Troisi Park, Italy
.svg)
This case innovation has been analysed using the Transformative Intervention Mixes (TIMs) framework. The framework maps the regulatory, economic, social‑behavioural, technological and material interventions at play, clarifying how these elements interact and what this configuration suggests about the innovation’s capacity to support transformative change.
The case analysis draws primarily on evidence synthesised from:
Cirillo et al. (2022)
Overview
Agro Social Plaza
Troisi Park, Italy
Urban agriculture and sustainable city/region food systems; urban regeneration; community wellbeing
Troisi Park (Metropolitan City of Naples) is a large urban park built on a former brownfield area that has entered decline. The case proposes regeneration through the Horizon 2020 FoodE project, led by the Municipality of Naples with the University of Naples Federico II, to create a local agro-biodiversity hub combining production, market functions and social inclusion.
Site-scale pilot within an urban park, with planned phased renovation of greenhouses and open space; positioned as a demonstrator for wider City/Region Food System approaches.
Practical: Regeneration of greenhouses and open space for horticultural production using hydroponics/aquaponics/bioponics, composting and rainwater harvesting, plus an on-site local market.
Political: Municipality–university collaboration and integration into territorial planning and alignment with national/regional urban agriculture strategies/programmes.
Personal: Educational centre and citizen involvement intended to increase awareness of food production and security and support healthy lifestyle engagement.
Moderate to high: The case frames the pilot as a demonstrator (‘show house’) for a sustainable City/Region Food System and proposes phased renovation and microeconomic piloting to support scaling within planning and strategy frameworks.
TIMs Summary
Troisi Park is strongly evidenced in the source material as a technology- and infrastructure-enabled urban agriculture intervention, centred on regenerating existing greenhouse assets and introducing innovative cultivation protocols (hydroponics, aquaponics and bioponics) alongside composting and rainwater harvesting. Information/education and knowledge tools are also explicit through an intended educational centre and awareness-raising on food production and security, coupled with optimisation of production protocols and diversification of marketable outputs.
Financial/market-based elements are present via planned sale of products through an on-site market and microeconomic piloting, while regulatory tools are limited to strategic integration claims rather than binding requirements. Social-norm and emotional appeal mechanisms are indirectly evidenced through the framing of inclusion, community development and healthy lifestyle participation, but are not operationalised as distinct programme instruments. Implementation wise, the pilot’s feasibility and continuity are closely tied to the phased renovation plan and the operationalisation of the proposed management and business models described for the site.
Implications for Intervention Mix Design
The case is configured around socio-technical practice change (cultivation systems, market and learning functions) with institutional embedding via municipal planning collaboration. To broaden transformative scope, additional alignment with explicit regulatory levers and durable financing instruments would be required, but these are not documented as implemented in the case. Similarly, more explicit choice-architecture and social-norm design would be needed to manage participation, demand and equity at scale, without implying they currently exist.
TIMs Matrix
| Tool Category | Examples | How it ENABLES (mechanisms) | How it HINDERS (barriers) | Opportunities to strengthen | Risks / caveats | Additional suggestions and resources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Link to the Urban Agenda for the EU: Funding and financing guide for brownfield redevelopment as part of the Land Use action plan; systems to identify, map, and manage underused urban land: functional urban area cooperation; Planning rules recognising parks as sites for ecological restoration, food production, education, and social services; Integration of food systems into urban policy; programmes integrating sustainability with social goals. | |||||
| Financial / Market-Based | Planned on-site market for locally produced vegetables, neighbourhood produce and seafood; preliminary microeconomic piloting for production systems and market organisation. | Creates revenue pathways and tests viability by linking production outputs to local consumer markets and diversified product streams. | Reliance on available funding and phased renovation constrains the pace of implementation and scale of production facilities. | Use microeconomic piloting outputs to clarify cost structures and sequencing of greenhouse renovation within the described multi-criteria approach. | Market focus could privilege commercially attractive outputs over inclusion aims if not balanced within the described management model. | Token Economies & Gamification: Implement a community loyalty or token system to reward residents for engaging with the planned on-site market for locally produced vegetables, neighbourhood produce, and seafood. Immediate, tangible rewards can help test viability and sustain consumer market engagement. |
| Information / Education | Educational centre for urban agriculture; involvement of local organisations and citizens to increase awareness of food production and security. | Educational activities build capacity and awareness, supporting participation and knowledge transfer within a City/Region Food System framing. | Operational details for sustained delivery (staffing, curricula, reach) are not specified in the source. | Develop the described educational activities within the renovated open space to connect learning with on-site production and market operations. | Participation may be uneven if access barriers persist, reducing the intended inclusion effects. | Salience & Visual Feedback Loops: Utilise real-time visual feedback loops in the proposed educational centre to make food production and security concepts concrete. Simplification: Break down complex agro-biodiversity and food security awareness campaigns into easily digestible, actionable steps to prevent information overload for involved citizens and local organisations. |
| Choice Architecture | Strategic spatial layout of the on-site market to prominently display locally produced vegetables and seafood; physical park design and pathways naturally guiding visitors towards the educational centre and greenhouses. | Helps to manage participation, demand, and equity at scale by making sustainable choices, healthy lifestyles, and educational involvement the most accessible, default options for park visitors. | A barrier could be the absence of documented choice-architecture mechanisms, which prevents the project from effectively managing participation, demand and equity on a larger scale. | Mechanisms to manage participation and demand alongside the phased renovation of the greenhouses and the expansion of market operations. | Without explicit choice-architecture, participation may be uneven if invisible access barriers persist, potentially reducing the intended social inclusion and equity effects. | Default Rules (Opt-out vs. Opt-in): Make participation in the in-site organic waste composting scheme the default option for market vendors, requiring them to actively opt-out if they do not wish to participate. |
