdf</ref>
The goal was the development of an action plan that aimed to offer innovative solutions to solving transport needs of older people in the near future (in the European Community) by advising future research in the field. The action plan consists of a thorough review and interpretation of existing knowledge, future scenario assessments, taking into account societal, technological and other developments, stakeholder consultation, and recommendation for further research.

'''Climate Justice Pathway:''' <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/92442/reporting/en</ref>
The goal was to further develop the “contraction and convergence” framework. Contraction and convergence is a proposed framework that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide in order to combat climate change. From both the perspective of linking sustainability and justice, the “Climate justice pathway” is very promising. It is about bringing the field of environment and development together. The premise is that this will ultimately lead to equity across and within all nations and generations, while remaining within the capacity of the planet.

'''Finger Prints/Scenario building methodology:''' <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93527/reporting/en</ref>
“Finger prints” is part of a project (SECOA) which wants to understand and deal with the complex and dynamic problems that coastal city environments face.
“Finger prints” is a tool which explains the interrelationships between components of the conflicts in relation to time (the evolution of the process of conflict), and space (the hierarchy of the geographic dimension). The modelling has been carried out in continuity with the previous phase of data organization, taxonomy, and through the use of Feed-Forward Neural Networks (FFNN).

'''Knowledge integration for climate mitigation:''' <ref>http://owsgip.itc.utwente.nl/projects/complex/index.php/final-scientific-report</ref>
Involving practitioners from different scientific disciplines to work with each other and with external stakeholders will lead to more successful outcomes in this case for climate mitigation issues.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Envisioning pathways/development plans of whatever kind is applicable to urban contexts. Finding pathways to a "better" future is almost always targeting the realm of sustainability and plays an important role doing so.
“Climate justice pathway” definitely addresses sustainability issues, mainly the emission of greenhouse gases, and is working in response to develop solutions to these issues globally.

“Climate Justice pathway” and “Transport for elderly people” are inherently linked to concerns of justice aspects. “Transport for elderly people” pays respect to “interactional equity or justice as recognition” whereas “Climate Justice” is its own type of justice that links countries that emit lots of greenhouse gases with countries that suffer the most from those emissions.
In general - no matter which topic is touched upon - if a city wide envisioning process is done with or by a diverse community paying close attention to economic possibilities, alongside issues age, gender, ethnicity etc., it greatly adds to "procedural justice" as well as "justice as recognition". and has huge transformative potential.This has huge transformative potential.

If this is of interest to you; you may also find this wiki page interesting: [[Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]]

The link between sustainability and justice varies a lot. “Climate justice pathway” again clearly links both dimensions as argued in transformative potential.In addition, the technique of “envisioning” is likely to generate more positive outcomes (e.g economical, justice, sustainability) than not “envisioning” - unless obstructed by partial interests of powerful groups.

==Narrative of change==

If we understand modern scenario building as a process of thinking about "What do we want the future to look like" it helps with creating commonly shared goals and community identities.

The most modest assumption about this kind of scenario - building is that it will tell us more about the present than the future.
Even if we follow this assumption envisioning a positive future helps to identify injustices in the present that need to be tackled.

==Transformative potential==

Concerning power relations, just the “envisioning” (of future scenarios) itself has huge transformative potentials as it inherently means thinking about change and alternatives to the present.

A potential problem points to the question of “who” should actually envisions future scenarios. If we start off with the simple observation that “official” future scenarios are typically developed by people in and with power (city planners/thinkers/politicians), a major challenge within the envisionment of future scenarios emerges:
Do planners/politicians even want participation? If yes:
How can they ensure that different parts of the society get to participate (e.g. language barriers; age barriers; gender barriers; or even just the knowledge that one can participate). Admittedly, this might be very difficult to achieve and oftentimes only certain groups of people actually get to participate.
This again might lead to the reproduction of power relations (people in power develop future scenarios which potentially does not pay respect to the needs of people without power.)

To give an example:
A concept that wants to make the city more just (e.g. wants to find solutions for social housing) is not necessarily envisioned by people who experience unjust living conditions (e.g have no money for good housing). Therefore, it might be hard to tackle these problems as the people in power may not know about the potential problems, given that they have not experienced these problems firsthand.
These thoughts hold true for all kinds of future scenarios (e.g low-carbon cities; mobility concepts) but especially to those scenarios/pathways which are inherently about justice.

'''“Climate Justice pathway”'''
This is very transformative technique as it wants to change multiple paradigms concerning “who” has to “pay” for damages done to the environment.
The goal is to change power relations concerning greenhouse gas emissions: Globally, the countries that are affected the most by greenhouse gas emissions (e.g rising sea level; hurricanes) are most of the times not the countries with the lowest emissions. On a national/more local level companies produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, but they can not be accounted for the damages caused to the environment; the whole society has to pay that price through taxes or even their health (externalisation of costs). Furthermore, low-income communities are more vulnerable to consequences of climate change than high-income communities as they mostly have less adaptive resources, while also having less political influence. This approach is at its core about justice and equality.
The ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This can be done through global/national/local action plans to reduce emissions (which can provide incentives to lower emissions) or through holding the emitters accountable for their actions (e.g legally - which has happened several times in the last years <ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07007-7</ref>)

==Illustration of approach==

Visions and Pathways 2040 (VP2040)<ref>http://www.visionsandpathways.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/VP-2040_second_year_report1.pdf</ref>[which is the research project behind the envisioning & pathways approach] is a four-year research and engagement project funded by the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living (CRC LCL). Three universities are involved in this project. They are University of Melbourne, University of NSW and Swinburne University of Technology. Many industry and government partners are also involved. The project aims to develop innovations, visions and policy pathways for transforming Australian cities with the goal of rapid decarbonisation and increased resilience in the face of climate change.
Through its engagement program the project will gather stakeholder views on the dynamics of change and the possible future morphology of cities, such as their built infrastructure, systems of provision and lifestyles.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Pathways and scenarios]]
[[Category: Pathways and scenarios for post-carbon societies]]
[[Category: Climate justice pathway]]
[[Category: Future mobility scenarios for older people]]
[[Category: Vision and pathways 2040]]

Urban development through cultural solutions

2019-11-19T08:34:06Z

Lin:

Urban development through cultural solutions is about using arts and cultural heritage (e.g museums, old industrial sites etc.) to develop (degraded) urban spaces.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

The approaches here work for multiple actors at multiple levels such as public administration, citizens and informal groups or private grant-making foundations. They are all centered around a paradigm of using cultural capital in order to develop a city. An important aspect here is the idea of "regeneration" which aims at "restoring and improving the quality of urban life through the enhancement and development of the unique characteristics of a place and its people." <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248991497_The_Role_of_Urban_Design_in_Cultural_Regeneration</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

'''Specific examples''':
*Regeneration and Optimisation of Cultural heritage in creative and Knowledge cities (ROCK)<ref> https://rockproject.eu/project </ref> aims to develop an innovative, collaborative and systematic approach to promote the effective regeneration and adaptive reuse in historic city centres by implementing a repertoire of successful heritage-led regeneration initiatives related to 7 Role Model selected cities: Athens, Cluj-Napoca, Eindhoven, Liverpool, Lyon, Turin and Vilnius. The insight gained by this will be used in three 3 Replicator Cities: Bologna, Lisbon and Skopje to achieve regeneration, sustainable development and economic growth of the city. Developing cities in accordance with the cultural heritage is thus very well developed and has shown to be successful. The idea is transferable though the cultural heritage of every city is obviously unique which means that there is not "one" concept of using "cultural heritage" that every city can apply. A common way to regenerate cultural heritage is through the renovation of old historic buildings. On a worldwide level, UNESCO honors sites/landmarks/areas with outstanding historic/cultural significance with the name “World Heritage Site”, so that they are protected by international treaties.

*Impact of the Third Sector as SOcial INnovation (ITSSOIN) analyzed the relationship between the issue of social cohesion and culture-led urban rejuvenation in degraded city spaces in peripheral areas of cities, such as in Milan, Rotterdam, Greater Paris region and Galicia (Spain). It specifically explores how civic engagement in the field of culture and arts contributes to the expressive, communicative, recreational, and spiritual needs of individuals and communities.<ref>http://itssoin.eu/</ref>

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This is strictly about urban areas. The project “Cultural heritage as urban regeneration” looks at city centres (mostly because there is generally a richer heritage than in peripheries), “Culture-led Place Rejuvenation” looks at degraded urban spaces in the periphery of cities (mostly because of the availability of spaces in the periphery)

Renewing city parts with the aim of cultural vibrance can contribute to sustainability, but this is not necessarily always the case. One case in question is The Olympic Games in Turin (2006), which, according to the ROCK project, is described as a "great international event" that helped to create "a new culture & knowledge-led identity"<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref> for the city.
“The reuse of the heritage in the central districts combined with physical regeneration, great international events (e.g. 2006 Winter Olympics) and the development of a strong, long-term publicly-led cultural policy, contributed to boost an overall and wider redevelopment process.”
It is at least questionable though if Olympic Games can actually actively contribute to environmentally sustainable cities. (or if they can just be planned in a less harmful way)
Cultural vibrancy in cities is enhanced through "procedural justice" and "justice as recognition". The approaches seem to address justice issues, though often only implicitly in a way that they want to enhance the cultural vibrancy of a city. And different aspects can be addressed in different ways. Therefore, the case studies of the different projects mentioned here pay respect to justice issues on different levels.
For example, in the urban renewal project in Kluj-Napoca (ROCK), the “model depends on a participatory approach, consisting of local administration, policy makers, industry, research, NGOs and associations strongly committed to the priority projects for heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone to create a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.” This reflects attention to issues of “procedural justice” in Kluj-Napoca.

Culture-led rejuvenation (ITSSOIN) pays explicit attention to justice aspects (e.g the inclusion of socially disadvantaged groups, strengthening their feeling of belonging to a community and stimulating their active participation and involvement in the life of a community)
In the case of Eindhoven (ROCK), however, it is more about enhancing the reputation of the city. For instance, it was reported that “Eindhoven generated a Living Lab in the former industrial regeneration area called ‘Strijp-S’ […]. The Living Lab generates economic, cultural and technological initiatives that contribute to strengthening identity and the significance of the Strijp-S as the center of Brainport Region Eindhoven, to promote its (inter)national reputation and the rediscovery of the place for industrial heritage”<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>
There may be some ambivalence surrounding its claim to achieving justice if the goal of an initiative is to better the image of a city, not least with regards to gentrification effects (e.g. making housing unaffordable for certain income groups due to an improved image of the areas). There is a high potential here for unintended injustices.

The project "Cultural heritage as urban regeneration" brings out both issues of sustainability and justice <ref>https://rockproject.eu/actions</ref>: “Environmental sustainability is a golden thread throughout the ROCK project as urban regeneration efforts are intrinsically linked to attempts to minimize our impact on the environment – whether through the creative and adaptive reuse of built heritage, the circular model approaches to improve well-being, the use of inclusive and participatory approaches to involve citizens in co-designing solutions, or efforts to contribute to the resilience of communities to climate change.”
It very much depends on the individual case if justice and sustainability are linked. As mentioned above, the Olympic Games in Turin led to the city's success in reshaping its image <ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14775085.2011.635015</ref>. However, it is important to bear in mind that there has been reports detailing that the "work in progress"(building) period of the games led to negative air qualities at that time though.<ref>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205975</ref> As with most city development strategies using culture to develop the city can be done in more or less environmentally harmful ways.

==Narrative of change==
This addresses how degraded (built) parts of a city can be renewed through cultural activities and infrastructure. This renewal and strengthened ties of identity are expected to contribute to a better quality of life for residents. An advantage of using the cultural heritage of a city in redevelopment is that citizens can accept new developments more easily when they can relate to its historical context. Providing spaces and opportunities for civic artistic activities as a way of community building and empowerment is a different rationale, which is a strategy partly mobilized by ITSSOIN.

