Rewilded urban sites in 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:
Trentanovi et al. (2021)
Overview
Contested Novel Urban Ecosystems
Four rewilded abandoned urban sites in Italy (Milano, Bologna, Roma, Lecce) characterised by grassroots mobilisation
Urban ecology and ecosystem services; urban regeneration governance; environmental-climate justice and urban commons
Interdisciplinary analysis of rewilded abandoned urban spaces conceptualised as ‘contested novel ecosystems’ where ruderal succession (the natural colonisation of disturbed urban land by vegetation) has created distinctive ecological assemblages. The paper examines ecosystem services and the socio-political conflicts surrounding redevelopment, highlighting grassroots socio-environmental movements that mobilise to recognise, valorise and protect these sites.
Multiple city-scale cases across Italy (north to south), with interactions between local authorities, public/private owners, environmental associations, experts, and citizen committees.
Practical: Recognition and use of ecosystem services provided by rewilded sites, including urban climate regulation and public-health related services, informed by site-specific studies.
Political: Grassroots mobilisation contests redevelopment and real-estate speculation, in some cases reconfiguring urban plans and opening participatory governance discussions for management of these spaces.
Personal: The cases are discussed as raising environmental awareness and enabling socio-cultural identity and empowerment processes within movements.
Moderate: Potential indicated through institutional recognition and protection mechanisms aligned with participatory governance, while maintaining the ecological and socio-political distinctiveness of rewilded sites.
TIMs Summary
Strongly evidenced tools in the source material are Information/ Education and Knowledge, reflected in citizen-led and expert-supported research, pro-bono surveys, and evidence production used to shift agendas and discourse about ecosystem services and urban wellbeing. Political contestation and organisational infrastructure are also central, with grassroots networks mobilising through events and claims-making that, in some cases, reconfigure urban plans and open space for participatory governance discussions. Regulatory tools are weak and uneven: the paper emphasises the lack of definitive institutional recognition and protection, with only partial or potential designations noted. Financial/ Market-Based dynamics are present primarily as barriers via profit motives and real-estate speculation, rather than as enabling instruments.
Overall, the transformative pathway is primarily political–epistemic, where socio-ecological evidence and mobilisation interact to contest redevelopment and articulate urban commons and justice-oriented futures.
Implications for Intervention Mix Design
The case suggests that knowledge production and mobilisation can open governance space, but durability depends on alignment with protective institutional tools that stabilise outcomes. To enhance transformative scope, additional alignment would be needed with formal protection/management mandates and with mechanisms that address the underlying economic drivers of speculative redevelopment. Maintaining socio-ecological distinctiveness would also require alignment between governance tools and biodiversity-sensitive management rather than standardised ‘park’ conversion.
TIMs Matrix
| Tool Category | Examples | How it ENABLES (mechanisms) | How it HINDERS (barriers) | Opportunities to strengthen | Risks / caveats | Additional suggestions and resources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Partial recognition of some sites as public parks or natural heritage sites is mentioned (e.g., Lecce; partially Roma; potentially Milano); ongoing lack of definitive institutional recognition and protection is emphasised. | Formal designation can provide a basis for protection and management authority when granted. | The paper reports that institutions have not definitively recognised ecological value or assured future protection in most cases, leaving sites vulnerable to redevelopment pressures. | Clarify protective status and management mandates where recognition is already emerging, while retaining the sites’ distinctive ecological and socio-political characteristics described. | Formal ‘park’ designation may drive conversion into conventional green spaces, potentially diminishing ecological and socio-political value as feared by activists. | Urban biodiversity protection ordinances; planning protections for rewilded sites. |
| Financial / Market-Based | Financial profit motives by public or private owners and real-estate speculation are described as drivers of redevelopment pressure. | Profit-oriented redevelopment incentives create structural barriers to protecting rewilded sites and intensify conflict around urban regeneration strategies. | Displacement of ecological value by capital accumulation priorities; commodification of green space through regeneration agendas. | Anti-speculation planning tools; community land/commons arrangements. | ||
| Information / Education | Citizen groups conduct research, involve scientists and experts, and produce knowledge to raise awareness of ecosystem services, including public-health related services; multiple studies and pro-bono surveys support agenda-setting. | Evidence production and dissemination shifts public and institutional discourse, supporting recognition and valorisation of novel ecosystems. | Knowledge generation does not guarantee institutional uptake; contested interpretations persist between movements and authorities/owner. | Strengthen accessible communication of site-specific ecosystem services evidence developed by movements and experts, consistent with documented practices. | Co-production fatigue; risk of instrumentalising ecological knowledge to justify predetermined redevelopment outcomes. | Community-based research partnerships; urban ecology monitoring programmes. |
