Verona Looper Living Lab evaluation report including learning outcomes and policy transfer
Creators: name: Condotta, Massimiliano
name: Scanagatta, Chiara
name: Peron, Fabio
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: co-creation
air pollution
Verona

description: The Verona Looper Living Lab worked on a wide area that comprises more neighbourhoods in the southern part of Verona (Italy). The Looper Living Lab successfully implemented two loops of the Looper co-creation process with the aim of solving criticalities related to poor air quality and noise pollution. Different stakeholders - i.e. policymakers, NGOs, citizens’ groups, citizens, residents, final users - were involved in the process to obtain the best possible solutions to be implemented to trigger urban transformations. The Verona Looper Living Lab completed a first full loop and reached the implementation stage of the second loop. During the first loop participants chose the criticalities - and linked locations - on which to work, and also decided which sensors and tools to use. The data collection took place using official sensors - quantitative data - combined with some participatory sensing tools - qualitative and quantitative data. The visualisation of collected data confirmed a general condition of poor air quality, but also demonstrated how noise levels, even if high, were within law limits and how - opposite to people perception - air quality levels were evenly poor in other parts of the city. Participants during the co-design activity of the first loop proposed mainly punctual solutions and few longer-term solutions; during the evaluation only small punctual solutions - that were of quick implementation - were chosen and some were implemented. After the monitoring campaign, that took place during the implementation of the chosen ideas, it was possible to see how punctual solution - that want to solve ‘individual’ criticalities – did not produce benefits to the urban environment. Since the solutions implemented during the first loop did not produce “measurable” results, participants decided to find new possible ideas to solve the already found criticalities. This resulted in a quick scoping of issues - i.e. the time for participants to decide to keep working on the same criticalities - and in the used of data from the monitoring campaign with double meaning of (i) monitoring of the ideas implemented from the first loop, and (ii) data collection to analyse the state of affairs of the area for the second loop. If from a monitoring point of view data showed no benefits from the implemented ideas, the same data - analysed in a data collection on the area - allowed participants to better understand why the co-designed ideas need to be community-oriented. Needing to think at community level, participants decided to re-evaluate the longer-term ideas proposed – and discarded - during the first loop. The co-design for the second loop then resulted in an official document, endorsed by the Comune di Verona, that presented four long-term solutions that can work as pilot cases to produce positive urban transformations to reduce pollutant levels. Overall, it is possible to say that the Verona Looper Living Lab implemented a successful co-creation process, and that different things were learned on how to further improve the process. Firstly, it was possible to see how the first loop of the co-creation process might be needed to level the knowledge basis of different stakeholders, this then allows the co-design of better ideas during the second loop. The process needs to be flexible at all times, always taking into account the socio-cultural context of its application e.g. the need to skip some activities in following loops, different sensors and tools to collect data depending on tackled issues, different strategies for co-design depending on participants. Furthermore, the flexibility of the process allows its implementation in any context. Since different stakeholders’ groups are working together, there is the need to have neutral organisers that can facilitate the dialogue between parties. This helps in reducing contrasts - that might be pre-existing ones and not raised during the co-creation process - by explaining all different points of view raised on the same topic. Data collection can be another key point in order to have a successful co-creation process. This because qualitative and quantitative data can help to lower the gap between real and perceived situation. Depending on the involved stakeholders, data can be qualitative or a mix of qualitative and quantitative, still it is important to know what is the perception of the urban environment in which the Looper Living Lab will be working. In Verona, where the project area comprised half of the city, it was proved that small punctual solution - with an individualistic view – are not successful in triggering urban transformation, while longer-term solutions can create a better community feeling and can create a more liveable urban environment. Moreover, the implementation of longer-term solutions can help to keep the process going on even after the conclusion of the ‘official’ Looper Living Lab. In Verona it was also possible to see the importance of making a socio-cultural analysis of the project area to better understand who the possible target groups are to be involved in the process. This allows a reduction of hard-to-reach groups, since organisers would better know who can be interested in participating. To conclude, there was also some learning that took place at different levels, e.g. policymakers better understood citizens’ needs and citizens gained knowledge on the processes that are to be followed when designing urban transformations. This learning allowed a more inclusive process because there was a better sharing of knowledges.