Ricerca Progetti di RicercaBioCodeProject

Project

The Research assumes the bioregional approach as a conceptual framework for initiating research, action/research, planning and design processes. Adopting heuristic-interpretative and design tools, such approach represents an alternative to the current model based on hierarchical central-peripheral metropolitan systems, responsible for functional flaws, diseconomies, environmental degradation and land consumption: in Italy, 86% of the artificial cover affects "useful soil"; in 2021, urbanization increased by almost 70 sq.km, with an average of 2.2 sq.m of land per second, so that only "in the last year more than 1,125 hectares of land have been urbanized" (Munafò 2022, 165).

The urban bioregion is understood as a local territorial system characterised by (Magnaghi 2020b):

• a sound settlement system of structuring, reticular and polycentric nature, whose nodes (cities, villages, rural villages) are connected in a co-evolutionary way with the surrounding multifunctional agroforestry territory, tending towards goals of resilience and self-sustainability;
• forms and practices of self-government that activate self-sustainable local development processes based on the enhancement of territorial long-lasting heritage and aimed at closing matter/energy cycles and at the production of ecosystem and eco-territorial services.

The local dimension, characterised by new tensions between "flows and places" (Bonomi, Pugliese 2018), the centrality of the communities in managing the natural resources and a transformation of public administrations must be the central focus to imagine a set of agreement tools.
This paradigm shift does not allude to a society without institutions or conflicts (Schilleci et Al. 2019) but outlines a renewed social context where:

• institutions are committed to facilitating and supporting the collective action of local communities, ceding power of control and management through the activation of agreement forms of self-government;
• local communities accept interaction with institutions by adopting cooperative behaviours to define rules for the use of contexts and resources;
• institutions and local communities strengthen mutual trust and manage conflicts that may arise in a transparent and collaborative manner.

Today the bioregional planning approach is applied as a conceptual and operating tool in more contexts, like the future strategic plan for the Metropolitan City of Rome, and the research by Institut Momentum (2019) that has redesigned the Ile de France in eight bioregions. Several bioregional experiences in Italy and abroad define, thus, an emerging constellation of contexts of “project action” that may provide fruitful indications for outlining a methodology to define a set of planning tools able to enhance local community as a key actor of natural resources management in their life places.

The specific objectives (SOs) of the research, which contribute to the realisation of the general one and are developed by integrating the research units expertises, are:

 

SO1_ DEFINITION OF A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING BIOREGIONAL PRACTICES

Although bioregional planning actions have been widespread in Italy, Europe and the world for several years, there is still a lack of description, and a systematic conceptual map of policies, projects and social practices that can be traced back to it has not been defined yet. It is crucial, in order to advance in bioregional research and define effective agreement tools, to describe these experiences and to build knowledge about the key enabling factors of the multiple contexts of local knowledge interfacing with
global networks.

 

SO2_ DEFINITION OF A METHODOLOGY FOR THE TRIGGERING OF EFFECTIVE FORMS OF MUTUAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN EXPERT AND CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE

The objective pursues the idea that an effective way to manage natural resources needs to deal with the complexity of the territory - understood as the result of processes of "long historical duration" (Colavitti 2018). In this view it is not possible to use a sector approach and necessary to introduce an integration of knowledge forms (ecological, social, economic, territorial, political) also in diachronic terms. The re-development of the most densely settled areas also starts from the reconstruction of new synergistic relations with the relative agro-ecosystems (Schilleci, Todaro, Lotta 2017) and from the enhancement of contextual knowledge in integration with expert knowledge.

 

SO3_ DEFINITION OF A METHODOLOGY FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY PRACTICES OF CO-MANAGEMENT AND CO-DESIGN OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE TERRITORY

The research assumes the long lasting heritage structure of the territory, socially rediscovered thanks to the involvement of "heritage communities" (see the 2005 Faro Convention) as a cornerstone of the bioregional method to protect and manage natural resources. Today, in fact, a social subjectivity it is not attributable to a contraposition to capital/work but is organised "from below" in re-grouping the liquid society in mixed category in view of territorial projects as food, energy, river communities etc. (Poli 2019). Design communities recognize themselves not so much in the origin or differences, but in the intent of common management of natural and cultural resources. Project communities have progressively transformed institutions through the experimentation of forms of territorial government agreement such as landscape observatories, ecomuseums, river contracts (recognised as a land government tool by the Italian Ministry of Environment), rural organic districts, agricultural parks, ecovillages, local food systems. These experiences are based on the enhancement of "commoning" (De Moor et Al. 2020) and inaugurate a new form of "democracy of places" (Baratti et Al. 2020). Starting generally from a particular focus on protection of natural or cultural resources (energy, climate change, food, landscape) they lead to an overall re-thinking of the entire local territory. The research aims at strengthening the subsidiary value of these examples of "bioregional citizenship" (Budoni 2018), ascribing to them the duty of effectively connecting human practices (which also include formal/institutional planning) and environmental resources.

 

SO4_ DENOTATION OF SETS OF INDICATORS APT TO ASSESS THE INTEGRATED WELLBEING LINKED TO A CORRECT MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The enhancement of local economy linked to place identity is one the milestones of the bioregional approach. Managing natural resources in the built environment can produce several new local economies and allow rural places (periurban or "inland" areas) to be again attractive for people (Fanfani et Al. 2022). The peculiarity and the historical “style” in the use of natural resources can drive to find out the way to enhance the wholeness of the place (De Bonis 2020). The study of the integration between local heritage (social, natural, territorial) and territorial resources allows to identify the requirements for "productive activities" (what, how, where to produce) able to protect natural resources and increase the added territorial value (Poli 2022). Interesting in this direction are the guidelines coming from the Italian transposition (D.Lgs. 199/2021) of the European Directive (2018/2001) RED II, introducing Energy
communities on the use of renewable energy sources, as providing a complex assessment of the increase in social, economic, territorial provisions in the local context; as well as the studies on Total Economic Value (VET) or those in the field of ecosystem services (MEA 2005, Lombardini et al. 2022).
Objective 4 of the research is therefore to identify a method to evaluate the local community wellbeing integrated with the wellbeing of the nature, the landscape, and the sense of place.

 

The project is organised in 7 Work Packages (WP) in which RUs are involved in “variable geometries”, i.e. each RUs will supply both shared knowledge and experience, as well as specialistic contributions to the achievement of the GO.

WP_1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

WP_2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEFINITION OF A FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS

WP_3 INTERPRETATION OF “SENSE OF PLACE” AND REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIAL RESOURCES ON A BIOREGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

WP_4 CO-EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS, FRAGILITIES, AND MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

WP_5 DIGITALIZATION AND LOCAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT METHODS

WP_6 DEFINITION OF A METHODOLOGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGREEMENT TOOLS

WP_7 TESTING

WP_8 DISSEMINATION AND COMMUNICATION