Content uploaded by Israa Hanafi Mahmoud
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Israa Hanafi Mahmoud on Feb 08, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
URBANISTICA INFORMAZIONI - special issue204 |
e “superfici non permeabili” (ghiaia; coppi
rossi; cemento; asfalto; suolo nudo). I livelli
informativi creati sono:
- superficie permeabile (compren-
dente verde a terra e alberature);
- edifici;
- superficie impermeabile (ghiaia,
coppi rossi, cemento, asfalto);
- temperatura superfici;
- KWh tetti;
- KWh superfici a terra;
- Sky View Factor.
Individuati i livelli informativi necessari alla
valutazione della vulnerabilità e completato
il loro processo di produzione, si è proceduto
a migrare tutte le informazioni utili all’inter-
no di un nuovo geo database, appositamente
creato, avente come struttura geometrica i
confini censuari dell’Istat 2011 e la possibi-
lità di gestione mediante comandi in SQL.
Utilizzando il database ISTAT si sono deter-
minate ulteriori valutazioni, concernenti la
vulnerabilità “sociale”. Gli Indicatori creati a
riguardo sono:
- popolazione totale;
- popolazione sensibile giovane (<10
anni);
- popolazione sensibile anziana (>65
anni).
Il nuovo geo database è stato utilizzato per
produrre: Raster NDVI, Raster DSM, Raster
LST, Raster SVF, Raster Incoming Solar Radia-
tion. Queste nuove informazioni sono state
utilizzate per la valutazione della vulnera-
bilità (SENSITIVITÀ – CAPACITA ADATTA-
TIVÀ = VULNERABILITÀ) delle aree sogget-
te ad accumulare calore, ovvero le isole di
calore (figura.2), e delle piogge meteoriche
intense, considerando 3 possibili scenari di
pioggia: 1,20 mm; 2,60 mm; 3,10 mm.
In questo modo, le Linee Giuda potranno
indicare interventi mirati nelle aree la cui
vulnerabilità ad acqua e/o calore è maggiore,
andando a toccare e ad intervenire su ogni
singolo parametro indipendentemente.
F4. Identificazione delle misure e delle strategie
compensative
L’ultima delle 4 fasi è quella dedicata alla se-
lezione e costruzione delle misure e strategie
compensative per mitigare gli effetti degli
impatti del cambiamento climatico sul ter-
ritorio della città di Mantova. In questa fase
vengono pertanto identificate in modo gene-
rale, ovvero, non declinate in specifici punti
del territorio tutta una serie di possibili mi-
sure raggruppate per tematiche un abaco.
Nello sviluppo dell’abaco e la suddivisione
in tematiche sono stati considerati diversi
fattori: l’applicabilità rispetto alla normati-
va di riferimento del Comune di Mantova,
gli impatti e le vulnerabilità sviluppati nella
Fase 3 ed i tessuti del territorio comunale.
Conclusioni
Le “Linee guida per il piano di Adattamento
Climatico” della città di Mantova sono poi
state corredate di alcuni focus specifici su
aree ben definite. In questo modo, attraver-
so i focus è stato possibile spiegare in modo
diretto come utilizzare le informazioni delle
linee guida in un processo che passo-passo
porta l’amministratore pubblico ad essere in
grado di fare scelte programmatiche e dare
indirizzi progettuali specifici per l’adatta-
mento climatico. Le linee guida non si sosti-
tuiscono al piano ma anzi ne costituiscono lo
scheletro, in modo da creare una situazione
che concorre al raggiungimento degli stessi
obiettivi.
Note
* Dipartimento di Pianificazione e Progettazione
in Ambienti Complessi, Università Iuav di Vene-
zia
Bibliografia
Bina, O., Mateus, S., Pereira, L., Caffa, A. (2016),
“The future imagined: exploring fiction as a me-
ans of reflecting on today’s Grand Societal Chal-
lenges and tomorrow’s options” in Future, 86
(pag. 166-184)
Musco, F. (2011), “Local Governments responding
to climate change: addressing mitigation and adap-
tation in small and medium sized communities”,
in Albrect B., Magrin A. (a cura di), Blue in Archi-
tecture 09, Venezia: Università IUAV di Venezia
Christoff, P. (2016), “The promissory note: COP
21 and the Paris Climate Agreement”, in Envi-
ronmental Politics, 25 (765-787)
Co-Creation Pathway as a
catalyst for implementing
Nature-based Solution
in Urban Regeneration
Strategies
Learning from CLEVER
Cities framework and
Milano as test-bed.