| Choice Architecture | The design of physical ‘access pathways’ within the rewilded sites. The formalisation of participatory governance arrangements that structure how citizens and experts make management decisions. | Designing specific access pathways allows diverse social groups to glean the benefits of cultural ecosystem services. Structuring participatory governance choices expands the political space for urban commons and justice-oriented futures. | Institutional decision-making defaults often prioritise economic objectives over socio-ecological evidence. | Governance arrangements can be structured to default to biodiversity-sensitive management choices rather than standardising the conversion into conventional parks. | Structuring choices top-down carries the risk of tokenistic participation, where options are presented but underlying drivers of speculation are not addressed. There is also a risk of instrumentalising ecological knowledge to justify predetermined redevelopment outcomes. | Initiatives focusing on commons-based urban governance and environmental justice. |
| Social Norms | Formation of socio-environmental networks and shared discourses/visions through committees and associations; mobilisation practices create collective expectations around commons and justice-oriented urban futures. | Shared norms sustain participation, coordinate claims-making, and legitimise community stewardship aspirations. | Heterogeneous coalitions may face coordination challenges; contestation can polarise community and institutional actors. | Consolidate inclusive participation processes within networks already described, ensuring diverse groups can glean cultural ecosystem service benefits noted as variable by social group. | Exclusion of less-represented groups; reputational conflict and burnout in prolonged disputes. | Urban commons governance initiatives; participatory planning forums. |
| Emotional Appeal | Mobilisation through events, demonstrations and rallies; emphasis on wellbeing and environmental-climate justice framing in movement narratives. | Emotive and justice-linked framing can catalyse mobilisation and sustain engagement during conflict. | High-conflict contexts can entrench positions and reduce opportunities for negotiated governance. | Channel mobilisation energy into participatory governance discussions explicitly proposed as innovative for future management in the analysed paper. | Escalation of conflict; oversimplified framings may obscure ecological indeterminacy and trade-offs. | Deliberative democracy processes for contested land-use decisions. |
| Technology | ||||||
| Infrastructure (Hard/Soft) | Grassroots committees/ associations as organising infrastructure; WWF management role in Lecce including mediation between public and private owner. | Organisational structures support sustained engagement, mediation, and coordination of knowledge production and public action. | Reliance on voluntary organisations and pro-bono expertise can limit continuity; power asymmetries with institutional and private actors remain. | Formalise participatory governance arrangements for management, which the paper identifies as a potential innovative mechanism. | Dependence on a small number of organisations/ individuals; institutional co-option. | Stewardship agreements and co-management models for urban green spaces. |
| Biophysical Resources | Rewilded abandoned industrial/military sites with ruderal succession processes and distinct species assemblages; ecosystem services vary by ecological characteristics and social group access. | The initiative provides actual and potential ecosystem services complementing conventional green spaces and supports urban environmental wellbeing. | Radical indeterminacy of ecological trajectories and uncertain protection status complicate long-term management. | Maintain ecological heterogeneity and access pathways that allow diverse groups to glean benefits, consistent with the paper’s findings. | Transformation into conventional green spaces may reduce biodiversity and socio-ecological distinctiveness; disturbance from redevelopment. | Urban rewilding and biodiversity-sensitive management approaches. |
| Knowledge | Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods; site-specific literature review for ecosystem services; participatory observations and interviews; concept of ‘integrated’ socio-ecological analysis linking natural and social sciences. | The initiative supports a coupled understanding of ecological function and governance conflict, enabling more informed policy reconfiguration discussions. | Evidence is context-specific; institutional decision-making may prioritise economic objectives over socio-ecological evidence. | Use interdisciplinary evidence to inform participatory governance design (as suggested in the analysed source paper). | Selective uptake of findings; epistemic conflicts between expert and citizen knowledge. | Interdisciplinary urban nature governance research and practice. |
| Other | Grassroots participatory governance proposed as innovative future mechanism; empowerment processes building bargaining power with institutions. | The initiative expands political space for urban commons and justice-oriented futures through community empowerment. | Institutional reluctance and continued profit-seeking interests constrain implementation. | Develop governance arrangements that recognise contestedness and hybrid socio-nature, rather than depoliticising sites. | Tokenistic participation; conflict persistence if underlying drivers (speculation, ownership) are not addressed. | Commons-based urban governance and environmental justice initiatives. |
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.