An evaluation model applied to Torino social innovation policy

Roberto MezzalamaGolder – IUR - Nomisma

Financial support from:

Core team• Marco Marcatili: economist - Nomisma• Johnny Marzialetti: statistician - Nomisma• Davide Bazzini: sociologist - IUR• Ilda Curti: philosopher and urban innovator - IUR• Emanuele Bobbio: planner - Golder• Roberto Mezzalama: sustainability expert - Golder

FrameworkAssessing urban sustainability through infrastructure systems

The city is made up of several infrastructure

systems

Sustainable infrastructure systems generate better quality of life and sustainable

lifestyles

Urban infrastructure systemsNine infrastructure systems have been identified. For each, a series of objectives and guidelines to achieve sustainability have been defined.

Water

Food

Landscape

Mobility

Energy

Information

Socio-economicinfrastructures

Buildings

Solid waste

Torino case study

Socio-economic infrastructures

Current urban regeneration policies in Torino revolve around social infrastructures.

A module of the general framework has been piloted to create an analytical and monitoring system for these policies.

Socio economic infrastructuresOur definition goes beyond the traditional set of social infrastructures (education, health care, social housing) and includes:

o community development infrastructureso enabling infrastructures (incubators, co-working, etc.) o community based organizations and networks

These infrastructures determine several social innovation processes like generative welfare (peer to peer), urban manufacturing, circular economy (separate waste collection), new urban landscapes (green areas, meeting places).

Positioning italian cities

Rank City Energy (%)Solid waste (%)

Mobility (%)

Landscape(%)

Water(%)

Information (%)

Food(%)

Buildings(%)

Socio‐economicinfrastructures (%)

Sustainability Index

2 Trento 65,28 58,01 49,69 57,33 52,44 68,13 57,83 68,96 43,47 57,90

3 Bolzano 47,31 42,30 64,99 53,00 65,86 60,55 69,42 60,09 54,17 57,52

4 Milano 46,43 58,75 58,16 58,11 62,13 68,54 59,30 52,55 50,13 57,12

7 Trieste 46,12 54,19 58,32 61,32 56,09 68,36 60,19 51,88 48,44 56,10

10 Bologna 50,04 43,58 58,85 52,43 64,67 68,54 47,03 60,04 56,41 55,73

20 Firenze 52,09 42,03 62,22 48,13 59,74 64,68 51,75 59,63 43,13 53,71

23 Torino 51,40 65,67 49,33 55,96 59,16 55,41 51,23 47,66 42,75 53,1730 Cagliari 44,57 42,61 52,06 56,04 51,22 62,27 55,77 48,72 57,36 52,29

34 Ancona 48,57 45,25 50,63 57,54 56,08 52,59 46,44 56,17 54,54 51,98

40 Perugia 53,22 45,24 41,47 54,40 52,39 51,39 56,81 59,86 47,53 51,37

Positioning criteriaThe following statistical data collectedand available for all Italian provinces have been used to determine the positioning of cities for the socio-economic infrastructures:o Average expense per person for cultural entertainment (€)o Number of cultural entertainment shows per 1,000 personso Number of recreational, artistic and cultural associations per 1,000 personso Number of not-for-profit associations per 100,000 personso Index of dynamism of public institutionso Number of hospital beds per 10,000 personso Number of schools per 10,000 personso Number of startup enterprises per 10.000 persons

The programs • AxTO Program: funding from the Italian government for actions

carried to improve quality of life in city suburbs• CoCity Program: funding from the EU Urban Innovative Actions call

to implement disruptive initiatives • PonMetro – Torino Social Factory: funding from the Italian

government for the 14 metropolitan cities

The programs selected represent the key pillars for the implementation of the urban regeneration policies of the City of Torino.

