The Communities' ParcOfficina project involves a participatory initiative focused on the development of the green area known as Parco del Naviglio, situated in the neighborhood of San Leonardo , between Via Paradigna and Strada Naviglio Alto.
The Municipality of Parma and the association IBO Italia ODV-ETS have committed to co-designing and implementing the Communities' ParcOfficina project. Its primary goal is the structural revitalization of Parco del Naviglio, intending to return to the community a green space for communal use. The larger ambition is to create a multifunctional area meant to be inhabited and enjoyed throughout the day. This vision includes identifying potential personal services, sports, recreational activities, and socio-cultural programs in addition to the existing offerings.
The project Communities' ParcOfficina was submitted by the Municipality of Parma for the "2020 Call for Grants to Support Participation Processes" and received funding from the Emilia-Romagna Region.
©Municipality of Parma
Involved Actors & Resources
| Governmental body: | Municipality of Parma through Association IBO Italia |
| Other public actors: | - Education > Public primary and secondary schools: Istituto Comprensivo Micheli and
- Istituto Comprensivo Toscanini. Role: they took part to the participatory process
|
| Private for-profit actors: | Company: Chiesi SPA (pharmaceutical sector) > located in the neighborhood of the project |
| Private not-for-profit actors: | - Associations
- Informal group of citizens
- Foundation and cooperatives
- Consiglio dei Cittadini Volontari di San Leonardo
- Consiglio dei Cittadini Volontari di Cortile San Martino
- Associazione Amici della Biblioteca di San Leonardo
- Gruppo Scuola Coop. Soc.
- Associazione Medaglie d’Oro Bormioli
- Fondazione Teatrale Lenz
|
| Civic actors: | Yes |
| Explain on the heterogeneity of the participants with respect to gender, age, educational qualification, place of residence etc. | No info about that |
| Other actors: | No |
| Funding/Financial resources for the particular best practice example: | Yes |
| Specification (amount of funding/year) | € 15.000 - 2020 |
| and the source(s) of funding (if more sources, please specify) | Regione Emilia-Romagna - Bando Partecipazione 2020 |
| Top-Down participatory process |
| Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of working hours) | No |
| Provision of care services | No |
| Provision of mediators (e.g., linguistic, cultural) | Yes, surveys distributed in the schools and during events in the park have been translated in two languages |
Frequency of activities within the best practice:
How often and for how long did participants involve in best practice
(e.g., in general friendly towards employed people or people with care responsibilities)? | Participants met seven times, late afternoon for about two hours and five events in the park |
External inclusion referring to who is invited or allowed to take part from the invitation
(in an ideal situation) | Target group: all individuals interested in giving a new life to the park |
| Internal inclusion referring to the participation of all participants within, i.e. the real situation | Negotiation table made up by actors indicated above, but during the process citizens joined the table |
| Internal exclusion referring to certain participants who are overly dominant | Association "Amici della biblioteca di san leonardo" composed mainly by retired citizens with high level of education. This association is very active in the neighborhood. |
| Vulnerable groups were specified in the designed plan of the best practice: | Yes, included among other categories |
| Who in particular, e.g. migrants, people in precarious work-situation etc.? | Elderly people; disabled, women; migrants |
| Special attention towards: | Young people, since close to the park there's a youth center |
| Did vulnerable groups participate in the best practice: | Yes, Elderly people; young people; citizens with migrant background |
| Participation of young people, women, elderly people: | Yes, Women; elderly people |
Did special training and empowerment activities support these groups within the participatory process? | Yes, the process was guided by a facilitator |
| Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters): | Yes |
| Multiple languages available: | No |
| Non-technical language used: | Yes |
| Social Media: | Facebook |
Ways of Communication
| Website and social media postings: | Yes |
| Information documents distributed in the post box: | No |
| Information documents distributed on streets and public spaces (during events): | No |
| Press releases in “traditional” public media (e.g. linear TV, daily newspapers etc.): | Yes |
| Special-target activities (e.g. through gate-openers, community workers etc.): | No |
Monitoring
| Monitoring process on the best practice available? | Yes |
| Continuous information on monitoring results provided to the participants: | Yes |
| How? How often? | Participants continue to meet to follow the implementation of what was agreed |
| Integration of participants in the monitoring process? | Yes |
| Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process? | Yes |
| Is there continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners? | Yes |
| How? How often? | Depending on needs |
Impact Assessment and/or Evaluation
| Did an impact assessment (e.g., achievements, challenges) or evaluation (standardized success measurement) take place: | No because the the work is not finished yet |
Citizen Empowerment & Representation
Structured Decision-Making
| Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process? | Yes |
| Do the participants make final decisions? | Yes |
| What kinds of decisions? | The decision is related to the use of the money for improving the park and for responding to citizens' needs and desires |
| Is there a veto right by the citizens (i.e. if they are against a specific option this is not implemented?)? | No |
| At the end of the participation process: Final document on the decisions that were taken? | Yes |
| Is the publication of this document available? | Yes |
| Was the publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community? | Yes |
| Clear definition and communication of mutual commitments, decision-making roles and any limits on the decisions? | Yes, the only limit to the process was given by the budget |
| Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or training, apps)? | Yes, regular meetings during the process |
Where are these tools available?
[In the sense of at which level in the multilevel-governance (vertical).] | Involvement of policy makers. They learned from this experience an approach that can be reproduced. |
| For whom are they useful in particular (horizontal)? | For citizens living in other neighborhoods of the city |
Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups
| Which groups are involved at which stage of the participatory process? | All groups described above |
| What are the tasks of the groups? Describe for each group. | Each group took part at the discussions and decisions |
| Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why? | Refugees |