==Transformative potential==
Activities of urban renewal with reference to cultural heritage may have very diverse impacts on power relations. If designed as a participatory processes as it was done in Kluj-Napoca (next chapter), they add to procedural justice and enhance the sense of community-belonging among residents. However, overall positive outcomes, such as those contributing to fostering more just and sustainable cities, seem rather unlikely as long as there is a tendency to develop large events and infrastructures prevails and gentrification effects are not effectively mitigated against. (see e.g high rent prices for apartments in the quarter Strijp S in Eindhoven<ref>https://www.pararius.com/apartments/eindhoven/city-district-stadsdeel-strijp</ref>

==Illustration==

A case study in the ROCK - project is the city of Cluj-Napoca, which is one of the seven role-model cities and also known to have considered the leveraging of cultural heritage as a strategy for sustainable city development. The model '''‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca’''' is based on the process of brokering between public and private stakeholders. This enabled an open and cooperative environment, raising community trust and encouraging civic involvement by offering citizens the opportunity to become active participants in the life of their own community. The goal is to involve citizens in a democratic deliberation and decision process to help determine the best way to spend part of the public budget (participative youth budgeting). Therefore, it very much pays respect to "justice as recognition" and "procedural justice aspects". The initiative ‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca took a participatory approach in its urban planning process. To implement, the local administration, policy makers and members from the industry, research centers, NGOs and associations were strongly committed to prioritise the projects on heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone in order to foster a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.“<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Approaches]]
[[Category:Urban development through cultural solutions]]
[[Category:Regeneration of disused urban space]]
[[Category:Experimentation labs]]
[[Category:Transition towns]]
[[Category:Living Lab in Eindhoven]]
[[Category:COM’ON Cluj-Napoca]]
[[Category:ROCK]]

Urban development through cultural solutions

2019-11-19T08:30:46Z

Lin:

Urban development through cultural solutions is about using arts and cultural heritage (e.g museums, old industrial sites etc.) to develop (degraded) urban spaces.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

The approaches here work for multiple actors at multiple levels such as public administration, citizens and informal groups or private grant-making foundations. They are all centered around a paradigm of using cultural capital in order to develop a city. An important aspect here is the idea of "regeneration" which aims at "restoring and improving the quality of urban life through the enhancement and development of the unique characteristics of a place and its people." <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248991497_The_Role_of_Urban_Design_in_Cultural_Regeneration</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

'''Specific examples''':
*Regeneration and Optimisation of Cultural heritage in creative and Knowledge cities (ROCK)<ref> https://rockproject.eu/project </ref> aims to develop an innovative, collaborative and systematic approach to promote the effective regeneration and adaptive reuse in historic city centres by implementing a repertoire of successful heritage-led regeneration initiatives related to 7 Role Model selected cities: Athens, Cluj-Napoca, Eindhoven, Liverpool, Lyon, Turin and Vilnius. The insight gained by this will be used in three 3 Replicator Cities: Bologna, Lisbon and Skopje to achieve regeneration, sustainable development and economic growth of the city. Developing cities in accordance with the cultural heritage is thus very well developed and has shown to be successful. The idea is transferable though the cultural heritage of every city is obviously unique which means that there is not "one" concept of using "cultural heritage" that every city can apply. A common way to regenerate cultural heritage is through the renovation of old historic buildings. On a worldwide level, UNESCO honors sites/landmarks/areas with outstanding historic/cultural significance with the name “World Heritage Site”, so that they are protected by international treaties.

*Impact of the Third Sector as SOcial INnovation (ITSSOIN) analyzed the relationship between the issue of social cohesion and culture-led urban rejuvenation in degraded city spaces in peripheral areas of cities, such as in Milan, Rotterdam, Greater Paris region and Galicia (Spain). It specifically explores how civic engagement in the field of culture and arts contributes to the expressive, communicative, recreational, and spiritual needs of individuals and communities.<ref>http://itssoin.eu/</ref>

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This is strictly about urban areas. The project “Cultural heritage as urban regeneration” looks at city centres (mostly because there is generally a richer heritage than in peripheries), “Culture-led Place Rejuvenation” looks at degraded urban spaces in the periphery of cities (mostly because of the availability of spaces in the periphery)

Renewing city parts with the aim of cultural vibrance can contribute to sustainability, but this is not necessarily always the case. One case in question is The Olympic Games in Turin (2006), which, according to the ROCK project, is described as a "great international event" that helped to create "a new culture & knowledge-led identity"<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref> for the city.
“The reuse of the heritage in the central districts combined with physical regeneration, great international events (e.g. 2006 Winter Olympics) and the development of a strong, long-term publicly-led cultural policy, contributed to boost an overall and wider redevelopment process.”
It is at least questionable though if Olympic Games can actually actively contribute to environmentally sustainable cities. (or if they can just be planned in a less harmful way)
Cultural vibrancy in cities is enhanced through "procedural justice" and "justice as recognition". The approaches seem to address justice issues, though often only implicitly in a way that they want to enhance the cultural vibrancy of a city. And different aspects can be addressed in different ways. Therefore, the case studies of the different projects mentioned here pay respect to justice issues on different levels.
For example, in the urban renewal project in Kluj-Napoca (ROCK), the “model depends on a participatory approach, consisting of local administration, policy makers, industry, research, NGOs and associations strongly committed to the priority projects for heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone to create a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.” This reflects attention to issues of “procedural justice” in Kluj-Napoca.

Culture-led rejuvenation (ITSSOIN) pays explicit attention to justice aspects (e.g the inclusion of socially disadvantaged groups, strengthening their feeling of belonging to a community and stimulating their active participation and involvement in the life of a community)
In the case of Eindhoven (ROCK), however, it is more about enhancing the reputation of the city. For instance, it was reported that “Eindhoven generated a Living Lab in the former industrial regeneration area called ‘Strijp-S’ […]. The Living Lab generates economic, cultural and technological initiatives that contribute to strengthening identity and the significance of the Strijp-S as the center of Brainport Region Eindhoven, to promote its (inter)national reputation and the rediscovery of the place for industrial heritage”<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>
There may be some ambivalence surrounding its claim to achieving justice if the goal of an initiative is to better the image of a city, not least with regards to gentrification effects (e.g. making housing unaffordable for certain income groups due to an improved image of the areas). There is a high potential here for unintended injustices.

The project "Cultural heritage as urban regeneration" brings out both issues of sustainability and justice <ref>https://rockproject.eu/actions</ref>: “Environmental sustainability is a golden thread throughout the ROCK project as urban regeneration efforts are intrinsically linked to attempts to minimize our impact on the environment – whether through the creative and adaptive reuse of built heritage, the circular model approaches to improve well-being, the use of inclusive and participatory approaches to involve citizens in co-designing solutions, or efforts to contribute to the resilience of communities to climate change.”
It very much depends on the individual case if justice and sustainability are linked. As mentioned above, the Olympic Games in Turin led to the city's success in reshaping its image <ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14775085.2011.635015</ref>. However, it is important to bear in mind that there has been reports detailing that the "work in progress"(building) period of the games led to negative air qualities at that time though.<ref>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205975</ref> As with most city development strategies using culture to develop the city can be done in more or less environmentally harmful ways.

==Narrative of change==
This addresses how degraded (built) parts of a city can be renewed through cultural activities and infrastructure. This renewal and strengthened ties of identity are expected to contribute to a better quality of life for residents. An advantage of using the cultural heritage of a city in redevelopment is that citizens can accept new developments more easily when they can relate to its historical context. Providing spaces and opportunities for civic artistic activities as a way of community building and empowerment is a different rationale, which is a strategy partly mobilized by ITSSOIN.

==Transformative potential==
Activities of urban renewal with reference to cultural heritage may have very diverse impacts on power relations. If designed as a participatory processes as it was done in Kluj-Napoca (next chapter), they add to procedural justice and enhance the sense of community-belonging among residents. However, overall positive outcomes, such as those contributing to fostering more just and sustainable cities, seem rather unlikely as long as there is a tendency to develop large events and infrastructures prevails and gentrification effects are not effectively mitigated against. (see e.g high rent prices for apartments in the quarter Strijp S in Eindhoven<ref>https://www.pararius.com/apartments/eindhoven/city-district-stadsdeel-strijp</ref>

==Illustration==

A case study in the ROCK - project is the city of Cluj-Napoca, which is one of the seven role-model cities and also known to have considered the leveraging of cultural heritage as a strategy for sustainable city development. The model '''‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca’''' is based on the process of brokering between public and private stakeholders. This enabled an open and cooperative environment, raising community trust and encouraging civic involvement by offering citizens the opportunity to become active participants in the life of their own community. The goal is to involve citizens in a democratic deliberation and decision process to help determine the best way to spend part of the public budget (participative youth budgeting). Therefore, it very much pays respect to "justice as recognition" and "procedural justice aspects". The initiative ‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca took a participatory approach in its urban planning process. To implement, the local administration, policy makers and members from the industry, research centers, NGOs and associations were strongly committed to prioritise the projects on heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone in order to foster a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.“<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Approaches]]
[[Category:Urban development through cultural solutions]]
[[Category:Regeneration of disused urban space]]
[[Category:Experimentation labs]]
[[Category:Transition towns]]

Urban development through cultural solutions

2019-11-19T08:30:17Z

Lin:

Urban development through cultural solutions is about using arts and cultural heritage (e.g museums, old industrial sites etc.) to develop (degraded) urban spaces.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

The approaches here work for multiple actors at multiple levels such as public administration, citizens and informal groups or private grant-making foundations. They are all centered around a paradigm of using cultural capital in order to develop a city. An important aspect here is the idea of "regeneration" which aims at "restoring and improving the quality of urban life through the enhancement and development of the unique characteristics of a place and its people." <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248991497_The_Role_of_Urban_Design_in_Cultural_Regeneration</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

'''Specific examples''':
*Regeneration and Optimisation of Cultural heritage in creative and Knowledge cities (ROCK)<ref> https://rockproject.eu/project </ref> aims to develop an innovative, collaborative and systematic approach to promote the effective regeneration and adaptive reuse in historic city centres by implementing a repertoire of successful heritage-led regeneration initiatives related to 7 Role Model selected cities: Athens, Cluj-Napoca, Eindhoven, Liverpool, Lyon, Turin and Vilnius. The insight gained by this will be used in three 3 Replicator Cities: Bologna, Lisbon and Skopje to achieve regeneration, sustainable development and economic growth of the city. Developing cities in accordance with the cultural heritage is thus very well developed and has shown to be successful. The idea is transferable though the cultural heritage of every city is obviously unique which means that there is not "one" concept of using "cultural heritage" that every city can apply. A common way to regenerate cultural heritage is through the renovation of old historic buildings. On a worldwide level, UNESCO honors sites/landmarks/areas with outstanding historic/cultural significance with the name “World Heritage Site”, so that they are protected by international treaties.

*Impact of the Third Sector as SOcial INnovation (ITSSOIN) analyzed the relationship between the issue of social cohesion and culture-led urban rejuvenation in degraded city spaces in peripheral areas of cities, such as in Milan, Rotterdam, Greater Paris region and Galicia (Spain). It specifically explores how civic engagement in the field of culture and arts contributes to the expressive, communicative, recreational, and spiritual needs of individuals and communities.<ref>http://itssoin.eu/</ref>

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

This is strictly about urban areas. The project “Cultural heritage as urban regeneration” looks at city centres (mostly because there is generally a richer heritage than in peripheries), “Culture-led Place Rejuvenation” looks at degraded urban spaces in the periphery of cities (mostly because of the availability of spaces in the periphery)

Renewing city parts with the aim of cultural vibrance can contribute to sustainability, but this is not necessarily always the case. One case in question is The Olympic Games in Turin (2006), which, according to the ROCK project, is described as a "great international event" that helped to create "a new culture & knowledge-led identity"<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref> for the city.
“The reuse of the heritage in the central districts combined with physical regeneration, great international events (e.g. 2006 Winter Olympics) and the development of a strong, long-term publicly-led cultural policy, contributed to boost an overall and wider redevelopment process.”
It is at least questionable though if Olympic Games can actually actively contribute to environmentally sustainable cities. (or if they can just be planned in a less harmful way)
Cultural vibrancy in cities is enhanced through "procedural justice" and "justice as recognition". The approaches seem to address justice issues, though often only implicitly in a way that they want to enhance the cultural vibrancy of a city. And different aspects can be addressed in different ways. Therefore, the case studies of the different projects mentioned here pay respect to justice issues on different levels.
For example, in the urban renewal project in Kluj-Napoca (ROCK), the “model depends on a participatory approach, consisting of local administration, policy makers, industry, research, NGOs and associations strongly committed to the priority projects for heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone to create a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.” This reflects attention to issues of “procedural justice” in Kluj-Napoca.