| Social Norms | Co-designing and planning activities with citizens; framing of community development and inclusion via job opportunities for disadvantaged people and youth/family spaces. | Co-design/planning and community employment supports collective ownership and local legitimacy by positioning the site as a community hub and linking production to local social inclusion aims. | Specific instruments for sustaining participation and avoiding capture by a limited set of actors are not detailed in the source. | Continue the documented co-design and planning approach to maintain alignment between production, market and inclusion functions as facilities are renovated. | Community expectations may exceed delivered outputs if renovation phases are delayed, reducing trust and engagement. | Descriptive Norms: Leverage descriptive social norms by publicly displaying high participation metrics & Public Commitments: Create visible pledge boards within the community hub where locals can publicly sign their names to support the urban agriculture initiative. |
| Emotional Appeal | Healthy lifestyle framing and renewal narrative; repositioning a declining park as a 'global but local' agro-biodiversity hub. | Uses place-based identity and positive framing to motivate involvement and legitimise regeneration activities. | Emotional framing is described but not linked to defined engagement campaigns or evaluation. | Over-promising social renewal could create reputational risk if implementation is partial. | Identifiable Beneficiary Effect: Instead of relying solely on abstract statistics about community development, share specific, personal stories of individual disadvantaged people or youth who have gained job opportunities through the regeneration project. | |
| Technology | Innovative sustainable cultivation protocols (hydroponics, aquaponics, bioponics); floating raft systems using recycled materials; composting and rainwater harvesting systems. | The technology enables intensive, resource-efficient production and demonstration of circular practices within a constrained urban site. | Greenhouse regeneration is required to make structures functional; technical operation requires sustained maintenance and protocol optimisation. | Scale the documented protocol optimisation and diversification workstreams to stabilise yields and operational routines before expanding to additional greenhouses. | System failures (water, nutrient management) could reduce production reliability and undermine learning/market functions. | Friction Reduction: Ensure that any technology used for the market or educational centre has zero barriers to entry. If an app or digital tool is used to monitor the innovative cultivation protocols, make it a one-click experience to reduce the friction that often hinders sustained participation. |
| Infrastructure (Hard/Soft) | Existing greenhouses (multiple structures) and open space under requalification; planned renovation of at least one greenhouse and an open area for market and education activities. | Provides physical capacity for year-round production and a dedicated space for market and learning activities. | Declining infrastructure requires renovation; remaining greenhouses depend on funding and sequencing decisions. | Apply the described multi-criteria approach to prioritise subsequent greenhouse renovations and maintain usability during phased works. | Infrastructure under-performance or delays can constrain participation and income generation. | Physical Affordances: Use physical cues in the open space under requalification to naturally guide behaviour. For example, paint distinct, colored pathways on the ground that unconsciously funnel foot traffic from the park entrance directly toward the educational and market activities. |
| Biophysical Resources | Rainwater harvesting; in-site organic waste composting used as substrate; cultivation of local horticultural products and integration with local fisheries/seafood supply. | Improves resource flows (water and organic matter) and links production to local ecological-material cycles. | Biophysical limits (site condition, seasonal constraints) and resource variability are not characterised in detail in the source. | Composting and water systems can create nuisance or contamination risks if poorly managed. | The Endowment Effect: Allow local families, schools, or youth spaces to symbolically 'adopt,' name, or manage specific floating raft systems or composting bins. People value resources more highly when they feel a sense of psychological ownership over them, which can improve sustained maintenance. | |
| Knowledge | Optimisation of production protocols; planned diversification of outputs; positioning as a 'show house' for a sustainable City/Region Food System and integration with strategies/programmes. | Creates an evidence base for operational choices and supports transferability claims through documented protocols and planning integration. | Evidence of monitoring or evaluation design is limited in the source description. | Use the documented microeconomic piloting and protocol optimisation activities to generate operational learning that can be shared within the project's City/Region Food System network. | Without robust monitoring, claims about benefits and replication potential may remain contested. | Peer-to-Peer Learning: People learn best from those who are similar to themselves. Train local citizens to act as the primary educators and ambassadors for the production protocols, rather than relying solely on the university or municipality experts. |
| Other | Job opportunities for disadvantaged people; market hosting neighbourhood produce; co-design and planning processes under the FoodE project framework. | Combines social inclusion with food-system functions by connecting multiple actors across production, exchange and learning roles. | Implementation details for employment pathways and governance responsibilities are not fully specified. | Clarify roles within the described management and business models to reduce dependence on informal arrangements as the site scales. | Role ambiguity could concentrate burden on a small coordinating group and reduce durability. | Implementation Intentions: During the co-designing and planning activities, ask citizens to create 'if-then' plans. Having residents explicitly write down when and where they will visit the market or volunteer significantly bridges the gap between good intentions and actual behaviour. |
Note: Blank cells reflect that the documentary evidence available for this case did not contain sufficiently explicit information to address these dimensions. This absence should not be interpreted as implying that such mechanisms were irrelevant or ineffective, but simply that they were not documented within the scope of the source materials.