C. Mazzarella
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
5 records found
1
Community-led initiatives are increasingly recognised as contributors to sustainable and socially just urban transitions, but their capacity to shape formal urban development processes remains insufficiently understood. This article examines a grassroots case in Rotterdam, TheSpace_Coolhaven (2021–2024), and its nomadic successor, the Coolhaven Beating Heart Participatory Quest (2025), to explore how temporary commoning can configure city-making over time. Grounded in theoretical work on urban commons, temporary urbanism, and participatory governance, the study applies the access, membership, and ownership (AMO) framework within a longitudinal action-research methodology, drawing on participatory observation, internal documentation, workshop outputs, communication material, and six semi-structured interviews with community and institutional actors. Findings indicate that temporary access to vacant social housing enabled urban commons to be prefigurative, characterised by intensive socio-cultural programming, shared stewardship, and informal knowledge infrastructures. This temporary commons fostered collective learning and proximity-based governance. Yet, it also demonstrated fragility under property-led redevelopment, facing a nomadic condition in between institutional time frames. The article argues that community-led initiatives should be recognised as urban commons infrastructure with the potential to inform more inclusive, collaborative, and reflexive approaches to urban development in the Netherlands and comparable contexts.
...
Community-led initiatives are increasingly recognised as contributors to sustainable and socially just urban transitions, but their capacity to shape formal urban development processes remains insufficiently understood. This article examines a grassroots case in Rotterdam, TheSpace_Coolhaven (2021–2024), and its nomadic successor, the Coolhaven Beating Heart Participatory Quest (2025), to explore how temporary commoning can configure city-making over time. Grounded in theoretical work on urban commons, temporary urbanism, and participatory governance, the study applies the access, membership, and ownership (AMO) framework within a longitudinal action-research methodology, drawing on participatory observation, internal documentation, workshop outputs, communication material, and six semi-structured interviews with community and institutional actors. Findings indicate that temporary access to vacant social housing enabled urban commons to be prefigurative, characterised by intensive socio-cultural programming, shared stewardship, and informal knowledge infrastructures. This temporary commons fostered collective learning and proximity-based governance. Yet, it also demonstrated fragility under property-led redevelopment, facing a nomadic condition in between institutional time frames. The article argues that community-led initiatives should be recognised as urban commons infrastructure with the potential to inform more inclusive, collaborative, and reflexive approaches to urban development in the Netherlands and comparable contexts.
The short-term reuse of vacant real estate has demonstrated to be able to generate multiple benefits (Bishop, 2015; Madanipour, 2017; Oswalt et al., 2012; Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Berlin, 2007), and being a quick solution to prevent abandonment risks, providing opportunities to access low-cost space. Research has demonstrated that short-term non-profit projects have the potential to drive innovation and generate social value (Mangialardo & Micelli, 2017; Pinard, 2020; Saleh, 2022). In fact, temporary initiatives can establish transient communities, test new land-use models, and inform real estate transformations (Lepik, 2012). Mostly, creative, artistic, and informal occupations (Andres, 2011; Honeck, 2017; McArdle, 2022; Shaw, 2005; Vivant, 2022) gained attention over the last 25 years, because they have demonstrated capacities for placemaking (Camerin, 2024; Hernandez-Santin et al., 2020; Karachalis, 2021) and urban regeneration (Darchen & Simon, 2022; Martin et al., 2019). For these and other reasons, temporary use projects have been increasingly integrated in urban studies (Chang, 2021) and in urban planning (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012), despite that the seduction of short-term solutions can hide unfair dynamics (Ferreri, 2015). In this context, Temporary Uses (TU) have been observed critically, considering issues as gentrification risks (Assiter, 2022), benefit distribution (Ferreri, 2020; Mens et al., 2023; Vivant, 2022), negotiations among actors (Zhang, 2018), and outcomes in co-production (Jaspers & Steen, 2019). However, we still don’t have models to measure the economic impact of real estate TU in their urban contexts. Thus, we ask: 1) What are the economic impacts that the social value of a TU produces on urban context? 