Israa Mahmoud* and Eugenio
Morello**
Abstract
Nature-based solutions (NBSs) have been
on the forefront of the urban regeneration
processes in a later fashion; that direction
fundamentally intertwines with the Europe-
an Commission framework of Research and
Innovation policy on “Re-Naturing cities and
Green Infrastructure” aiming towards posi-
tioning the EU as leader in ‘Innovating with
nature’. This research paper exploits the ori-
ginality of using Co-Creation as Pathway for
cities to better implement NBSs, and achie-
ve flexible, open, equitable urban resilience,
and adapt climate change strategies. Co-Cre-
ation dynamic processes build on involving
stakeholders and engaging local community
at every stage; moreover, account on collec-
tive governance and outputting social, eco-
nomic and environmental ‘Co-benefits’. Pri-
mitively, the aim of this paper is to highlight
the innovation of Co-Creation tools towards
addressing NBS challenges, as well as, the as-
sessment of front-runner cities’ governmen-
tal approaches in facilitations or deficiency
towards the accomplishment of Co-creation
processes. The case-study application of this
work refers to the NBS Co-creation guidance
-under development- for the H2020 project
‘Clever Cities’ under GA776604, specifically
tailored for the cities of London, Hamburg
and Milan.
Keywords: co-creation; CLEVER Cities; natu-
re-based solutions; Urban Innovation Part-
nership; CLEVER Action Labs.
Introduction
CLEVER Cities basically developed two main
concepts: Urban Innovation Partnership
(UIP) and CLEVER Action Labs (CALs) as
main representation of the powerful mecha-
special issue - URBANISTICA INFORMAZIONI | 205
nisms to implement nature-based solutions
in urban fabrics. Three cities are on the fore-
front of the experimental processes: London,
Hamburg, and Milan. Running on different
scales, CALs work as an urban living lab of
co-creative solutions implemented. Co-cre-
ation in the CLEVER Cities framework en-
compasses Co-design, Co-implementation,
Co-monitoring and Co-development. The
main notion of establishing a Co-creation
process evolves on two horizontal axes (Sta-
keholders and Co-benefits). Stakeholders are
expected to formulate inputs to the establi-
shment of UIP and help define the later po-
tential co-benefits. The UIP hence, works as
a mixing pot for all potential stakeholders
in the local cluster for FR Cities and/or re-
presents an overall support for the co-crea-
tion processes to be held in FR Cities CALs.
Individually, CALs go through a process of:
defining co-design, addressing the co-imple-
mentation, verifying the co-monitoring, and
sustaining the co-development.
Research Context
Co-creation of nature-based solutions is a
fundamental approach to address the im-
pacts of global environmental changes and
create new opportunities for all people. So
far, the knowledge frameworks to influence
the processes and outcomes of climate chan-
ge mitigation and adaptation are still limited
(Parsons, Fisher, & Nalau, 2016). Hence, this
guidance aims to better understand the co-
creation processes that shape the implemen-
tation of nature-based solutions at its best
and most effective kind of way. The main
reference point for this guide is the CLEVER
Cities project framework. Toolkits for the co-
design and co-implementation of nature-ba-
sed solutions are being developed for cities
to use these as reference in their co-creation
processes.
What is Co-Creation?
Co-creation arose from the business world as
‘the practice of collaborative product or ser-
vice development: where developers and sta-
keholders are working together’ (Pater, 2009).
However, the evolution of co-creation in ur-
ban planning policies from a user-centred
approach to a co-creative designing approach
changed in the practice as well, since earlier
2007 emerging new domains of collective
creativity (Sanders & Stappers, 2008).
Co-creation gained ground in the academic
literature as a ‘common framework’ to inte-
grate the co-production of knowledge with
the co-design of the research based on imple-
mentation phase outcomes, definitions, and
joint framing of a social problem (Mauser et
al., 2013). In addition to that framework, sta-
keholder involvement and academic institu-
tional involvement were regarded through
the lens of sectoral integration, with the am-
bition of transforming decision making pro-
cesses into a reflexive learning processes that
brings together different actors and knowled-
ge practitioners (Galafassi et al., 2018).
In other words, successful solutions to envi-
ronmental problems in a co-creation process
require the combined efforts of different
scientific disciplines and active dialogue
between stakeholders from policy and so-
ciety actors (Frantzeskaki & Kabisch, 2015).
From a business approach, these values of
co-creating better and more innovative so-
lutions have a wider impact on problem-sol-
ving; by taking a developmental approach
towards co-identifying a problem/need and
co-solving a solution for it (Aarikka-stenro-
os, 2016).
