Urban areas account for around 50% of global solid waste generation. In the last decade, the European Union has supported numerous initiatives aiming at reducing waste generation by promoting shifts towards Circular Economy (CE) approaches. Governing this process has become imperative. This article focuses on the results of a governance analysis of six urban regions in Europe involved in the Horizon 2020 project REPAiR. By means of semi-structured interviews, document analysis and workshops with local stakeholders, for each urban area a list of governance challenges which hinder the necessary shift to circularity was drafted. In order to compare the six cases, the various challenges have been categorized using the PESTEL-O method. Results highlight a significant variation in policy contexts and the need for these to evolve by adapting stakeholders’ and policy-makers’ engagement and diffusing knowledge on CE. Common challenges among the six regions include a lack of an integrated guiding framework (both political and legal), limited awareness among citizens, and technological barriers. All these elements call for a multi-faceted governance approach able to embrace the complexity of the process and comprehensively address the various challenges to completing the shift towards circularity in cities.@en

“Learning from abroad” is a widely recognised and used means to innovate and improve strategies and policies implemented by regions and cities. However, literature on knowledge transfer and related concepts, such as policy transfer, policy mobility or lesson-drawing, highlights the limitations of this process, especially when it entails the simple transfer of (best) practices from “place A” to “place B”. Such a transfer may lead to suboptimal solutions particularly when the imported practices concern complex phenomena, involving networks of multiple actors and relying on place-specific dynamics. Departing from this critique, the article sheds light on the process of knowledge transfer in the field of circular economy, taking place between the two metropolitan regions of Amsterdam and Naples. This process is guided by an innovative methodology based on a network of (peri-urban) living labs generating eco-innovative solutions for using material waste and wastescapes as a resource in peri-urban areas. Using participant observation in knowledge transfer workshops, stakeholder interviews and surveys, it investigates how the process of co-creation of knowledge in the relational space of the networked living labs takes place thanks to the participation of stakeholders from both regions. This in turn allows for drawing conclusions on what barriers are encountered in such knowledge transfer, what makes solutions transferable across different contexts, and, finally, how the solutions are adapted as they travel from one place to another.@en

Task 3.3 of the REPAiR project is dealing with the linkages between socio-cultural and socio-moral features and social sensitiveness and awareness about general environmental issues, and particularly about waste and resource management. The basic assumption is that the different agents’ understandings and behaviors related to ecological sustainability and more specific natural environmental aspects are deeply embedded into certain, collectively accepted, respected and followed social values, norms, rules, conventions, customs and attitudes. Accordingly, these social patterns influence the agents’ way of thinking (perceptions and interpretations, i.e. concepts) and way of doing things (i.e. praxes) about environmental challenges. It is important to note that ‘agent’ in this research refers to both involved stakeholders (decision-makers, experts, experience-holders, etc.) and any member of the general population, therefore, the aforementioned hypothesis is assumed to be true regarding to expert and lay knowledge-holders as well. To analyse this fundamental question and presumption, the research is focusing on four different tasks. Firstly, there is a theoretical phase that, based on certain value-concepts, aims to provide an explanatory framework for the general assumption. Secondly, Task 3.3 is dealing with a multi-phased comprehensive secondary socio-cultural analysis (SSCA) to investigate empirically the proposed theoretical linkages. Thirdly, the research provides a primer empirical analysis (PSCA) about the perceptions of different stakeholders on the relevancy of various factors and social, cultural and moral features for waste and resource management. Finally, a socio-economic analysis (SEA) aims to map out crucial aspects about each case study areas. Task 3.3 has a multilevel scope: the secondary socio-cultural inquiries are focusing on national level specificities, while the primer socio-cultural stage of the research and the socio-economic investigation is done on local (focus area) level.@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

REPAiR will develop, test, and implement strategies for improved urban metabolisms in six peri-urban living labs (›PULLs‹) in the case study areas of Amsterdam, Ghent, Hamburg, Łódź, Naples, and Pécs. In the frame of REPAiR a geodesign decision support environment (GDSE) will be developed and first tested in the PULLs. In REPAiR’s Work Package 6 “Developing and implementing decision models” decision making processes will be analysed and decision models for all six case studies will be developed in order to be implemented in cooperation with stakeholders in the six case study areas feeding into the GDSE. The deliverable D6.1 Governance and Decision-Making Processes in Pilot Cases is focused on the definition and clarification of governance and decision-making structures in the two pilot cases of the REPAiR project: Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Naples, Italy. The deliverable is divided into 5 chapters. After a brief introduction to the work done for the drafting of this document (Chapter 1), the second Chapter aims to explain the theoretical background on governance and stakeholder analysis and gives an overview on the development of EU policies in the field of waste management. The third chapter and the fourth chapters report a description of the pilot caseworks Amsterdam and Naples they include an overview on the governance setting, a detailed timelines of the development of the waste governance and the decision-making framework. This is followed by descriptions of the stakeholder identification and interviews conducted in the pilot cases. The Amsterdam focus area is located in the Western part of Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. The central idea of the case study is to develop a more circular economy. This idea is already quite present among many stakeholders and is formulated as an objective by public stakeholders. Moreover, the public side encourages the involvement of economic stakeholders into the development of a circular economy. The private stakeholders express great interest in becoming (more) involved into the process. However, the interviews also show that the development of a circular economy and changes in waste management in the Netherlands can only be reached on a long perspective and that many frame conditions in the waste management sector are long term bound. The Naples focus area is covering parts of the City of Naples and 10 municipalities in the north-east of Naples. After the conclusion of the waste crisis in Naples public authorities are aiming to improve the waste management on a long term perspective. The interviews show that there are two main challenges linked to this process: firstly, the current change of the administrative system in both Italy and the Campania region; secondly, the necessity to involve local citizens in the decision-making process to regain the trust of the population. Chapter 5 illustrates the conclusion of this first step of the project and gives an outlook on further steps.@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