II - Annual Congresses
Permanent URI for this community
Every year, usually in July, AESOP holds its Annual Congress, hosted by one of member universities. Congresses are a wide platform of exchange in the fields of research, education and practice in planning. They usually run around 20 thematic tracks and host outstanding invited speakers.
Browse
Browsing II - Annual Congresses by Author "Barbanente, Angela"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Publication Open Access Supporting innovation in rehabilitation initiatives for deprived neighbourhoods: a multi-level perspective(AESOP, 2017) Barbanente, Angela; Grassini, LauraThe rehabilitation of deprived urban neighbourhoods through area-based and integrated approach has assumed importance on the European and many national agendas for over thirty years (Berg et al., 1998; Couch et al., 2011). Such approach, rather than focusing on improving the social, economic, housing and urban condition of individuals or households with low incomes and specific needs with no regard where they live, pursues the same objectives by concentrating on specific (deprived) geographic areas. In some countries the experience of area-based initiatives has been long and weighty in terms of resources allocated, and has anticipated European initiatives, namely the URBAN Community Initiative. In other member states, including Italy, vice versa, when introduced by the European Union's initiatives in a limited number of target cities and towns, this approach was considered an absolute novelty (Parkinson, 1998; Carpenter, 2006; Dühr et al., 2010; Seixas and Albet, 2012). Area-based and integrated approach to urban rehabilitation assumes wide and variable meaning in different contexts according to different European, national and regional policies. Also the terms used change in relation to the specific problems to be emphasized but also to the political rhetoric aiming at stressing the novelty of urban policy undertaken. Regeneration, for example, is a term used recently at the EU (and Italian) level to indicate urban policies aiming at improving the “quality of life”, in the broadest sense, in deprived areas (EU, 2015). But this term implies different approaches: while some consider local communities or neighbourhoods as the very object of regeneration, others use various policy instruments to improve the urban economy to the benefit of the inhabitants’ economic well being (Cochrane, 2007). Some approaches are physical, property-led or business driven, some others focus on the urban form and design, on cultural industry or health and well-being, some others emphasize community-based, social economy (Colantonio and Dixon, 2010). In addition, the term urban regeneration in continental Europe appears to be rather indeterminate in its outcomes compared with the Anglo-American context in which this and related terms were originally coined (Rossi and Vanolo, 2013).Publication Open Access Territorial governance in marginal areas: learning from an integrated project for landscape regeneration and place-based development in southern Salento(AESOP, 2023) Barbanente, Angela; Grassini, LauraThe paper discusses premises, development and contents of an integrated initiative for landscape regeneration and place-based development promoted by the Apulia Region, Italy. It took place in the rural area of Southern Salento, in the southmost part of the region, which not only suffers from deep marginality so to be included among the targeted areas of the SNAI policy but has recently been hit by the so-called Olive Quick Decline Syndrome, an environmental disaster connected to the Xylella epidemic, which has turned that area into a ghostlike place. The integrated initiative proved to have interesting potential for filling in some gaps in the effectiveness of existing public policies in the area because of its capacity to mobilize, support and offer long term perspectives to vibrant bottom-up processes and collaborative practices promoting sustainable rural economies. The analysis of this experience may thus give interesting suggestions for future public policies supporting place-based development in marginal territories. Keywords: place-based development; multi-level and multi actor processes; marginalItem Open Access Transitions towards landscape- and heritage-centred local development strategies: A Multi-Level Perspective(AESOP, 2019) Barbanente, Angela; Grassini, LauraAt the beginning of the new century, the European Landscape Convention (ELC) marked a paradigm shift in the conception of landscape, which is now conceived of as a common good and of crucial importance to people’s every day lives. A challenge is thus to find new approaches and tools to make the new concept translated into practice. The paper employs the Multi Level Perspective (MLP) to analyse transition pathways towards innovative forms of landscape management. In contrast with a linear conception of innovation, the use of this framework enables the authors to show nested and bidirectional dynamics of change across multiple levels and the interactions between different sectors/actors: governance and policy, professionals and public administration, grassroots organizations, citizens, market, industry. The paper focuses on the way new concepts and tools for landscape protection and improvement have been spread into planning practice in the Apulia region through the development of the new Territorial Landscape Plan (TLP). In the analysis, a particular attention is paid to the way innovative forms of management of landscape are actually mobilized, supported and given long-term perspectives, while resistance to change is lowered throughout the development and the implementation of the plan.Publication Open Access When activism meets radical politics – landscape planning as a catalyst for transformative change(AESOP, 2017) Albrechts, Louis; Barbanente, Angela; Monno, ValeriaPlanning for radical change has been conceptualized in different ways. A number of strong manifestos for change have been drawn up – for reconsidering the absolute faith in economic growth (Mishan, 1967; Hamilton, 2004), for living inter-culturally (Landry, 2000; Sandercock, 1998, 2003), for creating a more sustainable society (Sachs and Esteva, 2003), for social mobilization (Friedmann 1987), for an urban political ecology (Heynen et al., 2005), for recapturing democracy (Purcell, 2008) and for a more radical planning (Albrechts, 2013, 2015). In the vast literature that has been produced on approaches, forms and contents of radical planning, to our knowledge, there are no examples that discuss planning experiences developed by regional governments inspired by program guidelines explicitly aimed at countering neoliberalism (see also Purcell, 2009 on resisting neoliberalization).