Co-creation Principles:
According to Jansen and Pieters (2017, p. 4)
complete co-creation processes will be per-
ceived as inviting and inspiring for cities to
tap into to address their challenges, if the fol-
lowing principles are achieved:
• Togetherness: there is equal collabo-
ration between all internal and/or external
parties.
• End-users: they play a central role to
complete the overall process.
Figure 1: Diagram with the overall the UIP establishment and co-creation stages in CLEVER Action Labs.
URBANISTICA INFORMAZIONI - special issue206 |
• Ongoing: The process is ongoing
and participative in every phase.
• Productive: it leads to implementa-
tion of the co-created solution.
• Transparent: relevant information
is accessible to all.
• Supported: supported by all sta-
keholders.
• Value-driven: results in value crea-
tion for end-users and involved parties.
- Co-Creation brings together diffe-
rent knowledge and capabilities
Co-creation is a novel form of interaction
which involves innovative and active col-
laboration between two or more partners:
NGOs, foundations, public institutions, pri-
vate companies, academics, representatives
of civil society and/or local development
organizations, and citizens themselves. Each
partner brings a different expertise: some
know more about the area, others about
the people and their daily experiences, and
others about the local challenges.
Through the first phase of the Urban Inno-
vation Partnership (UIP) establishment, part-
ners explore the benefits of cooperating and
highlighting each other’s strengths, making
the whole process more efficient and leading
to better quality outcomes. The cooperative
dialogue is not designed to force compromi-
ses, but rather to facilitate learning and build
on complementary strengths and assets.
- Co-Creation is expressed through
collective governance
A recent shift towards empowering the
community rather than just consulting or
documenting it is reflected in an increasin-
gly popular method called “participatory
appraisal,” where local knowledge is not
“extracted” by outsiders, but instead shared
by its community, which is involved in pro-
blem-solving processes from the start (Rock,
McGuire, & Rogers, 2018). However, that re-
quires multi-stakeholder activity that in co-
creation processes tend to be more conflicti-
ve or co-operative (ASHOKA, 2012).
The co-creation Pathway in CLEVER Cities is
a form of “Open Innovation” in which ideas
are shared, closely connected to user-genera-
ted content and actively communicated to al-
low creativity and shared responsibility. Mo-
reover, co-creation in practice is more about
motivating people, inspiring participation,
sharing results, continuing development
and delivering results at many levels.
Many cities, and organisations find it useful
to set out their own principles for engage-
ment – a form of commitment to a genui-
nely collaborative process which everyone
involved signs up to. These principles set
out the values and ways of working to which
stakeholders will adhere during the process.
The examples in CLEVER Cities framework
are drawn from the experiences of Cities such
as Berlin (Susanne Walz et al., 2012), Vienna
(Arbter, 2012) and Edmonton in Canada (City
of Edmonton, Aaron Aubin Consulting Inc.,
& O2 Planning + Design Inc, 2017)
- Co-creation brings Co-benefits and
future spin-offs in shared results
Pater (2009) took a leap forward to identify
the major ways in which co-creation proces-
ses achieve added value, such as co-benefits.
Basically, co-creation results in a cultural pa-
radigm change and future spin-offs:
• The direct results of a full co-crea-
tion project are the economic value genera-
ted by the return on investment as well as
keeping participants engaged in the loop of
progress and developments.
• The future spin-offs are the side-
effects that are somehow unexpected, often
hard to foresee, but result in added value to
the long-term impact of co-created projects.
Nature-based Solutions: Definitions and challen-
ges for implementation in urban regeneration
projects.
The original definition of “Nature-based
Solutions” derives from the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
World Conservation Congress as: “actions to
protect, sustainably manage and restore na-
tural or modified ecosystems, which address
societal challenges (e.g., climate change, food
and water security or natural disasters) effec-
tively and adaptively, while simultaneously
providing human well-being and biodiversi-
ty benefits” (IUCN, 2012).
Definitions then slightly vary in scholars’
articles based on the main implications. So
far, the most complete guidance on NBS was
developed by The European Commission
(2015, p. 4) to be adopted in the EU Research
and Innovation policy agenda for NBS &
Re-Naturing Cities’ relying on four princi-
pal goals to address nature-based solutions
where they are defined as “actions inspired
by, supported by or copied from nature that
aim to help societies address a variety of en-
vironmental, social and economic challen-
ges in sustainable ways”.