Culture-led rejuvenation (ITSSOIN) pays explicit attention to justice aspects (e.g the inclusion of socially disadvantaged groups, strengthening their feeling of belonging to a community and stimulating their active participation and involvement in the life of a community)
In the case of Eindhoven (ROCK), however, it is more about enhancing the reputation of the city. For instance, it was reported that “Eindhoven generated a Living Lab in the former industrial regeneration area called ‘Strijp-S’ […]. The Living Lab generates economic, cultural and technological initiatives that contribute to strengthening identity and the significance of the Strijp-S as the center of Brainport Region Eindhoven, to promote its (inter)national reputation and the rediscovery of the place for industrial heritage”<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>
There may be some ambivalence surrounding its claim to achieving justice if the goal of an initiative is to better the image of a city, not least with regards to gentrification effects (e.g. making housing unaffordable for certain income groups due to an improved image of the areas). There is a high potential here for unintended injustices.

The project "Cultural heritage as urban regeneration" brings out both issues of sustainability and justice <ref>https://rockproject.eu/actions</ref>: “Environmental sustainability is a golden thread throughout the ROCK project as urban regeneration efforts are intrinsically linked to attempts to minimize our impact on the environment – whether through the creative and adaptive reuse of built heritage, the circular model approaches to improve well-being, the use of inclusive and participatory approaches to involve citizens in co-designing solutions, or efforts to contribute to the resilience of communities to climate change.”
It very much depends on the individual case if justice and sustainability are linked. As mentioned above, the Olympic Games in Turin led to the city's success in reshaping its image <ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14775085.2011.635015</ref>. However, it is important to bear in mind that there has been reports detailing that the "work in progress"(building) period of the games led to negative air qualities at that time though.<ref>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205975</ref> As with most city development strategies using culture to develop the city can be done in more or less environmentally harmful ways.

==Narrative of change==
This addresses how degraded (built) parts of a city can be renewed through cultural activities and infrastructure. This renewal and strengthened ties of identity are expected to contribute to a better quality of life for residents. An advantage of using the cultural heritage of a city in redevelopment is that citizens can accept new developments more easily when they can relate to its historical context. Providing spaces and opportunities for civic artistic activities as a way of community building and empowerment is a different rationale, which is a strategy partly mobilized by ITSSOIN.

==Transformative potential==
Activities of urban renewal with reference to cultural heritage may have very diverse impacts on power relations. If designed as a participatory processes as it was done in Kluj-Napoca (next chapter), they add to procedural justice and enhance the sense of community-belonging among residents. However, overall positive outcomes, such as those contributing to fostering more just and sustainable cities, seem rather unlikely as long as there is a tendency to develop large events and infrastructures prevails and gentrification effects are not effectively mitigated against. (see e.g high rent prices for apartments in the quarter Strijp S in Eindhoven<ref>https://www.pararius.com/apartments/eindhoven/city-district-stadsdeel-strijp</ref>

==Illustration==

A case study in the ROCK - project is the city of Cluj-Napoca, which is one of the seven role-model cities and also known to have considered the leveraging of cultural heritage as a strategy for sustainable city development. The model '''‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca’''' is based on the process of brokering between public and private stakeholders. This enabled an open and cooperative environment, raising community trust and encouraging civic involvement by offering citizens the opportunity to become active participants in the life of their own community. The goal is to involve citizens in a democratic deliberation and decision process to help determine the best way to spend part of the public budget (participative youth budgeting). Therefore, it very much pays respect to "justice as recognition" and "procedural justice aspects". The initiative ‘COM’ON Cluj-Napoca took a participatory approach in its urban planning process. To implement, the local administration, policy makers and members from the industry, research centers, NGOs and associations were strongly committed to prioritise the projects on heritage regeneration, reinvention of historical centre and redevelopment of the city’s backbone in order to foster a sustainable and equitable solution to address the community's needs.“<ref>https://rockproject.eu/role-model-cities</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Approaches]]
[[Category:Urban development through cultural solutions
[[Category:Regeneration of disused urban space]]
[[Category:Experimentation labs]]
[[Category:Transition towns]]

Crowdsourcing

2019-11-15T13:06:24Z

Lin:

Crowdsourcing is a participatory online activity in which participants voluntarily undertake a task in response to a call or request from a state institution, group, company, individual or non-governmental organisation or other group.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite closed or limited responses (e.g. voting on a list) or be relatively open (e.g. allowing for user generated categories or suggestions). For example, residents might be asked to i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions.

Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. Groups involved in creating sustainable and just cities might be drawn to using crowdsourcing as an approach because, if introduced early in the process and designed in an open complex-embracing manner, it not only allows citizens to have their say within a pre-existing discussion in a rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. An example of a particularly open variant of crowdsourcing is the platform OpenIDEO, set up to help tackle the challenges faced by Detroit, USA. OpenIDEO works by issuing a ‘challenge’, which kickstarts a multi-step process: individuals submit ideas, these are grouped under themes, which then go through concept development (which may include combining themes or ideas), these fleshed out concepts are then voted on, refined, evaluated and then finally chosen.

There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope<ref>https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/</ref> which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic <ref>https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/</ref>, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware<ref>http://www.everyaware.eu</ref> a project that combined data sensors and active user-generated content to help improve the environment through monitoring, awareness and finally behavioural change in different European cities; Cities4People<ref>https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/</ref> which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB<ref>https://cobwebproject.eu</ref>, Citizen OBservatory WEB, a project in which everyday people collected environmental information via mobile phones for research, decision making and policy formation in Dyfi Biosphere Reserve area in mid-Wales.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Crowdsourcing can take different shapes and sizes. One possible way of categorising different modes of crowdsourcing is by the relationship between the crowd (users, participants, public) and the organiser of a particular project or initiative. From the most closed to the most open, there is -- crowd processing, where large amounts of similar data is gathered (e.g. an app that measures how many minutes people spend in a park each month); crowd rating, where large amounts of similar data is gathered and then assessed via ratings (e.g. voting for different options about how to renovate a park); crowd solving, where very different responses or data is gathered and assessed against existing criteria for evaluation (e.g. we need a park with disabled access, how can we do it); and crowd creation, where the final solution, value or choice is determined by its relationship to other suggestions (e.g. we have some space in the city, what should we do with it?)<ref>Geiger, David, Michael Rosemann, Erwin Fielt, and Martin Schader. ‘Crowdsourcing Information Systems-Definition Typology, and Design’. In ICIS 2012 : Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012), Vol. Paper 53. Orlando, Fla., 2012. https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/32631.</ref> . In reality, there is often a mix of different types of crowdsourcing at different stages in a particular project. Crowdsourcing has been used all over the world to solve many different challenges and thus has been tested, refined, critiqued and redeveloped. However, there have been concerns raised about data governance and privacy, even when participation is voluntary.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
Because of the scope for data collection, in both passive and active ways, cities can harness crowdsourcing methods with relative ease (when compared to rural areas). However, it is not only the size of the data which makes cities particularly interesting places to use crowdsourcing, but also the heterogeneity of cities: there are many different types and groups of people, they have different interests and experiences, and often quite different aims and goals. This may seem as if it makes crowdsourcing particularly difficult, because of the potential for disagreement. However, it could equally be argued that because cities are places in which disorder, unexpected mixing and conflict take place, cities are also the places from which innovative and interesting solutions to challenges might arise. Moreover, the imperative to hear different voices is forefronted in such circumstances. Related to this, if done well, crowdsourcing can make decision making and problem solving more just by bringing in voices that are not usually considered when thinking about current and future uses of the city. It has the potential to allow disenfranchised groups - working classes, women, ethnic minorities, different abled people - to frame the contours of decision making, at least on certain issues. Further to this, it can allow for sustainably minded projects to have greater sustainability - if people feel invested in a certain project or idea (e.g. measuring their local air quality) then, even if a project or initiative ends, they might remain committed to an idea. Finally, thinking about sustainability and justice together, crowdsourcing, if it allows for diverse groups to co-create suggestions for urban challenges, can ensure that wider questions of justice are entwined in sustainable solutions.

==Narrative of change==
Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge solving. It relies on the premise that if many people put their heads together they can find solutions that an individual or small group of people cannot and, moreover, might even identify new challenges or problems that otherwise might not have been considered. A positive consequence of bringing together people to solve a challenge is that it can create new communities of collaborators who make work together in the future.

==Transformative potential==
Crowdsourcing contains the same seeds of transformative potential and obvious shortcomings as other participatory approaches - it depends very much on how processes are designed, who is included in process, when crowdsourcing is used within a project or initiative timeframe, and if genuinely radical or transformative ideas are allowed or will be dismissed. Beyond mere participation, and as explored as part of the CROWD_USG project, transformative uses of crowdsourcing might need to include space for both environmental and social issues; an awareness of equality; high degrees of transparency throughout the process; genuine collaboration and cooperation between between different actors as individuals, groups or institutions; and an ability to adapt a challenge in light of the crowdsourcing process, when it throws up new ideas or issues. Crowdsourcing contains the same seeds of transformative potential and obvious shortcomings as other participatory approaches - it depends very much on how processes are designed, who is included in process, when crowdsourcing is used within a project or initiative timeframe, and if genuinely radical or transformative ideas are allowed or will be dismissed. Beyond mere participation, and as explored as part of the CROWD_USG project<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en</ref>, transformative uses of crowdsourcing might need to include space for both environmental and social issues; an awareness of equality; high degrees of transparency throughout the process; genuine collaboration and cooperation between between different actors as individuals, groups or institutions; and an ability to adapt a challenge in light of the crowdsourcing process, when it throws up new ideas or issues. Without such considerations, it runs the risk of becoming a box ticking exercise where the glamour of using technology-enabled web platforms combines with empty gestures of participation to alter minor elements within wider projects, and thus justify and enable the upholding of existing power relations<ref>Certomà, Chiara, Filippo Corsini, and Francesco Rizzi. ‘Crowdsourcing Urban Sustainability. Data, People and Technologies in Participatory Governance’. Futures 74 (1 November 2015): 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.006</ref>. Without such considerations, it runs the risk of becoming a box ticking exercise where the glamour of using technology enabled web platforms combines with empty gestures of participation to alter minor elements within wider projects, and thus justify and enable the upholding of existing power relations.

==Illustrations of approaches==
'''The Citizen Mobility Kit'''<ref>https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/</ref> is a collection of methods and tools designed to find solutions to urban mobility challenges. It is meant to be used in different ways depending upon a local community’s needs. It might include a guide on how to enable information sharing or collective approaches, feedback mechanisms that work in real time (e.g. collecting data and evaluating it), collections of existing solutions to mobility issues and so on. Five different tool kits are currently being used within pilot projects as part of the Cities4People project in Oxfordshire, Hamburg, Budapest, Trikala and Istanbul.

'''PPGIS''' (public participation geographic information system) is about utilizing and creating maps and other visual or spatial tools in a way that changes people's awareness and geographic involvement. Geographic technology is thus harnessed to increase participaction. It is being used as part of Helsinki’s master planning. As Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife<ref>https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/</ref> at Forum Virium Helsinki, puts it “[More than just] sticking a pin on a map… PPGIS [Public Participation Geographical Information System] it is about understanding how people see their neighbourhood and what they have to improve...”

