The Campania Region, in the South of Italy, is a territory where numerous Wasted Landscapes (WL) are recognisable, as the result of serious social and governmental problems. Through the last decades, many factors have been overlapping in this complex palimpsest: illegal developments and the measures to legitimize them can be paradoxically understood as real cornerstones for the local planning system; the traces of the post-Fordist abandoned landscapes are mixed with the historical remains, showing the deep sense of identity that still persists in the territory. On the other hand, the Campania Plain is a porous territory characterised by an adaptive resilience. This is interwoven with the presence of areas of outstanding natural beauty, with a resilient interstitial agriculture, and with a fragmented but resistant economy. In this paper, two emblematic case-studies are discussed (Casaluce and Est-Naples), understanding WL as an additional category of waste with the urgent need to be recycled, in order to: reactivate urban metabolism; to improve the quality of life, the spatial quality of the territory, and the regional economy.@en

Deliverable 3.3 of Work Package 3 concerns an integrated analysis of the two pilot case studies within the REPAiR project, Amsterdam and Naples, from the vantage point of waste production and processing, and the transition to circular societies. It comprises spatial, social and material flow analyses of the two pilot cases, whilst testing an innovative methodology that was introduced and explained in Deliverable 3.1 [D3.1, AKA the Handbook, Geldermans et al., 2017]. The report addresses additions and clarifications to the methodology presented in Deliverable 3.1. After an update on the basis of technical insights and the work developed in practice within the peri-urban living labs (PULL) workshops carried out so far, an improved classification of Wastescapes is presented. Furthermore, a complete process model to map Wastescapes is provided. A smaller scale of the 'sample' area has been introduced to allow a better interaction with the local stakeholders, deepening the context and cutting into the intermediate scale of the ‘focus-area’. Moreover, the notion of Enabling Contexts is applied to rationalise the links between spatial analysis and eco-innovation solutions (WP5). With regard to the Material Flow Analysis, new insights on data collection and processing are addressed, providing more grip on how to successfully conduct such an MFA. The lion’s share of the report is allocated to presenting the results. For both cases, a rudimentary spatial and socio-economic analysis on a national level precedes a detailed regional analysis: for the Netherlands, this concerns the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, and for Italy the Campania Region and the Metropolitan region of Naples. Embedded in this spatial-social context, the material flow analysis follows six Activity-based Spatial MFA (as introduced in D3.1) steps to pinpoint and analyse waste related challenges and activities. The report finishes with a reflection on the methodology and results. This reflection focuses on four topics in particular: physico-geographical aspects and waste-sensitivity, Waste(scape) dynamics in space & time, modelling of material flows & data intensity, and the relevance of Enabling Contexts, whilst anticipating the follow up cases as well as a wider field of application.@en

REPAiR will provide local and regional authorities with an innovative transdisciplinary open source Geodesign Decision Support Environment (GDSE) developed and implemented in Living Labs (LLs) context, in six metropolitan areas namely Naples, Ghent, Hamburg, Pécs, Łódź and Amsterdam. LLs are physical and virtual environments, in which public-private-people partnerships experiment an iterative method to develop innovations, that include the involvement of end users. In LLs different areas of expertise from diverse partners are needed for a good development of the activities, with the aim to meet the need of the stakeholders by innovation. The innovation concept here is used in the sense of a difference between an existing entity (a product, a policy, a service, etc.) and customers’ expectations. The elements of innovation can be technological factors, better working conditions or methods of entity delivery, etc., because to innovate means to be creative, learning from mistakes. This means also to learn and share information about what went wrong, in order to use it in upcoming phases. LLs are approaches and instruments, at the same time, to improve the innovation capabilities and competitiveness of territories. Thanks to the LL approach, policy makers can face the many socio-economic challenges of their territories, improving social inclusion. Typically useful for the interpretation of complex real life environments, LLs are recognized as users-friendly instruments and processes to promote open innovation in several European regions. In this way complex solutions are identified, tested and transformed into prototypes (Innovation Alcotra, 2013). In other words, an LL is a “user-driven open innovation ecosystem” (EC, 2009) that utilizes the fruitful participation of business, citizens and governments in the research process; this approach is helpful in order to better define the current behaviors and user patterns. Co-creation, one of the main and transversal components of an LL, is the process that produces a product or a service as a result of a cooperation between the collaboration of end-users and other stakeholders that work in the common environment of LL (Innovation Alcotra, 2013). Cities as complex systems, characterized by Urban Metabolism and increasing challenges, demand co-creation (Gemeente Rotterdam, IABR, FABRIC, JCFO, & TNO, 2014). LLs identify sustainable activities that are coherent with the territory and competitive in some ways if compared with global economies, and put them in contact with the ones that already exist in the same area. In REPAiR, Living Labs are organized in six peri-urban areas across Europe, as stated above, as decision support environments where representatives of universities, governance, corporations, local communities and, in addition, individuals make decisions that are based on their role and expertise. In this framework, design professionals, information technologists and scientists give contributions and support the decision-making process related to what to do and how to do that in each case study area. In order to make a decision that must be site specific, it is necessary to identify and compare several opportunities and alternatives that should be developed in the Peri-Urban Living Labs (PULLs), after the knowledge and evaluation of the current situation of the place. The different disciplines involved in the PULL have different methods that can interact, to imagine and select change models that work at different scales simultaneously.@en

dealing with the linkages between sociocultural features and social sensitiveness about general environmental issues, and particularly about waste and resource management. Task 3.3 has a multilevel scope: secondary sociocultural inquiries are focusing on national level specificities, while the primer sociocultural stage of the research and the socioeconomic investigation is done on a local level. The representation and process models developed in WP3 have strong ties with WP4, regarding sustainability impact assessment and evaluation models, and with WP5 concerning eco-innovative solutions and change strategies. Moreover, the models are used as input to the GDSE (WP2) and inform – and are informed by – WP6 with regard to decision models. These interrelations accentuate theimportance of common agreements regarding e.g. delineations, data sourcing and processing. Such issues are dealt with in this handbook, whilst underlining the necessity for continuing alignment between work packages of the REPAiR project.@en