2) What factors describing urban changes and TU of vacant buildings correlate? And, consequently, 3) how does TU social value contribute to urban dynamics? To address this gap, this study aims at defining and test a methodological framework to measure the economic impacts generated by the social value of temporary uses on the urban context, with a focus on some non-profit initiatives1. The objective is to understand how social value generates effects and impacts on the urban context (street or neighbourhood) improving the place quality, considering both space (urban context) and effects (observing its changes over the years). A mixed method analysis is applied to a set of case studies first at the urban scale and then at the real estate scale. We consider multiple cases of temporary use in the Region of Brussels (Occupation Temporaire OT), that have been mapped and monitored by temporary.brussels. First, we conduct an urban analysis of the neighbourhood place quality (Carmona, 2019) to observe the characteristics and the trends of main socio-economic indicators, land use functions, presence of services and amenities, and ongoing transformations in the area together with local policies. Then, we will assess the impact of each temporary use case measuring a set of quanti-qualitative indicators with data from direct observations, project reports, and interviews2. The TU assessment framework has been developed based on literature review and qualitative analysis of cases in the Netherlands, in Belgium and in France. Finally, we’ll carry out a correlation analysis applying the Geographically and Temporally Weighted Regression (GTWR) (Fotheringham et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2019) in GIS (running R packages). Findings from this research contribute to the ongoing discourse on temporary urbanism by discussing how temporary uses support not only communities but also long-term urban development. The proposed framework for defining, measuring, and analysing temporary use provides insights for scholars, policymakers and urban planners interested in leveraging these initiatives considering a fair resource distribution for sustainable and inclusive urban regeneration.
...
The short-term reuse of vacant real estate has demonstrated to be able to generate multiple benefits (Bishop, 2015; Madanipour, 2017; Oswalt et al., 2012; Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung Berlin, 2007), and being a quick solution to prevent abandonment risks, providing opportunities to access low-cost space. Research has demonstrated that short-term non-profit projects have the potential to drive innovation and generate social value (Mangialardo & Micelli, 2017; Pinard, 2020; Saleh, 2022). In fact, temporary initiatives can establish transient communities, test new land-use models, and inform real estate transformations (Lepik, 2012). Mostly, creative, artistic, and informal occupations (Andres, 2011; Honeck, 2017; McArdle, 2022; Shaw, 2005; Vivant, 2022) gained attention over the last 25 years, because they have demonstrated capacities for placemaking (Camerin, 2024; Hernandez-Santin et al., 2020; Karachalis, 2021) and urban regeneration (Darchen & Simon, 2022; Martin et al., 2019). For these and other reasons, temporary use projects have been increasingly integrated in urban studies (Chang, 2021) and in urban planning (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012), despite that the seduction of short-term solutions can hide unfair dynamics (Ferreri, 2015). In this context, Temporary Uses (TU) have been observed critically, considering issues as gentrification risks (Assiter, 2022), benefit distribution (Ferreri, 2020; Mens et al., 2023; Vivant, 2022), negotiations among actors (Zhang, 2018), and outcomes in co-production (Jaspers & Steen, 2019). However, we still don’t have models to measure the economic impact of real estate TU in their urban contexts. Thus, we ask: 1) What are the economic impacts that the social value of a TU produces on urban context? 2) What factors describing urban changes and TU of vacant buildings correlate? And, consequently, 3) how does TU social value contribute to urban dynamics? To address this gap, this study aims at defining and test a methodological framework to measure the economic impacts generated by the social value of temporary uses on the urban context, with a focus on some non-profit initiatives1. The objective is to understand how social value generates effects and impacts on the urban context (street or neighbourhood) improving the place quality, considering both space (urban context) and effects (observing its changes over the years). A mixed method analysis is applied to a set of case studies first at the urban scale and then at the real estate scale. We consider multiple cases of temporary use in the Region of Brussels (Occupation Temporaire OT), that have been mapped and monitored by temporary.brussels. First, we conduct an urban analysis of the neighbourhood place quality (Carmona, 2019) to observe the characteristics and the trends of main socio-economic indicators, land use functions, presence of services and amenities, and ongoing transformations in the area together with local policies. Then, we will assess the impact of each temporary use case measuring a set of quanti-qualitative indicators with data from direct observations, project reports, and interviews2. The TU assessment framework has been developed based on literature review and qualitative analysis of cases in the Netherlands, in Belgium and in France. Finally, we’ll carry out a correlation analysis applying the Geographically and Temporally Weighted Regression (GTWR) (Fotheringham et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2019) in GIS (running R packages). Findings from this research contribute to the ongoing discourse on temporary urbanism by discussing how temporary uses support not only communities but also long-term urban development. The proposed framework for defining, measuring, and analysing temporary use provides insights for scholars, policymakers and urban planners interested in leveraging these initiatives considering a fair resource distribution for sustainable and inclusive urban regeneration.