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Crowdsourcing]]
[[Category: Data collection]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: OpenIDEO]]
[[Category: Collideoscope]]
[[Category: The Citizen Mobility Kit]]

Community gardens and food

2019-11-15T13:04:14Z

Lin:

With modern cities taking up only three percent of the world’s land surface, their ecological footprints actually cover the entire globe. In recent decades urban solutions are moving from Sustainable Cities to Regenerative Cities<ref>Herbert Girardet (2014): Creating Regenerative Cities https://www.routledge.com/Creating-Regenerative-Cities/Girardet/p/book/9780415724463</ref>. A factor in this shift seeks to reduce energy use in food transport by increasing urban agriculture, thereby cutting fossil fuel dependance and misuse while building community resilience.<ref>Megan Quinn (2006) The power of community: How Cuba survived peak oil https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-02-25/power-community-how-cuba-survived-peak-oil/</ref>

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Community gardens and other aspects of food production, together with their related spaces and processes, are seen as important loci that can lead to various types of urban transformation in cities. Some examples of approaches that relate to this theme include: ‘Edible City Solutions’, community-based urban farms and gardens, aquaponics, and community gardens for social reintegration. While our examples here are mostly based in Europe, some have had a global outreach with city partners based in Central America, Africa and East Asia. The systemic use of urban landscapes for food production is a major step towards more sustainable, livable and healthier cities. Many approaches are seen to empower local communities to overcome social problems by their inclusive and participatory dynamics. Others have also created dynamics for new green businesses and jobs, such as selling locally produced honey<ref>Pollinator biodiversity http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/pollinator-biodiversity/</ref>, thereby generating local economic growth and fostering social cohesion.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

EdiCitNet<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/216082/factsheet/en</ref> is the Edible Cities Network Integrating Edible City Solutions for social resilient and sustainably productive cities and has just started in 2018, expected to run until 2023. EdiCitNet focuses around Edible City Solutions (ECS), including different forms of urban farming combined with closed loop systems for sustainable water, nutrient, and waste management<ref>Säumel, Ina; Reddy, Suhana E; & Wachtel, Thomas: Edible City Solutions—One Step Further to Foster Social Resilience through Enhanced Socio-Cultural Ecosystem Services in Cities. Published in Sustainability, February 2019 https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i4p972-d205771.html</ref>. It examined case studies in Rotterdam (The Netherlands), Andernach (Germany), Oslo (Norway), Heidelberg (Germany), and Havana (Cuba), and found that while the implementation of Nature-based solutions (NBS) (link) has increased in the last decade, they have not been able to significantly increase social cohesion as they mostly invite users to ‘stay and use’ passively but not to become actively involved on-site, in an ongoing fashion. According to findings from the EdiCitNet, around the world and across all socioeconomic groups, cultural and generational differences ECS are booming and demonstrate a high potential for a participatory development of social cohesion.

The ProGIreg<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/</ref> (Productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration) project began in 2018 and is active in post-industrial urban areas that suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Its approach is based on the use of Living labs<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> with local communities in order to affect change using eight interconnected NBS based on food production. This Community-based urban farms and gardens<ref>ProGIreg NBS #3: Community-based urban farms and gardens approach http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/community-based-urban-farms-and-gardens/</ref> approach will turn unused urban land into productive community gardens, contributing to improved mental and physical health through exposure to nature and healthy sources of food and a community feeling. Additionally an aquaponics<ref>ProGIreg NBS #4: Aquaponics http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/aquaponics/</ref> approach will be tried in 4 cities. Aquaponics is a combination of raising fish (aquaculture) in tanks, together with soilless cultivation of plants (hydroponics) in a symbiotic environment, whereby the fish waste water provides the nutrients needed to feed the plants. This approach is easy to operate and ideal for promoting local food production in areas with contaminated or poor quality soil, and has the potential of creating green job opportunities.

Another approach implemented through the CITISPYCE project<ref>http://www.citispyce.eu/</ref> (Combating inequalities through innovative social practices of, and for, young people in cities across Europe, 2013-2015) worked with young people in Elefsina, Athens, and used a Municipal Vegetable Garden as a private initiative<ref>CITISPYCE Repository of Case Studies I: Athens - Topeko (Case Studies I: Local Actions for social integration of vulnerable groups in the Municipality of Elefsina (TOPEKO) http://www.citispyce.eu/citispyce-repository-case-studies</ref>. Originating from an NGO called EPEKA, it aimed at the social reintegration of people facing financial difficulties through their active engagement with the vegetable garden. It successfully resulted in 3 young people (up to 30 years old) finding employment.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Urban gardens have come to symbolize a proximate and locally driven way of improving life in cities, not only in terms of food provision and greening but also as inclusive community hubs that promote sustainability. In all their diversity, urban gardens are not only responses from below to the socio-economic crisis and its associated precariousness, but have also increasingly become part of urban planning and policy.

Food justice activists defend urban agriculture as an important tool for urban food security and sovereignty (Anguelovski, 2014)<ref>Anguelovski, Isabelle (2014) Alternative food provision conflicts in cities: Contesting food privilege, injustice, and whiteness in Jamaica Plain, Boston https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268693826_Alternative_food_provision_conflicts_in_cities_Contesting_food_privilege_injustice_and_whiteness_in_Jamaica_Plain_Boston</ref>, especially so in the context of food deserts and unhealthy foodscapes. Gardening work holds individual healing and other health benefits for socially vulnerable residents and can help them recover from trauma.

Regarding sustainability issues, EdiCitNet´s ECS conceptional framework explores how urban farming combined with closed loop systems for sustainable water, nutrient, and waste management can create more resilient cities. Both ProGIreg and EdiCitNet explore many aspects of sustainability to a very deep degree, seeking to identify and improve areas in cities through NBS including: biodiversity, the carbon cycle, soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, citizen involvement, education and empowerment. Citizen science and active citizen participation also include sustainable education and nature appreciation.

==Narrative of change==

With modern cities possessing such large ecological footprints, being dominated by grey infrastructure and automobile use, with often serious health damaging effects (air pollution, heatstress, little opportunity and space for recreation and sport) the systemic use of urban landscapes for food production can act as a major step towards more sustainable, liveable and healthier cities.First, urban agriculture more generally, and related NBS that have been proposed based on this idea, act as a means to lowering energy dependence by increasing local food distribution and markets, thereby reducing global carbon emissions and increasing urban resilience. Second, growing food in community gardens promotes physical exercise and cultivates healthier eating habits. Their health effects expand to mental health benefits through socialization and engagement with natural processes, as well as because they provide greener, more quiet and more pleasant, proximate urban environments.

Beyond their potential for food security and health, community gardens serve also social empowerment and broader political engagement goals, as they become places of exchange and sharing; a place of urban commoning. The transformative potential of local food production zones more generally has been located in their potential of empowering local communities to collectively alleviate social problems, through their inclusive and participatory dynamics. Some initiatives can create new green businesses and jobs, thereby generating local economic growth and fostering social cohesion. An example of this was Cuba’s market gardens (including rooftops) during the countries “special period” when the 1990s US trade blockade and fuel shortages led to an agricultural and partial economic restructuring. The 2006 film by Community Solutions<ref>Film: The Power of Community. How Cuba Survived Peak Oil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99WCn_nFSAY</ref><ref>Wikipedia: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Community:_How_Cuba_Survived_Peak_Oil</ref> and research by UK based Bohn & Viljoen Architects<ref>Bohn&Viljoen Architects (2012). Scarcity and Abundance: Urban Agriculture in Cuba and the US https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262867813_Scarcity_and_Abundance_Urban_Agriculture_in_Cuba_and_the_US</ref> explored this period and helped inspire their Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPUL) urban proposal<ref>CPULs – Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes – Andre Viljoen (2006) https://www.transitionculture.org/essential-info/book-reviews/cpuls/</ref> and subsequent food art project DOTT 07<ref>Middlesbrough Urban Farming Project https://www.ryerson.ca/carrotcity/board_pages/city/middlesbrough.html</ref> in Middlesbrough in 2007 which culminated with a moment "where up to 8,000 people shared meals from the food that had been grown"<ref>Early, Catherine (2008) In; Guardian, UK: Urban jungle https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/26/cityfood</ref>.

==Transformative potential==

Some projects offered high degrees of Transformative potential, ProGIreg and EdiCitNet both seeked to make urban transformation work with and for local communities, where citizens become active participants in the construction and upkeep of community projects and spaces in their communities, as opposed to being just passive ‘stay and use’ users. The growth of such community decision making processes could lead to wider aspects of future neighbourhood design being driven by community-led initiatives<ref>ECOLISE (2019): Report reveals compelling evidence of the effectiveness of community-led responses to climate and ecological breakdown https://www.ecolise.eu/new-ecolise-report-reveals-compelling-evidence-of-the-effectiveness-of-community-led-responses-to-climate-and-ecological-breakdown/</ref>. Growing food locally and with sustainability principles also creates more awareness towards the health and environmental consequences of industrial chemical-based agriculture, challenging in this way powerful market interests that build on everyday food choices. However, it should be noted, urban community gardens rarely provide autonomy in food consumption, but they do alter the way people experience food and affect their thereafter food behaviors.The growth of such community decision making processes and the more intense and frequent interaction between beighbors that such initiatives cultivate, have potential of increasing grassroots/neighborhood action in other aspects of urban design and policy.

==Illustrations==

The PATHWAYS project focused on key objectives of (2016) EU sustainability policy<ref>EU Commission Communication: A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European strategy for Sustainable Development https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0264</ref> (moving towards a sustainable, resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate-resilient Europe). This was intrinsically linked to the success of two key transitions: 1) the energy transition and 2) the land-use transition. The Transition Case Study Database includes examples from the second section relating to the approach of “Community Gardens”.<ref>Transition case study database: Rosa Rose – more than just a Berlin garden https://www.pathways-project.nl/rosa-rose-%E2%80%93-more-just-berlin-garden</ref><ref>Transition case study database: Casale Podere Rosa https://www.pathways-project.nl/casale-podere-rosa</ref>

* Rosa Rose – more than just a Berlin garden
The initiative “Rosa Rose"<ref>Rosa Rose http://www.rosarose-garten.net/en/home</ref> is one of the community garden projects in Berlin. The initiative started in 2004, when a group of neighbours in the Berlin district of Friedrichshain began turning a 2000m² brownfield into a garden to create their own little oasis. The idea was to grow vegetables, some fruits and herbs and create a green space and dog area that would also be open to passers-by. But unfortunately the oasis had to be abandoned a few years later, due to a planned construction. In May 2010 they could start to develop their new site, a green public area right next to their original location proposed by the district of Friedrichshain. Since then, a contract with the district office ensures a free usage of the area for at least five years, provided that the group maintains the space.