While nature-based solutions are not new to
the world of climate change adaptation and
mitigation (previously under the umbrella
of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EBA), Urban
Green Infrastructure (UGI) and Ecosystems
Services (ESS), see (Kabisch et al., 2016; Ka-
bisch, Korn, Stadler, & Bonn, 2017)). In most
cases, these approaches are complementary,
have considerable overlap, and are also used
in the non-urban context. All of these terms
focus on developing systemic approaches
utilizing concrete implementation actions
as solutions to address impending climate
pressures and risks, based on the specific
context (Bourguignon, 2017).
Objectively, the idea, which the IUCN defi-
ned in (2012) from a slightly different per-
spective, can be seen as an umbrella concept
covering several approaches promoting the
protection, sustainable management and re-
storation of ecosystems as a way to address
societal challenges, while providing human
wellbeing and biodiversity co-benefits at the
same time. Related approaches and problem-
solving techniques include 'ecosystem servi-
ces', 'ecosystem approach', 'ecosystem-based
adaptation and mitigation', 'blue-green in-
frastructure' and 'ecological engineering'
(Cohen-Shacham, Walters, Janzen, & Magin-
nis, 2016).
- NBS and Urban Regeneration for ad-
dressing community needs
From a more holistic point of view, ‘Nature-
based Solutions are approaches, that use en-
vironmental processes and natural systems
to help address a human or community need’.
Nature-based solutions can look very different
from community to community depending
on the type, location, and scope of the hazard
addressed, (Leung, Woiwode, & Smith, 2018).
Henceforward, the implementation of natu-
re-based solutions in CLEVER Cities plays an
important role in connecting planned outco-
mes for urban regeneration processes with
responses to specific societal challenges. De
Lotto (2017) highlights the multi-scalar and
interdisciplinary operational actions and
tactics for incorporating NBS in planning
policies and the management of urban re-
generation projects: whether minimal inter-
ventions in ecosystems, intensively mana-
ged ecosystems and landscapes, and/or very
intrusive new ways to co-create ecosystems,
special issue - URBANISTICA INFORMAZIONI | 207
such as artificial ecosystems like green and
blue infrastructures (Eggermont et al., 2015).
In fact, the interventions of NBS such as “Re-
Naturing Cities” strategies cross beyond the
boundaries of environmental improvements
towards a multifunctional benefits approach
that differs based on city contexts.
The Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment (CABE), which maintains
the policy discourse of design-led regene-
ration, released guidance that maintaining
environmental character and continuity
should be core principles of urban regenera-
tion policies (CABE, 2004). Henceforth, uti-
lising NBS as a tool to achieve urban deve-
lopment goals while also benefiting society
and the environment, can support a more
inclusive urban regeneration towards a gre-
ater sense of community, combating social
exclusion and reducing gentrification and
inequalities within and between cities and
regions (UIA, 2018).
In connection with the CLEVER Cities fra-
mework, Urban regeneration, see (Tallon,
2013), broadly encompasses the idea of im-
proving, reorganising and upgrading an un-
desirable urban context (as opposed to the
planning of new urbanisation). It can, for
example, refer to the redevelopment of over-
crowded areas of the city, economic growth
in an area, or property development, see (Pa-
stak & Kährik, 2016; Vickery, 2007; Williams,
Atkinson, & Tallon, 2017). Areas targeted for
regeneration can be: spaces that have been
abandoned (e.g. browndields) or neglected
(e.g. rivers that have been polluted); places
facing particular environmental challenges,
such as lacking quality green spaces or high
vulnerability to climate change impacts; or
areas facing social and economic issues, such
as reduced human health and wellbeing, ine-
quality and crime.
- Co-benefits of Nature-based Solu-
tions
Many nature-based solutions result in mul-
tiple co-benefits for health, the economy,
society and the environment, and thus they
can represent more efficient and cost-effecti-
ve solutions than more conventional appro-
aches. However, nature-based solutions are
considered highly advantageous because of
their inherent capacity to provide important
social, economic, and environmental bene-
fits; for example clean water, healthy envi-
ronments, and green spaces for recreation, in
addition to their primary function for clima-
te mitigation, adaptation and flood manage-
ment (Leung et al., 2018).
In urban landscapes, the co-benefits of NBS
are being increasingly recognized as a result
of provisioning and improved availability of
urban green spaces, such as parks, green corri-
dors, etc. Even though not exhaustive of NBS
types, such collateral benefits include, impro-
ved quality of life, mental and physical health,
and reinforced cultural identities, supporting
a sense of belonging and place, etc., see (Keni-
ger, Gaston, Irvine, & Fuller, 2013; Nesshöver
et al., 2017). Moreover, an overarching review
of the literature highlights the importance
of health benefits generated by nature-based
solutions, in particular, see (Hartig, Mitchell,
de Vries, & Frumkin, 2014; Shanahan, Fuller,
Bush, Lin, & Gaston, 2015).
