Resilience Through Community Landscape Project

The evolutionary process for landscape conservation, planning and management should consider the local (bottom –up) contribution connected to the emerging and rapidly growing models related to social self-organisation and local and community activism in the management of public goods (co-management models). But key issues for landscape resilience are: developing decisional models and integration between self community and planned actions.The case studies considers instead issues for developing a resilient landscape system: management of green areas, ways of enhancing green infrastructure linking rural and urban context, urban agriculture, innovative and inclusive management, urban landscape design, biodiversity and food security, identity valorisation, public and private initiatives linked in coherent strategie

Pianificazione e progetto partecipato del paesaggio

Landscape studies are based on three major systems (Jacobs, 2006, page 11): Matterscape, Powerscape and Mindscape. Initially based on a reworking of the theory of Habermas (1984), the focus in each case is on:-- the real or objective world (Matterscape);-- the regulatory sphere (Powerscape) which depends on the indications, regulations and policies as a whole;-- the system of perception and thought, which derives from the expectations and emotions of the populations living in and visiting a certain landscape (Mindscape). The ELC on the other hand indicates that the landscape derives from:-- its objective characters, the ecological-environmental, historical-cultural and settlement aspects, land and economic use;-- the regulatory and political processes as a whole which contribute to its continuous reconstruction;-- the social perception of positive and negative values and policies. Landscape studies and policies must both integrate these systems. It is only through integration on all levels of territorial government between materiality, rules and perception of the landscape that we can draw up plans and projects to establish shared visions for the daily management of landscapes. In this sense the Dutch and the United Kingdom are models is in line with the idea of the integration of policies indicated by the ELC. In fact, in this countries the latest landscape policies are drawn up with a significant amount of information gathered on the social perception and appreciation of landscape

Conoscenza, valutazione, monitoraggio del paesaggio/Knowledge, evaluation, monitoring landscape

The landscape notion is rather escaping (Phillips, Borrini-Feyerabend, 2); in fact on one side it cannot be quantified, measured, from the other cannot be translate in the same way in the various languages. The landscape has a central role in the international (European Convention of the Landscape, CEP, 2000) and Italian attention (Code of the cultural heritage and the landscape, 2004, 2006, 2008), but it is hardly the "scene" of the action. The landscape is observable, but difficultly reachable by policies and plans in order to manage and "to create it"; it is also far from the populations, main landscape actors as the stage of theirs daily lifes (Turri, 2007). Often the norms, the objectives of quality of the regional landscape planning find difficulty to be translated in practices at the local and provincial scale, contributing to the construction of a new "territorial and landscape scene". The populations are too much often not included in the processes of transformation of their landscapes. In coherence with the European Landscape Convention we should develop methodologies and tools in order to give the "scene" to the landscape. Landscape indicators constitute an interesting tool in order to read the evolution of the landscape, to make it visible and accessible to the institutional actors and the populations. The indicators allow in fact to translate ecological, cultural, symbolic, social, economic meaning of the landscape in an interpretable experience from the society and the policies. The paper introduces a recent research experience of "DITER, Foundation CRT, Piemonte Region, 2009, Landscape indicators. Indicators for the monitoring and the management of the landscape" that, beginning from the international studies, tries to define a method for the interpretation of the landscape and to construct a set of indicators applicable to regional scale and local scal

Progetti per sistemi territoriali in trasformazione

Atti SIU: il progetto territoriale per lo sviluppo socioeconomic

Ecology-based planning. Italian and French experimentations

This paper examines some French and Italian experimentations of green infrastructures’ (GI) construction in relation to their techniques and methodologies. The construction of a multifunctional green infrastructure can lead to the generation of a number of relevant bene fi ts able to face the increasing challenges of climate change and resilience (for example, social, ecological and environmental through the recognition of the concept of ecosystem services) and could ease the achievement of a performance-based approach. This approach, differently from the traditional prescriptive one, helps to attain a better and more fl exible land-use integration. In both countries, GI play an important role in contrasting land take and, for their adaptive and cross-scale nature, they help to generate a res ilient approach to urban plans and projects. Due to their fl exible and site-based nature, GI can be adapted, even if through different methodologies and approaches, both to urban and extra-urban contexts. On one hand, France, through its strong national policy on ecological networks, recognizes them as one of the major planning strategies toward a more sustainable development of territories; on the other hand, Italy has no national policy and Regions still have a hard time integrating them in already existing planning tools. In this perspective, Italian experimentations on GI construction appear to be a simple and sporadic add-on of urban and regional plans