* Casale Podere Rosa
In the north-east of Rome there is an old country side building where more then 20 years ago a bunch of willing and motivated people decided to take up an abandoned area to develop an entire microcosm of activities. Over the years this has grown to include a solidarity purchasing group, an educational botanic garden, urban gardens, a farmer market twice a months, an organic restaurant, the management of a library dedicated to the ecological culture, the energy production through solar panels and more. Today the Casale Podere Rosa<ref>Casale Podere Rosa http://www.casalepodererosa.org/</ref> is a fully developed association around which revolve a community of 500 people, more than 100 families. A piece of neighbourhood benefitting from and contributing to the drive to shape the current identity and quality of the surrounding area. Its achievements, quite unique in the urban scenario where the initiative is settled, are the results of a careful management of the relationships with the local institution and of ability in taking advantage of the peculiarities of the neighbourhood, which has a history of social and environmental struggles.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: Crowdsourcing]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
[[Category: ProGIreg]]
[[Category: CITISPYCE]]
[[Category: EdiCitNet]]
[[Category: PATHWAYS]]

Energy and mobility solutions

2019-11-15T13:01:44Z

Lin:

Increased fossil fuel use is a major cause of global warming, leading to Climate Breakdown<ref>George Monbiot, Sep 2013, Guardian UK: Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-global-warming</ref>. With much energy being used in the energy and mobility systems of moving citizens about cities, this cluster addresses technological interventions that can support the transition to a low-carbon society<ref>Robin McKie, Apr 2019, Guardian UK: Slow burn? The long road to a zero-emissions UK https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/21/long-road-to-zero-emissions-uk</ref>.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

The technological interventions herein presented point to changes in the energy and mobility systems that can support the transition to a low-carbon society. These interventions mostly relate to good practices and recommendations based on research and case-study analysis, surveys and future studies (e.g. good practices in urban schemes with decarbonised transport and energy system, innovation roadmap for urban bus systems, research blindspots for vehicle-to-grid and electric mobility diffusion). It also includes a transnational pilot deployment towards advancing Smart Cities (e.g. through Intelligent Districts and Smarter Energy applications). Actors coming from business, academia and research, public / city authorities and policy makers, and citizens and the wider public were involved to varying degrees and combinations.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Some approaches aim to show proof of concept of a Smart City that is not only technologically pushed, but where there is increased pull from end-users, in particular public authorities and citizens. This means end-users are active shapers of a Smart City that fits their needs and nudges desired behaviours (e.g. increased energy savings). These approaches are part of a transnational pilot across different building-sites with a focus on Intelligent Districts, Smarter Energy, and Smarter Lighting interventions.

Smart cities are still an emerging concept in Europe that is being explored through small-scale pilot projects, such as those in cities across the Mediterranean through ESMARTCITY. Most of these pilots are still in the initial phases of massive data gathering, which then would determine the investments in building infra-structure. The biggest challenges arising from these pilots relate to data privacy and handling. Who owns the data collected from the end-users? What the threats and opportunities to making all the data publicaly available? How can the data be used and translated into benefits for all citizens and for the sustainability of the city? These are questions that remain unanswered for the time being, and which could hamper the scaling and transferal of Smart cities interventions.

Other approaches herein identified good practices, and defined investment and research priorities for the diffusion of technologies such as electric mobility and vehicle-to-grid, or for the increased performance, accessibility and efficiency or urban bus systems. The latter culminated in an Innovative Bus System Roadmap (2015) developed and supported by diverse stakeholders , such as industries, Public Transport operators and authorities, suppliers and research institutes, indicating areas for innovation and priorities research. These were stronger EU political commitment to improve public transport market shares (namely with quantitative targets), campaigning for a new identity of bus systems that would re-dignify the bus, creating financial support mechanisms to accelerate the modernisation of the bus systems in EU cities and supporting market uptake of newer and cleaner propulsion technologies, and ensure institutional investment for long-term innovation in the bus system.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

All the approaches refer to cities, with applications in buildings or public spaces such as squares and streets, neighborhoods or system scales. Justice is identified as a key research area for ensuring accessibility and safety measures to bus infrastructures and vehicles, particularly in light of ageing population trends, and also as a blindspot in research related to the diffusion of electric mobility, vehicle-to-grid (V2G), and Smart Cities. The link between justice and sustainability is not addressed in depth in these approaches, but highlight that although a vehicle-to-grid or Smart city transition has much to offer society, less is understood about how those benefits are distributed, especially among vulnerable groups.

Sustainability topics cover smart and sustainable Green Growth, factors that shape energy demand from the viewpoints of both infrastructure and lifestyle and behaviour, and improved efficiency and reduced emissions from transport from a mobility perspective.

==Narrative of change==

Transitioning into a low-carbon society through smart and sustainable green growth of the energy and transport sectors, while promoting broader uptake of technological innovations and participation of end-users (in particular citizens and public authorities), and reducing traffic and pollution in Europe's cities.

Innovation ecosystems such as those brought about by Smart Cities, and taking system approaches to energy and transport development (namely linking end-users, vehicles, infrastructure and operations together with a high-quality service) are key elements of change. Sharing good practices to stimulate the deployment of key solutions at scale and exploiting research outcomes through sectoral and cross-sectoral networks are also fundamental.

==Transformative potential==

One approach, as part of a foresight study, looked into enablers and obstacles of the energy transition towards a post-carbon society from a technological societal process and a political societal process. Furthermore, making public the data coming from the digitisation of cities, such as through Smart Cities interventions, without further consideration and or assessment structures for its further uses and ownership might be problematic given the e.g. commercial or surveillance value it carries.

==Summary of relevant approaches==

'''A transport roadmap for developing new bus systems based on more-electric technologies and alternative fuels in Europe´s cities'''

A transport roadmap for developing new bus systems based on more-electric technologies and alternative fuels was developed under the FP7 project 3 IBS - The Intelligent, Innovative, Integrated Bus Systems, and promises to reduce traffic and pollution in Europe's cities. The roadmap for an European Advanced Bus Systems was based on surveys conducted on European bus system strategies. It presents a snapshot of the bus fleets in operation in urban areas across Europe and helps understanding the role of bus systems in local mobility policies for the coming years, a step towards a stronger competitiveness of the bus in the urban environment.

It identified six research areas:
* A “bus system” perspective should be prioritised in order to manage efficiently interfaces with infrastructure, traffic and all users’ needs.
* IT platform integration; standardization and harmonization of information system and open architecture as a logical answer to efficient bus system integration
* Sustainability of the bus system can be reached via smart use of energy all along the bus system (of which electrification offers an important contribution), and the improvement of the environmental, economical and social performances under a life cycle perspective
* Research on innovative vehicle technologies;
* Modularity can bring an important contribution to the attractiveness of the bus system, through the optimization of the capacity, consumption (and emissions), as well as frequency of services during different hours according to the demand
* Meeting the mobility challenges of an ageing society; where future bus systems must also be attractive for elderly people and their needs

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Energy and mobility solutions]]
[[Category: Crowdsourcing]]
[[Category: Data collection]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: ESMARTCITY]]
[[Category: NV2G]]
[[Category: PACT]]
[[Category: 3IBS]]

Community gardens and food

2019-11-15T12:57:27Z

Lin: /* Narrative of change */

With modern cities taking up only three percent of the world’s land surface, their ecological footprints actually cover the entire globe. In recent decades urban solutions are moving from Sustainable Cities to Regenerative Cities<ref>Herbert Girardet (2014): Creating Regenerative Cities https://www.routledge.com/Creating-Regenerative-Cities/Girardet/p/book/9780415724463</ref>. A factor in this shift seeks to reduce energy use in food transport by increasing urban agriculture, thereby cutting fossil fuel dependance and misuse while building community resilience.<ref>Megan Quinn (2006) The power of community: How Cuba survived peak oil https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-02-25/power-community-how-cuba-survived-peak-oil/</ref>

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Community gardens and other aspects of food production, together with their related spaces and processes, are seen as important loci that can lead to various types of urban transformation in cities. Some examples of approaches that relate to this theme include: ‘Edible City Solutions’, community-based urban farms and gardens, aquaponics, and community gardens for social reintegration. While our examples here are mostly based in Europe, some have had a global outreach with city partners based in Central America, Africa and East Asia. The systemic use of urban landscapes for food production is a major step towards more sustainable, livable and healthier cities. Many approaches are seen to empower local communities to overcome social problems by their inclusive and participatory dynamics. Others have also created dynamics for new green businesses and jobs, such as selling locally produced honey<ref>Pollinator biodiversity http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/pollinator-biodiversity/</ref>, thereby generating local economic growth and fostering social cohesion.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

EdiCitNet<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/216082/factsheet/en</ref> is the Edible Cities Network Integrating Edible City Solutions for social resilient and sustainably productive cities and has just started in 2018, expected to run until 2023. EdiCitNet focuses around Edible City Solutions (ECS), including different forms of urban farming combined with closed loop systems for sustainable water, nutrient, and waste management<ref>Säumel, Ina; Reddy, Suhana E; & Wachtel, Thomas: Edible City Solutions—One Step Further to Foster Social Resilience through Enhanced Socio-Cultural Ecosystem Services in Cities. Published in Sustainability, February 2019 https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i4p972-d205771.html</ref>. It examined case studies in Rotterdam (The Netherlands), Andernach (Germany), Oslo (Norway), Heidelberg (Germany), and Havana (Cuba), and found that while the implementation of Nature-based solutions (NBS) (link) has increased in the last decade, they have not been able to significantly increase social cohesion as they mostly invite users to ‘stay and use’ passively but not to become actively involved on-site, in an ongoing fashion. According to findings from the EdiCitNet, around the world and across all socioeconomic groups, cultural and generational differences ECS are booming and demonstrate a high potential for a participatory development of social cohesion.

The ProGIreg<ref>http://www.progireg.eu/</ref> (Productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration) project began in 2018 and is active in post-industrial urban areas that suffer from social and economic disadvantages, inequality and related crime and security problems. Its approach is based on the use of Living labs<ref>http://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php/Experimentation_labs</ref> with local communities in order to affect change using eight interconnected NBS based on food production. This Community-based urban farms and gardens<ref>ProGIreg NBS #3: Community-based urban farms and gardens approach http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/community-based-urban-farms-and-gardens/</ref> approach will turn unused urban land into productive community gardens, contributing to improved mental and physical health through exposure to nature and healthy sources of food and a community feeling. Additionally an aquaponics<ref>ProGIreg NBS #4: Aquaponics http://www.progireg.eu/nature-based-solutions/aquaponics/</ref> approach will be tried in 4 cities. Aquaponics is a combination of raising fish (aquaculture) in tanks, together with soilless cultivation of plants (hydroponics) in a symbiotic environment, whereby the fish waste water provides the nutrients needed to feed the plants. This approach is easy to operate and ideal for promoting local food production in areas with contaminated or poor quality soil, and has the potential of creating green job opportunities.

Another approach implemented through the CITISPYCE project<ref>http://www.citispyce.eu/</ref> (Combating inequalities through innovative social practices of, and for, young people in cities across Europe, 2013-2015) worked with young people in Elefsina, Athens, and used a Municipal Vegetable Garden as a private initiative<ref>CITISPYCE Repository of Case Studies I: Athens - Topeko (Case Studies I: Local Actions for social integration of vulnerable groups in the Municipality of Elefsina (TOPEKO) http://www.citispyce.eu/citispyce-repository-case-studies</ref>. Originating from an NGO called EPEKA, it aimed at the social reintegration of people facing financial difficulties through their active engagement with the vegetable garden. It successfully resulted in 3 young people (up to 30 years old) finding employment.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Urban gardens have come to symbolize a proximate and locally driven way of improving life in cities, not only in terms of food provision and greening but also as inclusive community hubs that promote sustainability. In all their diversity, urban gardens are not only responses from below to the socio-economic crisis and its associated precariousness, but have also increasingly become part of urban planning and policy.

Food justice activists defend urban agriculture as an important tool for urban food security and sovereignty (Anguelovski, 2014)<ref>Anguelovski, Isabelle (2014) Alternative food provision conflicts in cities: Contesting food privilege, injustice, and whiteness in Jamaica Plain, Boston https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268693826_Alternative_food_provision_conflicts_in_cities_Contesting_food_privilege_injustice_and_whiteness_in_Jamaica_Plain_Boston</ref>, especially so in the context of food deserts and unhealthy foodscapes. Gardening work holds individual healing and other health benefits for socially vulnerable residents and can help them recover from trauma.

Regarding sustainability issues, EdiCitNet´s ECS conceptional framework explores how urban farming combined with closed loop systems for sustainable water, nutrient, and waste management can create more resilient cities. Both ProGIreg and EdiCitNet explore many aspects of sustainability to a very deep degree, seeking to identify and improve areas in cities through NBS including: biodiversity, the carbon cycle, soil consumption and use of natural resources in urban environments, citizen involvement, education and empowerment. Citizen science and active citizen participation also include sustainable education and nature appreciation.