Taking this aspect of multi-functionality
into account and considering the plethora of
co-benefits produced, nature-based solutions
are often seen to represent more efficient and
cost-effective solutions to climate change th-
reats than conventional approaches, such as
regular sewage or air conditioning systems,
see (Connop et al., 2015, p. 100).
In CLEVER Cities, a validated approach
drawn from case studies was developed to
define key indicators for measuring NBS
impact based on three dimensions of urban
regeneration, see (Davis, Mederake, McFar-
land, McGlade, & Skodra, 2018). The corre-
sponding indicators used in this framework
of assessment include People, Business and
Place as the main dimensions of urban rege-
neration aims and activities. Four thematic
topics have been identified amongst these
indicators to better prioritise and design a
pertinent impact measurement framework
within implementation sites in the FR Cities
(Hamburg, London and Milan), as follows:
1. Human Health and well-being
2. Sustainable economic prosperity
3. Social cohesion and environmental
justice
4. Citizen safety
Co-Creation Pathway in CLEVER Cities
Framework
In CLEVER Cities, co-creation is developed
as a whole process of participation, collabo-
ration and interaction. The Pathway is desi-
gned in steps and feedback loops that con-
siders stakeholders’ abilities to create and
provide added value. The complete co-design
process works in conjunction with innova-
tion towards a customization of nature-ba-
sed solutions for the specific urban contexts
of FR cities and FE cities.
The process envisages CLEVER Action Labs
as Urban Living Labs (ULL) that ideally are
strategic, civic and organic, and incorporate
a wide spectrum of experimental platforms
for governance, interventions and change.
Urban Living Labs offer opportunities to fo-
ster sustainability in cities as sites to co-de-
sign, test and learn from innovation. A com-
parative study for the ULLs was conducted
in 4 European cities to analyse the success
based on the leading actors of partnerships
whether user-driven or enabler-driven
(Menny, Voytenko Palgan, & McCormick,
2018). For examples on ULLs indicators
and good practices see (Schumacher, 2011).
CALs are test-beds where cities implement
at the innovative co-creation processes and
nature-based solutions, bringing together
different socio-spatial relations. They thus
act as a bridge or interface between policies
and scientific work to inform urban plan-
ning measures, governance and techniques
(Bulkeley et al., 2018).
Co-created solutions, such as in the case of
CLEVER Cities, are envisioned as ‘tailored’
nature-based solutions which enable cities
to make decisions grounded in validated
assumptions. This prevents the wasting of
time and economic resources in the FR Ci-
ties test-beds (CALs) and allows FE Cities to
learn from their experience. In sum, co-cre-
ation is a starting point of processes which
usually have far reaching effects; however,
some results cannot be measured in terms of
profit but create enormous spill-over values
in terms of co-benefits and future spin-offs,
beyond those which correspond directly to
the original project goals.
Co-Creation Pathway
The Pathway in CLEVER Cities actively in-
volves end-users and stakeholders along the
entire process and taking advantage of the
different expertise that they provide. The
co-designed Pathway is a procedure which is
based on transparency, ongoing productive
collaboration of co-design and supporting
valuable solutions for co-implementation.
Whereas Co-design is a well-established
approach to creative practice, particularly
URBANISTICA INFORMAZIONI - special issue208 |
within the public sector. Co-design is often
used as an umbrella term for participatory,
co-creation and open design processes (Chi-
sholm, n.d.). The involvement of actors along
the process can be summarized as:
• Establishment of UIP by sharing
expertise (field, technical, sector-based, busi-
ness, financial) and additional resources.
• Co-design, co-implementation and
co-monitoring the project: from design to as-
sessment via cooperative management and
the exploration of new forms of governance.
• Co-development: shared in-
vestment, replicability of successful expe-
riences, procurement to the overall process
and long-term planning.
16 steps are envisioned to support cities to
accomplish successful implementation of
NBS. Each step is composed by one or more
activities, which can be freely adjusted by
each city, depending on their local contexts.
For each Step it is important to achieve an
outcome. Each city has its own geography,
geology, climate conditions, as well as social,
economic and cultural structures. Hence, the
content is merely flexible to be translated
and transferred in each city local setting.
