Data

General Issues
Environment
Planning & Development
Specific Topics
Environmental Conservation
Land Use
Collections
Tuscany's Institutionalization of Public Participation and Deliberation
The POLITICIZE Project on Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) in Europe
Location
Toscana
Italia
Scope of Influence
Regional
Links
"Bello e Possible" Town Meeting Instant Report [Italian]
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Approach
Consultation
Spectrum of Public Participation
Consult
Total Number of Participants
150
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Planning
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Collect, analyse and/or solicit feedback
Plan, map and/or visualise options and proposals
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Audience Response Systems (ARS)
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
No
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Express Opinions/Preferences Only
Informal Social Activities
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
Voting
If Voting
Plurality
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Public Hearings/Meetings
Primary Organizer/Manager
Region of Tuscany
Type of Organizer/Manager
Regional Government

CASE

Beautiful is Possible: Landscape Town Meeting in Tuscany, Italy

April 2, 2021 Jaskiran Gakhal, Participedia Team
December 6, 2020 Patrick L Scully, Participedia Team
December 6, 2020 alexmengozzi
May 27, 2016 lisazanotti
January 17, 2012 lisazanotti
General Issues
Environment
Planning & Development
Specific Topics
Environmental Conservation
Land Use
Collections
Tuscany's Institutionalization of Public Participation and Deliberation
The POLITICIZE Project on Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) in Europe
Location
Toscana
Italia
Scope of Influence
Regional
Links
"Bello e Possible" Town Meeting Instant Report [Italian]
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Approach
Consultation
Spectrum of Public Participation
Consult
Total Number of Participants
150
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Planning
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Collect, analyse and/or solicit feedback
Plan, map and/or visualise options and proposals
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Audience Response Systems (ARS)
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
No
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Express Opinions/Preferences Only
Informal Social Activities
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
Voting
If Voting
Plurality
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Public Hearings/Meetings
Primary Organizer/Manager
Region of Tuscany
Type of Organizer/Manager
Regional Government

After having adopted a landscape plan, including territorial safeguards, the Region of Tuscany intended to have a public debate with citizens and professional, scientific, and field experts before final approval of the plan, on the basis of their participatory laws (L.R.69/2007).

Problems and Purpose

The town meeting on the Region of Tuscany's landscape plan took place on February 6th, 2010. It was a milestone along a road that concluded on February 19th, 2010 with the “General States of Landscape” in which the results of this experience were discussed. The work of the Town Meeting day was elaborated on in a report.

The February 6th 2010 Town Meeting took place simultaneously in five places that constituted important locations within the Tuscan landscape:

  • Castelnuovo Berardenga;
  • Cortona;
  • Orbetello;
  • Piombino;
  • Prato.

The debates centered on the most important characteristics of a landscape to be protected or reconstructed when damaged, as well as how to preserve or rebuild the Tuscan landscape.

Background History and Context

In Tuscany, the chosen title for the February 6th, 2010 meeting was “Beautiful is Possible.” It was the seventh Town Meeting organized by the Region in four years.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Region of Tuscany

Tuscany's Regional Authority for the Promotion of Participation (APP)

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The roughly 150 citizens involved were selected from the residents of the five geographically-related sites so that they could express their opinions on the places of their acquaintance. The participants were asked to contribute their creativity and listening capacity for the success of the event. The objective was not to build proposals from all participants, but to investigate their perceptions of the landscape and the diverse opinions relating to the problems of conservation and transformation of the Tuscan landscape.

Methods and Tools Used

Unlike previous town meetings, the work was not completed with table discussions in which the outcomes were decided through secret ballots, but continued with “imagination labs” where citizens and experts joined together around a large aerial photograph of the five respective territories to trace new lines for the landscape’s future.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The debates centered around two principal themes:

  • which are the most important characteristics of a landscape? that is, which should be protected or, when they disappear or are damaged, should be reconstructed?
  • what needs to happen to preserve (or rebuild) the Tuscan landscape's quality?

The majority of participants in the Town Meeting preferred recovering and reusing, rather than damaging other land for new construction. Those same Tuscans wanted parks, green space, and cultural centers (but few habitations), in place of the vacant factories. They advised rebuilding the agricultural landscape, favoring small farms instead of mono-culture, and protecting the characteristic terraces.

The citizens also proposed constructing in a way that values the visual effect, avoiding noticeably unique buildings (“cathedrals in the desert”), and generally blending with the prevalent architecture, even perhaps shielding the industrial areas with barriers of trees, or choosing colors more appropriate to the landscape. They advised avoiding overly tall buildings on the coast, but for the promontory of Piombino they proposed architecture that would be visible from afar. They also requested bike paths. Almost one out of every three participants was ready to renounce overly frequent car use in order to protect the landscape, provided adequate public transport was available. For the Tuscans in the Town Meeting, the first thing on which they would intervene to restore the landscape were the private homes and degraded urban areas, followed by the old hill and mountain neighborhoods. When asked about institutional efforts to ensure the quality of construction, participants favored clear objectives to accompany private efforts (63%) rather than pre-set rigid guidelines (33%). All were favorable for the future of the “green economy” including hydraulic solar panels and geothermal, on the condition that one identified solutions which did not damage the environment or landscape (48%), though only after having informed and involved citizens (38%). They asked for participation mostly on the major decision and large projects, but believed that the responsibility for oversight and good construction needed to remain with the politicians and architects.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The results of the town meeting were presented during the General State of the Landscape which took place in the auditorium of Santa Apollonia in Florence.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The principal criticism regarding this case was certainly the lack of accountability to ensure that the government followed the decisions taken from citizens. In fact, the reported results were only general guidelines for the government. Therefore, underneath the appearance of effective citizen empowerment, the amount of power given to the citizens was ultimately weak. Thus, while the citizens, with the help of experts, could certainly give advice, the government was not at all obligated to accommodate their propositions.

See Also

References

This entry is missing citations. Please help us verify its content by adding footnotes.

External Links

http://www.regione.toscana.it/partecipazione [ITALIAN]

http://www.regione.toscana.it/-/town-meeting-progettuale-sul-paesaggio-2010 [ITALIAN]

http://www.regione.toscana.it/regione/export/RT/sito-RT/Contenuti/sezioni/territorio/paesaggio/visualizza_asset.html_558761280.html [DEAD LINK]

http://www.regione.toscana.it/regione/export/RT/sito-RT/Contenuti/sezioni/territorio/paesaggio/visualizza_asset.html_1661919580.html [DEAD LINK]

Notes

This case study was first submitted by Lisa Zanotti on January 17, 2012.