==Narrative of change==

With modern cities possessing such large ecological footprints, being dominated by grey infrastructure and automobile use, with often serious health damaging effects (air pollution, heatstress, little opportunity and space for recreation and sport) the systemic use of urban landscapes for food production can act as a major step towards more sustainable, liveable and healthier cities.First, urban agriculture more generally, and related NBS that have been proposed based on this idea, act as a means to lowering energy dependence by increasing local food distribution and markets, thereby reducing global carbon emissions and increasing urban resilience. Second, growing food in community gardens promotes physical exercise and cultivates healthier eating habits. Their health effects expand to mental health benefits through socialization and engagement with natural processes, as well as because they provide greener, more quiet and more pleasant, proximate urban environments.

Beyond their potential for food security and health, community gardens serve also social empowerment and broader political engagement goals, as they become places of exchange and sharing; a place of urban commoning. The transformative potential of local food production zones more generally has been located in their potential of empowering local communities to collectively alleviate social problems, through their inclusive and participatory dynamics. Some initiatives can create new green businesses and jobs, thereby generating local economic growth and fostering social cohesion. An example of this was Cuba’s market gardens (including rooftops) during the countries “special period” when the 1990s US trade blockade and fuel shortages led to an agricultural and partial economic restructuring. The 2006 film by Community Solutions<ref>Film: The Power of Community. How Cuba Survived Peak Oil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99WCn_nFSAY</ref><ref>Wikipedia: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Community:_How_Cuba_Survived_Peak_Oil</ref> and research by UK based Bohn & Viljoen Architects<ref>Bohn&Viljoen Architects (2012). Scarcity and Abundance: Urban Agriculture in Cuba and the US https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262867813_Scarcity_and_Abundance_Urban_Agriculture_in_Cuba_and_the_US</ref> explored this period and helped inspire their Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPUL) urban proposal<ref>CPULs – Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes – Andre Viljoen (2006) https://www.transitionculture.org/essential-info/book-reviews/cpuls/</ref> and subsequent food art project DOTT 07<ref>Middlesbrough Urban Farming Project https://www.ryerson.ca/carrotcity/board_pages/city/middlesbrough.html</ref> in Middlesbrough in 2007 which culminated with a moment "where up to 8,000 people shared meals from the food that had been grown"<ref>Early, Catherine (2008) In; Guardian, UK: Urban jungle https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/26/cityfood</ref>.

==Transformative potential==

Some projects offered high degrees of Transformative potential, ProGIreg and EdiCitNet both seeked to make urban transformation work with and for local communities, where citizens become active participants in the construction and upkeep of community projects and spaces in their communities, as opposed to being just passive ‘stay and use’ users. The growth of such community decision making processes could lead to wider aspects of future neighbourhood design being driven by community-led initiatives<ref>ECOLISE (2019): Report reveals compelling evidence of the effectiveness of community-led responses to climate and ecological breakdown https://www.ecolise.eu/new-ecolise-report-reveals-compelling-evidence-of-the-effectiveness-of-community-led-responses-to-climate-and-ecological-breakdown/</ref>. Growing food locally and with sustainability principles also creates more awareness towards the health and environmental consequences of industrial chemical-based agriculture, challenging in this way powerful market interests that build on everyday food choices. However, it should be noted, urban community gardens rarely provide autonomy in food consumption, but they do alter the way people experience food and affect their thereafter food behaviors.The growth of such community decision making processes and the more intense and frequent interaction between beighbors that such initiatives cultivate, have potential of increasing grassroots/neighborhood action in other aspects of urban design and policy.

==Illustrations==

The PATHWAYS project focused on key objectives of (2016) EU sustainability policy<ref>EU Commission Communication: A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European strategy for Sustainable Development https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0264</ref> (moving towards a sustainable, resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate-resilient Europe). This was intrinsically linked to the success of two key transitions: 1) the energy transition and 2) the land-use transition. The Transition Case Study Database includes examples from the second section relating to the approach of “Community Gardens”.<ref>Transition case study database: Rosa Rose – more than just a Berlin garden https://www.pathways-project.nl/rosa-rose-%E2%80%93-more-just-berlin-garden</ref><ref>Transition case study database: Casale Podere Rosa https://www.pathways-project.nl/casale-podere-rosa</ref>

* Rosa Rose – more than just a Berlin garden
The initiative “Rosa Rose"<ref>Rosa Rose http://www.rosarose-garten.net/en/home</ref> is one of the community garden projects in Berlin. The initiative started in 2004, when a group of neighbours in the Berlin district of Friedrichshain began turning a 2000m² brownfield into a garden to create their own little oasis. The idea was to grow vegetables, some fruits and herbs and create a green space and dog area that would also be open to passers-by. But unfortunately the oasis had to be abandoned a few years later, due to a planned construction. In May 2010 they could start to develop their new site, a green public area right next to their original location proposed by the district of Friedrichshain. Since then, a contract with the district office ensures a free usage of the area for at least five years, provided that the group maintains the space.

* Casale Podere Rosa
In the north-east of Rome there is an old country side building where more then 20 years ago a bunch of willing and motivated people decided to take up an abandoned area to develop an entire microcosm of activities. Over the years this has grown to include a solidarity purchasing group, an educational botanic garden, urban gardens, a farmer market twice a months, an organic restaurant, the management of a library dedicated to the ecological culture, the energy production through solar panels and more. Today the Casale Podere Rosa<ref>Casale Podere Rosa http://www.casalepodererosa.org/</ref> is a fully developed association around which revolve a community of 500 people, more than 100 families. A piece of neighbourhood benefitting from and contributing to the drive to shape the current identity and quality of the surrounding area. Its achievements, quite unique in the urban scenario where the initiative is settled, are the results of a careful management of the relationships with the local institution and of ability in taking advantage of the peculiarities of the neighbourhood, which has a history of social and environmental struggles.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: Crowdsourcing]]
[[Category: ProGIreg]]
[[Category: CITISPYCE]]
[[Category: EdiCitNet]]
[[Category: PATHWAYS]]

Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities

2019-11-15T12:54:16Z

Lin:

A variety of approaches and movements have the aim to provide affordable, ecological or community housing in both urban and rural contexts. They have in common that it is a group of people who live together or share common facilities and who regularly associate with each other on the basis of explicit common values.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
A variety of approaches and movements have the aim to provide affordable, ecological or community housing in both urban and rural contexts. The diversity of housing initiative is illustrated by the broad definition of an intentional community by the [https://www.ic.org/foundation-for-intentional-community/ Foundation for Intentional Community] : “a group of people who live together or share common facilities and who regularly associate with each other on the basis of explicit common values”, which includes ecovillages, but also cohousing, cooperative houses, communes and other shared living arrangements. What these approaches have in common is that there is a collective focus to it, e.g. organized through a specific governance or ownership model like a cooperative or revolving around a community like in [[ecovillages]].

This cluster includes examples of the cooperative housing movement referred to as co-housing (as described in the TRANSIT project) and intentional communities such as [[ecovillages]] (as described in the projects TRANSIT, Pathways, TESS and by Transformative Cities).

Co-housing, in general, can provide the opportunity for people to secure affordable homes, especially when this is done through community land trusts (see for example, the London Community Land Trust(LCLT) <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust </ref> and specifically the [https://www.communityledhousing.london/project/st-clements-london-clt/ St. Clements project]. However, co-living is also increasingly promoted as a lifestyle of opportunity <ref> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/03/co-living-the-end-of-urban-loneliness-or-cynical-corporate-dormitories </ref>, which is pursued in order to increase social network or stimulating intergenerational living.

[[Ecovillages]] are communities where people aim to live in harmony with each other and with nature. The [https://ecovillage.org/ Global Ecovillage Network] defines an ecovillage as an “intentional, traditional or urban community that is consciously designed through locally owned, participatory processes in all four dimensions of sustainability (social, culture, ecology and economy) to regenerate its social and natural environments” (Website GEN 2017). While this definition explicitly includes traditional villages, we in this Wiki-page focus on the intentional community version of ecovillages in both (peri-)urban and rural areas.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
The concept of cooperative housing has a long history. According to the TRANSIT project (Picabea et al. 2016 <ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf </ref>) the first independent housing cooperatives date back to the mid 19th century. In some countries cooperative housing is an important part of the housing market. Although housing cooperatives can be found all over the world, percentages differ per country.
Cooperative housing, that was studied as part of the TRANSIT project, is part of a global movement of cooperatives that have been existing since 1895. Housing cooperatives can have many forms with their own characteristics. Housing cooperatives can be found in both urban and rural contexts. In the TRANSIT project two examples of co-housing were studied in depth: El Hogar Obrera in Buenos Aires City Argentina and Vauban District in Freiburg. El Hogar Obrera built more than 15.000 homes while Vauban Freiburg is “a special model district of sustainable living and participatory planning” with 2000 housing units.

Looking at Ecovillages they also come in many shapes, sizes and sorts. The size of intentional ecovillage communities range anywhere between 8 to 250 residents. Read more on the [[Ecovillages]] page.

Another example of an intentional community is [[co-working spaces]], like the impact hub.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
Many of the co-housing initiatives and intentional communities directly address several aspects of sustainability. Some pay attention to ecological aspects of building and living, e.g. through recycling/repairing/reusing materials or the production of renewable/cleaner energy). While others focus more on economical aspects of living and providing affordable housing, e.g. through developing community land trusts. And others focus more on social aspects, such as living in a community where people share spaces.

==Narrative of change==
According to Picabea et al. 2016 <ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf </ref>, the global network of the cooperative housing movement is oriented to: “First, the movement proposes cooperation against competition. That is, their main objective is to strengthen the cooperative values and cooperation between cooperatives at local, regional and international levels. The aim of the movement is no competition and overcoming other (in terms of zero-sum game), but social cooperation for mutual benefit. Secondly, the cooperative movement despises the spirit of individual gain (in fact cooperatives do not generate profit rate) in order to activate dynamics of economic and social welfare” (p.6). Following this TRANSIT study, empowerment of communities in terms of decision making about where, when and how people want to live is part of their narrative of change.

Given the rich diversity of ecovillages across the world, It is impossible to generalise one narrative of change for all ecovillages. There is however a shared narrative used by the Global Ecovillage Network <ref> https://ecovillage.org </ref>, which e.g. on its website claims to “envision a world of empowered citizens and communities, designing and implementing pathways to a regenerative future, while building bridges of hope and international solidarity”.

A commonality of the narratives of change for housing cooperatives and ecovillages is the need for more decentralized or self-organized systems to enable access to or the generation of housing that is more affordable, ecological or social.

==Transformative potential==
Similar to other initiatives like community land trusts, cooperative housing can be seen as a mechanism to produce housing and provide access to the city for low income groups. Nevertheless, due to the diversity of their manifestations co-housing or intentional communities also symbolize negotiation processes between traditional planning practices and alternative ways of planning and building like for example in the case of Vauban or Ecovillage Bergen.
As such, the wide variety of projects propose alternatives to ownership structures, organizational models, planning practices, building practices and social relations between neighbors and between residents, local authorities and developers. Depending on the aim of each individual project and the actors involved they contribute to challenging the economic, ecologic and social unsustainability of the housing sector.

==Illustration==
In Freiburg, Germany, the City of Vauban is a special model district of sustainable living and participatory planning in which several co-housing initiatives could be realised. Starting in 1992 from a squat of ex-military facilities that was later bought by the City authorities (1994), who opened up a participatory process of co-designing and re-making the place into affordable and sustainable co-housing, together with citizens. Aspects of traffic, building, energy, nature in the city, sanitation and public space were widely discussed in the Forum and in the city. The district now comprises 2000 housing units for about 5.500 residents, having more than 70 co‐housing projects – either private or cooperative (see also the report by TRANSIT project.