An application: Milano as a test-bed for
Co-Creation methodology
In this research, we aimed to verify the feasi-
bility and doability of such a complex metho-
dology of Co-creation with the city of Milano
local Cluster partners as a test-bed. Nume-
rous meetings were conducted, and prepared
materials were furnished to support the pro-
cess. A CLEVER Constellation was built in a
local Cluster workshop to connect the main
city’s strategies, data resources, correlated
projects, prospective replicability and grass-
roots initiatives to the overall operating fra-
mework, see Figure 2.
Other constellations for stakeholder map-
ping and engagement planners were compi-
led as well to verify the interest of other local
actors into the modalities of implementa-
tion. Stakeholder groups were divided on a
matrix of interest based on roles of collabo-
ration, involvement, consultation and infor-
mation. The main challenges encountered
during the overall validation of the steps and
toolkit used were on the alignment between
the (UIP) and CALs partners during the first
phase of urban innovation partnership esta-
blishment.
Three main CALs are starting the implemen-
tation of nature-based solutions in Milan
urban context by June 2019. CAL 1 is a la-
boratory of green roofs, CAL2 is a noise and
safety barrier along a railway line in Loreteg-
gio- Giambellino, and CAL3 is a mitigation
greenway corridor along the Tibaldi station
to connect between the other two CALs. The
process takes into consideration the differen-
ces in urban scales and the types of envisa-
ged NBS to get implemented, the timing, the
expected risks, and the future results. During
the Workshop, Each CAL team was asked to
consolidate a road mapping and time line
planner to cope with the differences of local
context and expected risks to encounter, see
Figure 3.
Conclusion
The complexity of such a concept of Co-
Creation is still under further academic and
practical investigation. In this paper, we
exposed the framework of CLEVER Cities
project as an initiative to test the feasibility
of Co-creation of nature-based solutions in
urban contexts. Main principles and chal-
lenges encountered during implementation
of NBS in urban regeneration projects are
presented along with concepts of co-design
and co-benefits. Milan as a test-bed showed
a great potentiality for embedding NBS into
the city’s strategic plans (Milan 2030, resi-
lience plans, etc.); grass-roots initiatives and
similar correlated projects are on-board of
the city’s local cluster and UIP which allows
a larger pool of stakeholder’s involvement
and future collaborations. More in depth, a
collective basis consciousness towards out-
coming co-benefits in relevant urban areas
of CALs implementation is expected, which
strengthens the whole co-creation concept
and triangulates the envisioned steps and to-
olkit framework.
Figure 2: CLEVER Cities constellation within the city of Milano strategic context and stakeholder mapping matrix. Source: the authors, CLEVER Cities local Cluster -
Workshop 29 October 2018, Fondazione del Politecnico di Milano.
special issue - URBANISTICA INFORMAZIONI | 209
Notes:
* Laboratorio di Simulazione Urbana Fausto Cur-
ti, Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani,
Politecnico di Milano, israa.mahmoud@polimi.it
** Laboratorio di Simulazione Urbana Fausto Curti,
Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani, Politec-
nico di Milano, eugenio.morello@polimi.it
This project has received funding from the Eu-
ropean Union’s Horizon 2020 innovation action
programme under grant agreement no. 776604.
References:
Aarikka-stenroos, L. (2016). Value co-creation in
innovation eco-systems. Center for Innovation
and Technology Management, Tampere Universi-
ty of Technology.
Arbter, K. (2012). Praxisbuch Partizipation: Ge-
meinsam die Stadt entwickeln. (Practice Book
Participation). Retrieved from https://www.wien.
gv.at/stadtentwicklung/studien/pdf/b008273.pdf
ASHOKA. (2012). C o-C r e a t i o n : Opening socie-
tal project governance to maximize the creation
and sharing of economic and social value. Retri-
eved from https://www.ashoka.org/en/file/4036/
download?token=8ZWa0_3Y
Bourguignon, D. (2017). Nature-based solutions
Concept, opportunities and challenges (EPRS |
European Parliamentary Research Service). Retri-
eved from https://www.iucn.org/commissions/
commission-ecosystem-management/our-work/
nature-based-solutions
Bulkeley, H., Marvin, S., Palgan, Y. V., Mc-
Cormick, K., Breitfuss-Loidl, M., Mai, L., …
Frantzeskaki, N. (2018). Urban living laborato-
ries: Conducting the experimental city? Euro-
pean Urban and Regional Studies. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0969776418787222
CABE. (2004). The Value of Public Space: How
high quality parks and public spaces create eco-
nomic, social and environmental value. Cabe
Space. London. Retrieved from https://www.de-
signcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/docu-
ment/the-value-of-public-space1.pdf
Chisholm, J. (n.d.). What is co-design? Retrieved
October 28, 2018, from http://designforeurope.eu/
what-co-design
City of Edmonton, Aaron Aubin Consulting Inc.,
& O2 Planning + Design Inc. (2017). RIBBON of
GREEN: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNI-
CATIONS PLAN.