The projectsAxTo Project – Innovative social and cultural projects (measure 4.01)19 activities have been financed, the following are included in the pilot:- FA BENE Activity- ENZIMA Activity- MAUA Activity

Co-CITY Project – collaboration pacts for Urban Common Goods63 activities have been co-designed, among which:- AREA of via NEGARVILLE, via PLAVA, via ROVEDA- SPORT FIELD of via PONDERANO n°20- Areas in proximity to the LORUSSO and COTUGNO prison- via LE CHIUSE n°66- INTERCULTURAL CENTER of corso TARANTO n°160- Primary school DE PANIS, via ALA DI STURA n°23 – via FOSSATA

Torino Social Factory Project - PON METRODevelopment (guidance and support) to ideas of social entrepeneurship, among which:- ABITO- BIAGIO- C.A.R.O.T.A.- CUQU’- FATTORE COMUNITA’- G-LOCAL FACTORY- LOVING THE ALIEN- MIRAFIORI SICURA- NON SOLO PANE- PROMETEO- TRICICLO REUSE CENTER- VALLETTE CENTRO

Some examplesFA BENE: fresh food from local markets goes to families in temporary need of help in exchange for hours of volunteer work in support of community activities: Less food waste; Meaningful activities by disadvantaged community members; Social

inclusion

LORUSSO and COTUGNO prison: inmates are involved in the maintenance of a green space in front of the prison used by the families waiting to visit: Relationship with the neighborhood; Training opportunity; Positive economic impact

TRICICLO REUSE CENTER: training center to enable people to repair, recondition, and put back in the market various items while socializing: Circular economy; Entrepreneurship; Social networking

Spatial analysisA dynamic GIS tool has been developed to understand the geographical distribution of projects.

Geographic distributionDistribution of activities within the city and its districts

Areas of influenceMapping allows to define areas of influence of the various projects and identify gaps and overlaps.

Key enabling infrastructuresA main driver in Torino are the «community hubs» (Case del quartiere)

Strategic coherence with EU Each activity has been linked to one of the 12 themes of the Amsterdam Urban Agenda of the EU on which it is expected to generate direct benefits.

LinkagesEach activity has been linked to the infrastructure system on which it is expected to generate direct benefits and to other infrastructure systems on which it can have indirect benefits

Sustainability assessmentAn in-depth assessment according to the Go.in guidelines has been performed on the action 3.3.1 PON Metro «Experimental services of social innovation». The assessment was performed on 25 project ideas that were selected for a first phase of guidance and support. The analysis was performed according to the objectives and guidelines for the four levels in which the socio-economic infrastructure system is divided.

S1 Demand of socio-economic infrastructures

S4 Management and maintenance of socio-economic infrastructure

S2 Planning and programming of socio-economic infrastructure

S3 Design of socio-economic infrastructure

Objectives and guidelines S1. Demand for social infrastructureso Objective: Identify opportunities, vulnerabilities and threats of urban planning through the analysis

of the local context and its processes– Analyze the demand and offer of services keeping into account the different levels

(neighborhood, district, city, metropolitan area)– Collect baseline data at different levels– Collect baseline socio-economic data at local and regional level– Collect baseline data on cultural aspects and local and regional level

S2 Planning and programming of socio-economic infrastructureo Objective: Program a socio-economic infrastructure that is as multifunctional as possible

– Program and define relations and synergies between different social infrastructure to generate social, economic and environmental catalysts

– Program and define the activities taking into account different timelines (daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal)

– Program activities and services so that they can have effects on the daily life of local communities

Sustainability assessmentS1 Demand of socio-economicinfrastructure

S2 Planning and programming of socio-economic infrastructure

S3 Design of socio-economicinfrastructure

S4 Management and maintenance of socio-economic infrastructure The guideline is

specifically applied, through innovative solutions and with

positive results

The guideline is applied in line with

regulatory requirements or standard practice

The guideline is currently not

applied

ConclusionsNew social infrastructures:

– are relevant to urban regeneration policies and contribute to the overall quality of the urban ecosystem

– facilitate the emergence and consolidation of new city makers and their networks

– stimulate social innovation processes (new services and innovative economic activities)

THANK YOUrmezzalama@golder.comebobbio@golder.com

Financial support from