Planning for urban and territorial resilience

According to the “evolutionary” approach (Davoudi & al., 2012), our idea of urban resilience implies that urban systems have capacity to react to several external disturbances - economic, social, environmental - regarding all components of urban governance and transforming itself in a new development model. The inventive wave that has recently been displayed in contemporary cities has shown the limits of the traditional planning approach and revealed the need for urban policies that are more inclined to openness and adaptation, and are able to face the new demands of a more conscious and diversified society. This scenario has created the conditions for the spread of creative experiences oriented toward urban resilience, here intended as the innate capacity of an urban system to propose new approaches and practises that are understood and included within the consolidated institutional policies of spatial development. From this theoretical framework, this paper intends to investigate the space for experimental practices on resilience as a driver of urban and territorial policy, for ordinary communities and landscapes, where the relationship between the sustainable use of territorial resources could led to new territorial strategies, as well as “promote managements synergies” at different levels of regional and local planning

Paesaggio e ricostruzione

L'articolo sviluppa 4 temi, discussi nella tavola rotonda Paesaggio e ricostruzione di Napoli. 1.Conservazione dell’identità e cultura dei luoghi Ruolo del paesaggio, come interazione tra patrimonio naturale e culturale, nelle politiche di riduzione del rischio, resilienza e sostenibilità (UN SDGs 2015, climate strategies, EEA 2016, CoE 2018); il paesaggio è il “sistema articolato di relazioni” da ricostruire rafforzando l’interazione tra il patrimonio degradato, il con-testo e le aspirazioni delle comunità locali (UNESCO, 2015). 2. Partnership con le comunità locali Ruolo della popolazione nelle politiche e nei processi di ricostruzione/mitigazione (riduzione del rischio), il loro coinvolgimento nella pianificazione è indispensabile “per rispondere e ricostruire meglio” (Sendai Framework 2015, UNISDR, 2015, Making Cities Resilient, Esposito et al 2017) nell’ottica della resilienza, sia in fase di preparazione, che durante e dopo il disastro naturale. 3. Gestione del rischio nella pianificazione Approccio strategico, adattivo, multidisciplinare della pianificazione in ragione della complessa interazio-ne di aspetti da affrontare (ecologici, sociali, economici e culturali) che richiede numerose competenze (capacity building). Nuovi modelli e strumenti per l’operatività (piani, quadri strategici, linee guida, misure ecc.) e ruolo della formazione (Training Courses, special skills and knowledge) 4. Strategie per aree interne fragili e vulnerabili Strategie di sviluppo sociale ed economico per innalzare la capacità di risposta dei territori interessati da eventi disastrosi, favorendo la riduzione dei fenomeni di abbandono post-catastrofe. Connessioni ed in-terazioni tra la ricostruzione fisica dell’armatura urbana e infrastrutturale e la rinascita socio economica. Per esplorare efficacemente le tematiche succitate potrebbe essere utile la presentazione di casi studio e best practises

Resilience in Action: The Bottom Up! Architecture Festival in Turin

This article describes the practice of co-evolutionary and transformative resilience through a case study conducted in Turin (Italy). According to a broad definition, resilience includes performing actions of urban design and planning, innovating community-based project procedures, and creating positive financial outcomes that are assessable because of the monitoring process of short- and long-term outcomes and impacts. Through the Turin-based case of the Bottom Up! Architecture Festival, this article observes processes in which resilience is in action in metropolitan areas, feeding urban projects and practices of selforganization of the social and financial actors involved. By applying the definition of community projects, the festival manages to take territorial problems and crises (the pandemic, inequality, etc.) and view them as an opportunity to change the system, recommending integrated action on the natural, cultural, financial, and social capital, innovating practices and holding society and institutions more accountable. The transformation of spaces relies on collaborations between social and institutional actors, operating spatially concentrated transformations in the city of Turin, and using flexible governance tools based on co-planning and crowdfunding for project design and financing

Post-pandemic Challenges. The Role of Local Governance for Territorial Resilience

This chapter aims to provide researchers different interpretative keys of the book, which attempt to propose methodologies, tools, and case studies to put resilience into action in post-pandemic territories by planning and design at different scales. The chapter opens the discussion by presenting diverse and interdisciplinary contributions of which the research is composed; it discusses key topics with refer-ence to the transformative resilience, and referring to methodologies and tools for interpreting territories, and focusing on the role of planning, as well as attempting to describe through practices the operational concept of the Local Resilience Unit