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., &
Maginnis, S. (2016). Nature-based solutions to
address global societal challenges. https://doi.
org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en
Connop, S., Vandergert, P., Eisenberg, B., Collier,
M. J., Nash, C., Clough, J., & Newport, D. (2015). Re-
naturing cities using a regionally-focused biodi-
versity-led multifunctional benefits approach to
urban green infrastructure. Environmental Scien-
ce and Policy, 62, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2016.01.013
Davis, M., Mederake, L., McFarland, K., McGlade, K.,
& Skodra, J. (2018). Defining key concepts and asso-
ciated indicators to measure impact of NBS on urban
regeneration within CLEVER Cities. In Deliverable
1.1.4, CLEVER Cities, European Union’s Horizon
2020 Framework Programme for Research and Inno-
vation Grant Agreement No. 776604 .
De Lotto, R. (2017). Nature-based solutions in City
Planning: the case of Segrate Municipality (Mi-
lan). Urbanistica Informazioni., (Special Issue),
802–804. Retrieved from http://www.urbanisti-
cainformazioni.it/IMG/pdf/ui_272si_11_sessio-
ne_speciale_04.pdf
Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J. M. N., Beu-
mer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., … Roux, X. Le. (2015).
Nature-based Solutions : New Influence for Envi-
ronmental Management and Research in Europe.
GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and So-
ciety, 24(4), 243–248. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.
org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.9
European Commission. (2015). Towards an EU Re-
search and Innovation policy agenda for Nature-
Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities. https://doi.
org/10.2777/765301
Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2015). Designing
a knowledge co-production operating space for
urban environmental governance—Lessons from
Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. En-
vironmental Science and Policy, 62, 90–98. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010
Galafassi, D., Daw, T. M., Thyresson, M., Rosen-
do, S., Chaigneau, T., Bandeira, S., … Brown, K.
(2018). Stories in social-ecological knowledge co-
creation. Ecology and Society, 23(1). https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-09932-230123
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin,
H. (2014). Nature and Health. Ssrn, (December
2013). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhe-
alth-032013-182443
IUCN. (2012). The IUCN Programme 2013–2016.
In IUCN World Conservation Congress (pp. 1–30).
Figure 3: Road-maps and timeline planners for Milan three CALs. From left to right CAL1 (green roofs), CAL2 (Giambellino), and CAL3 (RFI). Source: the authors,
CLEVER Cities local Cluster - Workshop 29 October 2018, Fondazione del Politecnico di Milano.
URBANISTICA INFORMAZIONI - special issue210 |
Retrieved from https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downlo-
ads/iucn_programme_2013_2016.pdf
Jansen, S., & Pieters, M. (2017). The 7 Principles
of Complete Co-Creation (Vol. 40). https://doi.
org/10.3724/SP.J.1004.2014.00051
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann,
S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., … Bonn, A. (2016). Na-
ture-based solutions to climate change mitigation
and adaptation in urban areas : Perspectives on
indicators, knowledge gaps , barriers , and oppor-
tunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 39.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239
Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., & Bonn, A. (2017).
Nature based Solutions to Climate Change Adap-
tation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Scien-
ce, Policy and Practice. Springer OPEN. Retrieved
from internal-pdf://102.93.255.14/Kabisch-Nature
based Solutions to Climate Chan.pdf
Keniger, L. E., Gaston, K. J., Irvine, K. N., & Fuller,
R. A. (2013). What are the Benefits of Interacting
with Nature ? International Journal of Envi-
ronmental Research and Public Health, 10, 913–
935. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913
Leung, V. A., Woiwode, N., & Smith, M. P. (2018). A
Procurement Guide to Nature-based Solutions. Retri-
eved from http://nrcsolutions.org/wp-content/uplo-
ads/2018/02/NBS_Procurement_Guide.pdf
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer,
B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H.
(2013). Transdisciplinary global change research:
The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainabili-
ty, 5(3–4), 420–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.co-
sust.2013.07.001
Menny, M., Voytenko Palgan, Y., & McCormick,
K. (2018). Urban living labs and the role of
users in co-creation. Gaia, 27, 68–77. https://doi.
org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.14
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch,
G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., … Wittmer, H.