Beyond Experimentation
Temporary Use as a Social Circular Strategy
Background and aim. Temporary use of vacant spaces—the short-term activation of properties awaiting transformation—has gained recognition for its potential to foster urban revitalization. While such uses provide a platform for experimentation, accessibility, and social inclusion through participatory and cultural activities, they often remain precarious and underutilized as strategic tools for circular economy. This study aims to explore how specific hybrid approaches to temporary real estate management can transform temporary use into a social circular economy strategy, balancing social values with market logics.
Methods and Data. This research employs a qualitative analysis, first defining a framework from literature and then analysing specific temporary use projects through a retrospective case analysis of three cases by Plateau Urbain (France), communa (Belgium), and Stad in de Maak (Netherlands). Data collection included interviews, project documentation, and field observations, allowing an in-depth exploration of the enabling conditions for successful hybrid approaches in creating social value.
Findings. This study makes three key contributions. First, it conceptualizes collaborative temporary use as a social circular strategy, clearly defining the evolution of the concept and its potential in temporary real estate adaptive reuse. Second, by drawing on the literature on organizational hybridity and case study analysis, it identifies key enabling conditions, such as tweaking the balance between social value and market logic over time to recalibrate impact—that underpin temporary use projects as social circular economy strategies. Third, it offers a framework to determine whether a temporary real estate reuse initiative can function as a social circular economy strategy.
Theoretical / Practical / Societal implications. This study offers theoretical insights into hybrid organizing for urban development and practical recommendations for integrating temporary reuse of real estate into social circular economy frameworks. Societally, it underscores the potential for collaborative temporary use to foster circular urban transformation by balancing economic goals with community-driven social value creation. ...
Methods and Data. This research employs a qualitative analysis, first defining a framework from literature and then analysing specific temporary use projects through a retrospective case analysis of three cases by Plateau Urbain (France), communa (Belgium), and Stad in de Maak (Netherlands). Data collection included interviews, project documentation, and field observations, allowing an in-depth exploration of the enabling conditions for successful hybrid approaches in creating social value.
Findings. This study makes three key contributions. First, it conceptualizes collaborative temporary use as a social circular strategy, clearly defining the evolution of the concept and its potential in temporary real estate adaptive reuse. Second, by drawing on the literature on organizational hybridity and case study analysis, it identifies key enabling conditions, such as tweaking the balance between social value and market logic over time to recalibrate impact—that underpin temporary use projects as social circular economy strategies. Third, it offers a framework to determine whether a temporary real estate reuse initiative can function as a social circular economy strategy.
Theoretical / Practical / Societal implications. This study offers theoretical insights into hybrid organizing for urban development and practical recommendations for integrating temporary reuse of real estate into social circular economy frameworks. Societally, it underscores the potential for collaborative temporary use to foster circular urban transformation by balancing economic goals with community-driven social value creation. ...
Background and aim. Temporary use of vacant spaces—the short-term activation of properties awaiting transformation—has gained recognition for its potential to foster urban revitalization. While such uses provide a platform for experimentation, accessibility, and social inclusion through participatory and cultural activities, they often remain precarious and underutilized as strategic tools for circular economy. This study aims to explore how specific hybrid approaches to temporary real estate management can transform temporary use into a social circular economy strategy, balancing social values with market logics.
Methods and Data. This research employs a qualitative analysis, first defining a framework from literature and then analysing specific temporary use projects through a retrospective case analysis of three cases by Plateau Urbain (France), communa (Belgium), and Stad in de Maak (Netherlands). Data collection included interviews, project documentation, and field observations, allowing an in-depth exploration of the enabling conditions for successful hybrid approaches in creating social value.