Co-housing Initiatives in the Critical Turning Points-database of the TRANSIT project:
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/ica-4 ICA/COVILPI (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/httpmoiorgar ICA/MOI (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/ccvq ICA/CCVQ (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/wwwfucvamorguy ICA/Fucvam (Uruguay)]

Co-housing Initiatives studied in-depth as Social Innovation Initiative in the TRANSIT project:
*El Hogar Obrero (Argentina)
*[https://freiburg-vauban.de/en/quartier-vauban-2/ Vauban (Germany)]

== Suggested reading==
* https://eurotopiaversand.de/en/Book-Print/eurotopia-Directory-English-2014-edition.html

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Ecovillages]]
[[Category: Right to housing]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: St. Clements project]]
[[Category: London Community Land Trust]]

Ecovillages

2019-11-15T12:53:24Z

Lin:

Ecovillages are communities where people aim to live in harmony with each other and with nature.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
Ecovillages are communities where people aim to live in harmony with each other and with nature. The [https://ecovillage.org/ Global Ecovillage Network] defines an ecovillage as an “intentional, traditional or urban community that is consciously designed through locally owned, participatory processes in all four dimensions of sustainability (social, culture, ecology and economy) to regenerate its social and natural environments” (Website GEN 2017). While this definition explicitly includes traditional villages, we in this Wiki-page focus on the intentional community version of ecovillages in both (peri-)urban and rural areas. [https://www.ic.org/foundation-for-intentional-community/ The Foundation for Intentional Community] defines an intentional community as “a group of people who live together or share common facilities and who regularly associate with each other on the basis of explicit common values”, which includes ecovillages, but also cohousing, cooperative houses, communes and other shared living arrangements.

While there are many fundamental differences between all hundreds/ thousands of specific ecovillage projects across the world, there is an overall shared approach that can be characterised as living in community with several connected households, engaging in collective life-style change striving for (more) socio-ecological justice and participation, and very often the collective ownership of land and (some of the) houses. The [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/ TRANSIT research project] includes a number of [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/global-ecovillage-network-gen case-studies on ecovillages] and the Global Ecovillage Network as manifestations of social innovation in the sense that they explicitly engage with changing social relations, involving new ways of doing, thinking and organising (Kunze & Avelino 2015)<ref> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281279520_Kunze_I_and_Avelino_F_2015_Transformative_social_innovation_narrative_of_the_Global_Ecovillage_Network_TRANSIT_EU_SSH201332-1_Grant_agreement_no_613169 </ref>.

The [https://www.pathways-project.nl/project-information Pathways project] includes a case-study of [https://www.pathways-project.eu/ecovillage-bromarf Bromarf ecovillage] in Finland as an example of alternative “transition pathways as patterns of changes in socio-technical systems unfolding over time that lead to a fundamental reconfiguration of technologies, business models and production systems, as well as the preferences and behaviour of consumers”.

The [https://transformativecities.org/ Transformative Cities] initiative features [https://transformativecities.org/atlas-of-utopias/atlas-49/ Cloughjordan ecovillage] in its [https://transformativecities.org/about-the-atlas-of-utopias-2019/ Atlas of Utopias] as an example of “inspiring stories of communities challenging entrenched power and boldly developing alternatives” and “cases [that] show how public solutions, based on principles of cooperation and solidarity rather than competition and private profit, have been more successful in meeting people’s basic needs - and, perhaps just as importantly, in creating a spirit of confidence and empowerment that strengthen communities for many other challenges”.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
Estimations on how many ecovillages exist in the world today highly depend on (self-appropriated) definitions and vary from 4.000 to 15.000 ecovillages ([http://www.steady-state.ca/articles/JTRJ_EV-Movement2004.pdf Jackson 2004], [http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her151/kasper.pdf Kasper & Schyndel 2008]). The Global Ecovillage Network mentions over 1.000 ecovillages across the world. [http://eurotopia.de/ The Eurotopia directory] (1998-2014) indicate a high fluctuation and increase in projects who call themselves ecovillage. 90% of these new community attempts are reported to fail in the first 5 years, due to the challenges of finding affordable land and planning permissions, and to maintain self-sustaining economies ([https://www.greenbooks.co.uk/ecovillages Dawson 2006], [https://iriskunze.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/transition-potential-ecovillages-avelino-kunze-2009.pdf Avelino & Kunze 2009]).

Ecovillages often function as ‘experimental gardens’ ([https://iriskunze.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/kunze2012_socialinnovations_csajournal.pdf Kunze 2012]) to experiment with a diversity of approaches to tackle ecological sustainability and/or social justice, ranging from permaculture, ecological construction of houses (e.g. strawbale houses <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-bale_construction</ref>, earthships <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship </ref>, and low-tech technological innovation in e.g. renewable energy), to experiment with alternative decision-making formats such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy sociocracy] (see e.g. TRANSIT case-study on [http://www.ecodorpbergen.nl/ Ecovillage Bergen]) or alternative modes of (non-violent) communication and community-building.

Ecovillages come in many shapes, sizes and sorts. If we exclude traditional villages (which are often much larger), the size of intentional ecovillage communities range anywhere between 8 to 250 residents. More importantly, however, are the many visitors that temporarily visit and work in ecovillages. Most ecovillages have an explicit aim to contribute to the transferability of their approaches and “act as centres of research, demonstration and (in most cases) training” (Dawson, 2006)<ref> https://www.greenbooks.co.uk/ecovillages </ref>. Many ecovillages are a member of the [https://ecovillage.org Global Ecovillage Network], which was founded in 1995 as a bottom up network for education, exchange of experiences and political lobby work and has branches on each continent and many national networks. Within these international, regional and national networks, ecovillages share the insights from their ecological, technological, economic and social experiments at events and through the open source [https://ecovillage.org/solutions/ Solution Library].

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
While there are several ecovillages that are integrated in urban contexts, the majority are located in peri-urban or rural areas (Moore & Wight 2007). Although many ecovillages would like to be (more) integrated in and connected to urban contexts, they tend to be impeded from that by high land prices and tight zoning regulations (Kasper/Schyndel 2008).There are however many developments in the urban context that can be related or even traced back to the ecovillage movement, such as the [Transition Towns] movement or eco-city projects such as the [https://www.bioregional.com/projects-and-services/case-studies/bedzed-the-uks-first-large-scale-eco-village BedZed project](Avelino & Kunze 2009). The global ecovillage movements has widened its orientation from merely ‘creating more ecovillages’ to transfer and translate ecovillage learnings to mainstream society through e.g. retrofitting urban contexts or diffusing ecological designs and lifestyles such as e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_house_movement the Tiny House movement] (ibid).

A particular feature of the ecovillage movement is its holistic emphasis on connecting ecological, economic, social and cultural dimensions of sustainability. The Global Ecovillage Network and many individual ecovillages explicitly claim to not only tackle ecological challenges, but also social issues, by “reacting to the alienation of the individual due to institutionalisation of traditional support functions, the breakdown of the family, and the marginalisation of the weaker members of society” (Jackson, in Avelino & Kunze 2009). As formulated by a member of the European Global Ecovillage Network office: “The ecovillage movement is the most radical approach amongst the alternative movements because it touches all areas of life. […] The ecovillage concept is very complex, not many people can agree to it when they first hear about it.” (quoted in TRANSIT ecovillage [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/192%20Case_study_report_GEN_FINAL.pdf case-study report Kunze & Avelino 2015]).

Ecovillages are particularly interesting in their collective ownership models (see [[Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]) and community land trusts, which they experiment with in many forms. Moreover, there is an interesting intersectional work on ecological justice, relating ecovillage approaches to peace activism and conflict areas. An interesting example to illustrate their international work at the intersection of ecological sustainability and social justice is [https://ecovillage.org/project/global-campus-palestine/ the Global Campus Palestine (GCP)] initiative, with experiments in e.g. [https://ecovillage.org/project/farkha/ Farkha village] and the [https://ecovillage.org/project/hakoritna-farm/ Hakoritna farm], regarding “traditional stone terracing and swales for rainwater retention, mixed-culture permaculture, composting toilet and a small biogas digestor”. The idea is that increasing self-sufficiency regarding water, food and energy can be a “power resistance tool” for marginalised communities is disenfranchised communities and conflict regions, which is an interesting example of how ecological and social justice can be combined. As formulated by Fayez Taneeb, the owner of the farm since 1984: “From Tamera I received the message that water, food, and energy are available to all humanity if we work with the laws of nature (...) That’s a powerful resistance tool, because water, food and energy are things that Israel does not want us to control.”

However, as the development of ecovillages implies large scale mobilizations of capital and material resources and often faces significant regulatory and institutional barriers they tend to reproduce, within their internal dynamics, hierarchies and exclusionary tendencies existing in wider society. All these factors underlie the tendency for ecovillages to be ‘susceptible to self-selective homogeneity, dogmatic purity, and assuming away cultural differences’, as well as become ‘habitats for demagogues’, vulnerable to cultic deviations, and experience high rates of attrition and failure.

==Narrative of change==
Given the rich diversity of ecovillages across the world, It is impossible to generalise one narrative of change for all ecovillages. There is however a shared narrative used by the Global Ecovillage Network, which e.g. on its website claims to “envision a world of empowered citizens and communities, designing and implementing pathways to a regenerative future, while building bridges of hope and international solidarity”. The core goal of the ecovillages movement is to promote a ‘global transition from large, fragmented and centrally governed societal systems, to smaller, integrated and self-governed systems’ based on an institutional design that enables the management of common pool resources through direct democracy at the grassroots level. This vision of social transformation is based on a cosmopolitan, non-essentialist vision of community and culture, in which rootedness in territories and ecosystems takes precedence over identity concerns and arbitrary political boundaries ([https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/CAUZ26MXHM6EWCJWHU9G/full?target=10.1080/17400201.2019.1657817 Esteves 2019]). This narrative has been further analysed and unpacked as a ‘narrative of change’ in the TRANSIT research project (e.g. Kunze & Avelino 2015, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328718305019?via%3Dihub Wittmayer et al. 2019], Avelino et al. 2019, [https://drift.eur.nl/publications/a-multi-actor-perspective-on-the-transformative-potential-of-social-enterprise/ Avelino & Wittmayer 2019]). The problem addressed by ecovillages is described as “current developments, such as climate change, demographic change, technological change and inequalities, are grounded in a fundamental alienation and disconnectedness from nature, others and ourselves. The desired future includes the reconciliation of different cultures, an integration of individual needs and community, reclaiming of real estate and land and, to some degree, self-sufficiency and ecological responsibility” (Wittmayer et al. 2019, p.7).

Each ecovillage has its own narrative of change. [https://www.tamera.org/ Tamera ecovillage], for instance, describes itself as a ‘healing biotope’ and a ‘peace research centre for a future without war’. It strongly emphasises that it wants to create a new world, a ‘Realistic Utopia’. The Tamera Manifesto for a New Generation on Planet Earth, for instance, argues that “the world is in transition towards a new way to live on Earth”, that “we are experiencing the collapse of the mega-systems”, and that “the new planetary community is making a fundamental system-change” . A central feature that distinguishes Tamera from other ecovillages and communities, is its focus on social issues regarding community, love, sexuality and partnership. Their belief is that all/most societal challenges in contemporary society (war, violence, ecological destruction, inequality, etc.) originate in difficulties within human relations, and that it is necessary to deal with these human relations first, in order to solve these societal challenges (Kunze & Avelino 2015)<ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/192%20Case_study_report_GEN_FINAL.pdf </ref>.

While many ecovillage residents have been involved in antagonistic power dynamics manifested in contentious protest movements, the predominant approach of the Global Ecovillage Network seems to be one of cooperation and synergy. This is illustrated by e.g. co-founding the meta-network ECOLISE <ref> https://www.ecolise.eu/ </ref>, the organisation of the [https://www.sustainable-communities.net/ European Day of Sustainable Communities] which aims to inform and engage a wider audience in community-led sustainability, and the collaboration with the European Economic and Social Council to co-organise a ‘learning-conference’ on Citizens and municipalities – Building sustainability through collaboration. The overall tone is that of communities and citizens being ‘equal’ partners for (local) governments, together challenging the power of multinational companies or (inter)national policies that are seen to be ecologically and socially harmful. At the same time, however, at the local level, the relation between ecovillages and municipalities is often a particularly challenging one, with considerably conflicts over land use planning, construction regulations or other issues (see for instance the TRANSIT case-study on [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/ecovillage-bergen Ecovillage Bergen’s] development and its challenges with local government around land-use and construction regulations).