(2017). Science of the Total Environment The
science , policy and practice of nature-based solu-
tions : An interdisciplinary perspective. Science
of the Total Environment, 579, 1215–1227. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106
Parsons, M., Fisher, K., & Nalau, J. (2016). Alternati-
ve approaches to co-design: insights from indige-
nous/academic research collaborations. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20, 99–
105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.07.001
Pastak, I., & Kährik, A. (2016). Impacts of culture-
led flagship projects on local communities in the
context of post-socialist Tallinn. Czech Sociologi-
cal Review, 52(6). https://doi.org/10.13060/003802
88.2016.52.6.292
Pater, M. (2009). CO-CREATION’S 5 Guiding
Principles (No. 1). Fronteer Strategy. Retrieved
from https://naaee.org/sites/default/files/fs_whi-
tepaper1-co-creation_5_guiding_principles-
april2009.pdf
Rock, J., McGuire, M., & Rogers, A. (2018). Multi-
disciplinary Perspectives on Co-creation. Science
Communication, 107554701878149. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1075547018781496
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-
creation and the new landscapes of design.
Journal of CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Schumacher, J. (2011). Alcotra Innovation
project : Living Labs Definition , Harmonization
Cube Indicators, 1–24.
Shanahan, D. F., Fuller, R. A., Bush, R., Lin, B. B., &
Gaston, K. J. (2015). The health benefits of urban
nature: How much do we need? BioScience, 65(5),
476–485. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv032
Susanne Walz, Kast, A., Schulze, G., Born, L.,
Krüger, K., Niggemeier, K., … Schilling, P. (2012).
Handbuch zur Partizipation. Berlin. Retrieved
from https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/so-
ziale_stadt/partizipation/download/Handbuch_
Partizipation.pdf
Tallon, A. (2013). Urban Regenration in the UK (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.
gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/726848530.pdf
UIA. (2018). Sustainable use of land, nature based
solutions. Retrieved from https://www.uia-initiative.
eu/en/sustainable-use-land-nature-based-solutions
Vickery, J. (2007). Regeneration: an urban design
framework. In The Emergence of Culture-led Re-
generation: A policy concept and its discontents
(p. 106). Centre for Cultural Policy Studies.
Williams, D., Atkinson, R., & Tallon, A. (2017).
Who is responsible for incorporating the notion
of ’public interest’ into sustainable urban deve-
lopments? A case study of three sites in the south-
west of Eng- land. In: In 49th Annual UTSG Confe-
rence (Vol. 1, pp. 1188–1197). Dublin. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02280.x
Ondate di calore e
resilienza urbana: una
proposta metodologica
per la valutazione della
vulnerabilità della Città
Metropolitana di Milano
per ciascuna sezione di
censimento Istat
Denis Maragno*, Francesco
Ruzzante*, Eugenio Morello**, Nicola
Colaninno**, Francesco Musco*
Descrizione delle fasi di progetto e ma-
cro-obiettivi
Adattare le città alle ondate di calore implica
identificare dapprima quelle aree urbane già
soggette al fenomeno isola di calore urbana,
ossia aree urbane nelle quali le temperature
atmosferiche e quelle delle superfici risulta-
no essere molto elevate rispetto le aree natu-
rali limitrofe (Oke, 1982).
Il fenomeno è stato osservato in molte cit-
tà di medie e grandi dimensioni, identifi-
cando nella morfologia e nella presenza/
assenza di di vegetazione gli indicatori
della sua intensità (Connors et al., 2013;
Cui, de Foy, 2012; Imhoff et al., 2010; Li et
al., 2012; Tran et al., 2006).
La valutazione della vulnerabilità della città
– capace quindi di identificare le aree meno
resilienti alle ondate di calore - , si propone
come strumento di supporto al planning,
scalabile a seconda del livello di sintesi ri-
chiesti dalle diverse amministrazioni (regio-
nali, metropolitane e locali).
La sperimentazione qui proposta analizza,
con lo scopo di classificare, aree omoge-
nee della Città Metropolitana di Milano. Lo
strumento si presenta come tool di suppor-
to all’adattamento del territorio alle diverse
scale amministrative, dalla scala metropoli-
tana, sino ad arrivare a un dettaglio locale “di
quartiere”, utilizzando per questo come uni-
tà di analisi le sezioni censuarie ISTAT.
Nell’ordine dei lavori da svolgere, sempre la
valutazione della vulnerabilità assume un
duplice significato: il primo di individua-
zione spaziale delle aree prioritarie per lo
sviluppo e l’applicazione delle azioni, il se-
condo di comunicazione, interna tra le am-
ministrazioni pubbliche coinvolte, ed ester-