==Transformative potential==
Ecovillages have transformative potential in the sense that they “empower communities of people to live alternative lifestyles according to their own values, despite many structural barriers in the mainstream societal context. Not only does the ecovillage movement provide residents with increased access to existing resources, they also empower them to create and invent new resources, such as new technologies, new currencies (e.g. interest free currency) and new natural resources. Rather than having to ‘buy’ or ‘compete’ over existing resources, ecovillage residents develop and create their own. By doing so, they fundamentally change existing power relations in that the one-sides dependency on existing industries or governments for having access to such resources, is replaced by a situation of independence” [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/192%20Case_study_report_GEN_FINAL.pdf (Avelino & Kunze 2015)].

On the one hand, ecovillages can be seen as standing outside mainstream society and supplementing dominant structures & institutions, rather than challenging, altering or replacing them. Many ecovillage “create an entire new social context by forming new communities from which new structures and institutions emerge; as the community develops in time, new norms, new rules and new traditions are established” [https://iriskunze.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/transition-potential-ecovillages-avelino-kunze-2009.pdf (Avelino & Kunze 2009)].

On the other hand, these innovations can also be seen as challenging existing structures in the sense that these different ecovillage experiments are being spread and shared across the world and used to create new approaches and standards and to reconsider existing ones, be it in construction, energy, land-use, community-planning, agriculture or financing. By demonstrating that alternative forms of living are not only possible but already happening, they are challenging existing structures and power relations in current energy, food, water and housing systems. Moreover, they do not only challenge existing regimes in specific functional systems, but also underlying dominant landscape trends in the broader societal context, such as a neo-liberal paradigm, a drive for economic growth, individualism, materialism, consumerism, acceleration, privatization, formalization, centralisation, and so on. As argued by Lara Monticelli [https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/1032 (2018)], the ecovillage movement is focused on ‘prefiguring’ their future vision, i.e. “embody their ultimate goals and their vision of a future society through their ongoing social practices, social relations, decision-making philosophy and culture” and “not only opposing capitalism but also prefiguring post-capitalist societies. These movements are re-thinking and re-politicising conventional modes of production, consumption and living by defending, restoring and creating spaces of resistance and experimentation” [https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/1032 (Monticelli 2018: 509-515)].

At a closer look, besides the many activist and grassroots alternatives, ecovillages also do more explicit ‘institutional work’ in the sense that many/most ecovillages face conflicts with local governments or other authorities regarding zoning regulations, construction rules, collective ownership and (home)schooling. These struggles, and the resulting escalations, concessions and/or resolutions thereof, set important precedents and for future eco-community initiatives. By doing so, the ecovillage movement has a transformative potential to empower community-led initiatives by challenging the dominance of the formalised and centralised structures of both market and state-led organisations (Avelino & Wittmayer 2019).

==Illustrations==

[http://www.thevillage.ie/ Cloughjordan ecovillage] is based in Ireland. Its first houses were built in 2009 and it currently includes “55 low-carbon homes, Ireland's lowest ecological footprint, a carbon-neutral district heating system, a community farm, green enterprise centre, and a planned reed bed treatment plant”.

[https://www.tamera.org/ Tamera ecovillage] was founded in 1995 and is now inhabited by 170 people who live and work on a site of 330 acres/ 134 located 20kms off the west coast in the Alentejo region in southern Portugal. In addition to the permanent community, there are hundreds of guests who temporarily live and work in Tamera.

[https://www.schloss-tempelhof.de/ Ecovillage Schloss Tempelhof] which was started in 2007, has located in the Jagstregion, a rural area in Southern Germany, state of Baden-Württemberg, and has grown from 20 to 140 inhabitants in only three years with a site of 32ha (4ha Buildings, 27ha agrarian land incl. 1ha forest). The Tempelhof foundation owns the property and all residents are voting members.

==Additional reading==
*Global Ecovillage Network: https://ecovillage.org/
*GEN Research Working Group: https://ecovillage.org/our-work/research-ecovillages/
*Community research website Dr. Iris Kunze: https://iriskunze.wordpress.com/
*Eurotopia: https://eurotopia.de/enindex.html
*ECOVILLAGE: 1001 Ways to Heal the Planet, Edited by: Kosha Joubert and Leila Dregger: https://ecovillage.org/1ecovillage-1001-ways-heal-planet/
*Creating a Life Together. Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional Communities, by Diana Leafe Christian: https://www.newsociety.com/Books/C/Creating-a-Life-Together
*Ecovillages. Lessons for Sustainable Community, by Karin Liftin: https://ecovillagebook.org/
*Ecovillages. New Frontiers for Sustainability, By Jonathan Dawson: https://transformativecities.org/atlas-of-utopias/atlas-49/

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Ecovillages]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: Pathway project]]
[[Category: Transformative Cities]]

Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities

2019-11-15T12:52:15Z

Lin:

A variety of approaches and movements have the aim to provide affordable, ecological or community housing in both urban and rural contexts. They have in common that it is a group of people who live together or share common facilities and who regularly associate with each other on the basis of explicit common values.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
A variety of approaches and movements have the aim to provide affordable, ecological or community housing in both urban and rural contexts. The diversity of housing initiative is illustrated by the broad definition of an intentional community by the [https://www.ic.org/foundation-for-intentional-community/ Foundation for Intentional Community] : “a group of people who live together or share common facilities and who regularly associate with each other on the basis of explicit common values”, which includes ecovillages, but also cohousing, cooperative houses, communes and other shared living arrangements. What these approaches have in common is that there is a collective focus to it, e.g. organized through a specific governance or ownership model like a cooperative or revolving around a community like in [[ecovillages]].

This cluster includes examples of the cooperative housing movement referred to as co-housing (as described in the TRANSIT project) and intentional communities such as [[ecovillages]] (as described in the projects TRANSIT, Pathways, TESS and by Transformative Cities).

Co-housing, in general, can provide the opportunity for people to secure affordable homes, especially when this is done through community land trusts (see for example, the London Community Land Trust(LCLT) <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust </ref> and specifically the [https://www.communityledhousing.london/project/st-clements-london-clt/ St. Clements project]. However, co-living is also increasingly promoted as a lifestyle of opportunity <ref> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/03/co-living-the-end-of-urban-loneliness-or-cynical-corporate-dormitories </ref>, which is pursued in order to increase social network or stimulating intergenerational living.

[[Ecovillages]] are communities where people aim to live in harmony with each other and with nature. The [https://ecovillage.org/ Global Ecovillage Network] defines an ecovillage as an “intentional, traditional or urban community that is consciously designed through locally owned, participatory processes in all four dimensions of sustainability (social, culture, ecology and economy) to regenerate its social and natural environments” (Website GEN 2017). While this definition explicitly includes traditional villages, we in this Wiki-page focus on the intentional community version of ecovillages in both (peri-)urban and rural areas.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
The concept of cooperative housing has a long history. According to the TRANSIT project (Picabea et al. 2016 <ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf </ref>) the first independent housing cooperatives date back to the mid 19th century. In some countries cooperative housing is an important part of the housing market. Although housing cooperatives can be found all over the world, percentages differ per country.
Cooperative housing, that was studied as part of the TRANSIT project, is part of a global movement of cooperatives that have been existing since 1895. Housing cooperatives can have many forms with their own characteristics. Housing cooperatives can be found in both urban and rural contexts. In the TRANSIT project two examples of co-housing were studied in depth: El Hogar Obrera in Buenos Aires City Argentina and Vauban District in Freiburg. El Hogar Obrera built more than 15.000 homes while Vauban Freiburg is “a special model district of sustainable living and participatory planning” with 2000 housing units.

Looking at Ecovillages they also come in many shapes, sizes and sorts. The size of intentional ecovillage communities range anywhere between 8 to 250 residents. Read more on the [[Ecovillages]] page.

Another example of an intentional community is [[co-working spaces]], like the impact hub.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
Many of the co-housing initiatives and intentional communities directly address several aspects of sustainability. Some pay attention to ecological aspects of building and living, e.g. through recycling/repairing/reusing materials or the production of renewable/cleaner energy). While others focus more on economical aspects of living and providing affordable housing, e.g. through developing community land trusts. And others focus more on social aspects, such as living in a community where people share spaces.

==Narrative of change==
According to Picabea et al. 2016 <ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf </ref>, the global network of the cooperative housing movement is oriented to: “First, the movement proposes cooperation against competition. That is, their main objective is to strengthen the cooperative values and cooperation between cooperatives at local, regional and international levels. The aim of the movement is no competition and overcoming other (in terms of zero-sum game), but social cooperation for mutual benefit. Secondly, the cooperative movement despises the spirit of individual gain (in fact cooperatives do not generate profit rate) in order to activate dynamics of economic and social welfare” (p.6). Following this TRANSIT study, empowerment of communities in terms of decision making about where, when and how people want to live is part of their narrative of change.

Given the rich diversity of ecovillages across the world, It is impossible to generalise one narrative of change for all ecovillages. There is however a shared narrative used by the Global Ecovillage Network <ref> https://ecovillage.org </ref>, which e.g. on its website claims to “envision a world of empowered citizens and communities, designing and implementing pathways to a regenerative future, while building bridges of hope and international solidarity”.

A commonality of the narratives of change for housing cooperatives and ecovillages is the need for more decentralized or self-organized systems to enable access to or the generation of housing that is more affordable, ecological or social.

==Transformative potential==
Similar to other initiatives like community land trusts, cooperative housing can be seen as a mechanism to produce housing and provide access to the city for low income groups. Nevertheless, due to the diversity of their manifestations co-housing or intentional communities also symbolize negotiation processes between traditional planning practices and alternative ways of planning and building like for example in the case of Vauban or Ecovillage Bergen.
As such, the wide variety of projects propose alternatives to ownership structures, organizational models, planning practices, building practices and social relations between neighbors and between residents, local authorities and developers. Depending on the aim of each individual project and the actors involved they contribute to challenging the economic, ecologic and social unsustainability of the housing sector.

==Illustration==
In Freiburg, Germany, the City of Vauban is a special model district of sustainable living and participatory planning in which several co-housing initiatives could be realised. Starting in 1992 from a squat of ex-military facilities that was later bought by the City authorities (1994), who opened up a participatory process of co-designing and re-making the place into affordable and sustainable co-housing, together with citizens. Aspects of traffic, building, energy, nature in the city, sanitation and public space were widely discussed in the Forum and in the city. The district now comprises 2000 housing units for about 5.500 residents, having more than 70 co‐housing projects – either private or cooperative (see also the report by TRANSIT project.

Co-housing Initiatives in the Critical Turning Points-database of the TRANSIT project:
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/ica-4 ICA/COVILPI (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/httpmoiorgar ICA/MOI (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/ccvq ICA/CCVQ (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/wwwfucvamorguy ICA/Fucvam (Uruguay)]

Co-housing Initiatives studied in-depth as Social Innovation Initiative in the TRANSIT project:
*El Hogar Obrero (Argentina)
*[https://freiburg-vauban.de/en/quartier-vauban-2/ Vauban (Germany)]

== Suggested reading==
* https://eurotopiaversand.de/en/Book-Print/eurotopia-Directory-English-2014-edition.html

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Co-living,co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Ecovillages]]
[[Category: Right to housing]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: St. Clements project]]
[[Category: London Community Land Trust]]

Digital fabrication

2019-11-15T12:43:28Z

Lin:

Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a certain product.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction of approach==
Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive or joining <ref>https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing</ref> - or sometimes by the different materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project<ref>http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs</ref>. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==
Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).

==Narrative of change==
Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.

==Transformative potential==
Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.

==Illustrations of approaches==
As mentioned above, assessing the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, FabLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,

“At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.<ref>Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169</ref>.

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: FabLab Amersfoort]]
[[Category: FabLab Argentina]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]