Findings. This study makes three key contributions. First, it conceptualizes collaborative temporary use as a social circular strategy, clearly defining the evolution of the concept and its potential in temporary real estate adaptive reuse. Second, by drawing on the literature on organizational hybridity and case study analysis, it identifies key enabling conditions, such as tweaking the balance between social value and market logic over time to recalibrate impact—that underpin temporary use projects as social circular economy strategies. Third, it offers a framework to determine whether a temporary real estate reuse initiative can function as a social circular economy strategy.
Theoretical / Practical / Societal implications. This study offers theoretical insights into hybrid organizing for urban development and practical recommendations for integrating temporary reuse of real estate into social circular economy frameworks. Societally, it underscores the potential for collaborative temporary use to foster circular urban transformation by balancing economic goals with community-driven social value creation.
Methods and Data. This research employs a qualitative analysis, first defining a framework from literature and then analysing specific temporary use projects through a retrospective case analysis of three cases by Plateau Urbain (France), communa (Belgium), and Stad in de Maak (Netherlands). Data collection included interviews, project documentation, and field observations, allowing an in-depth exploration of the enabling conditions for successful hybrid approaches in creating social value.
Findings. This study makes three key contributions. First, it conceptualizes collaborative temporary use as a social circular strategy, clearly defining the evolution of the concept and its potential in temporary real estate adaptive reuse. Second, by drawing on the literature on organizational hybridity and case study analysis, it identifies key enabling conditions, such as tweaking the balance between social value and market logic over time to recalibrate impact—that underpin temporary use projects as social circular economy strategies. Third, it offers a framework to determine whether a temporary real estate reuse initiative can function as a social circular economy strategy.
Theoretical / Practical / Societal implications. This study offers theoretical insights into hybrid organizing for urban development and practical recommendations for integrating temporary reuse of real estate into social circular economy frameworks. Societally, it underscores the potential for collaborative temporary use to foster circular urban transformation by balancing economic goals with community-driven social value creation.
Exploring a geodesign approach for circular economy transition of cities and regions
Three European cases
Journal article
(2024)
-
Cecilia Furlan, Chiara Mazzarella, Alessandro Arlati, Gustavo Arciniegas, Andreas Obersteg, Alexander Wandl, Maria Cerreta
Transitioning towards a circular built environment and turning waste into resources have become one of the new sustainability paradigms today. However, a circular transition can be considered a ‘wicked problem’. The multiple dimensions and scales of the circular transition and its substantial spatial implications fit well into the planning approach of Geodesign. The Horizon 2020 funded project “Resource Management in the periurban Areas - Going beyond Urban Metabolism (REPAiR)” implemented an innovative Geodesign approach. Moreover, it explored its capability to support spatial decision-making processes for the circular economy transition of the built environment within urban planning practices. This article aims to understand to what extent a process of Geodesign, which is conducted with the support of a digital tool and a Living Lab approach, can support the creation of localised circular economy strategies and foster the circular economy transition in cities and territories. The analysis explores and compares the results of three European cases -Amsterdam, Hamburg and Naples. It considers the kind of data input required to run the process in every phase, the stakeholders involved and their typology, the specific urban or territorial, planning and governance scales of analysis, and the final output definition after the Geodesign process implementation. The approach outputs constitute a decision support system for easing negotiations between local actors regarding the circularity strategies to implement. The findings reveal an intertwinement between different forms of knowledge included in the process, ranging from sustainability to governance and design, and the actors engaged in planning a circularity transition spatially. However, even using similar starting data, the local information and the starting conditions strongly influence the process and the types of strategies elaborated in each case.
...
Transitioning towards a circular built environment and turning waste into resources have become one of the new sustainability paradigms today. However, a circular transition can be considered a ‘wicked problem’. The multiple dimensions and scales of the circular transition and its substantial spatial implications fit well into the planning approach of Geodesign. The Horizon 2020 funded project “Resource Management in the periurban Areas - Going beyond Urban Metabolism (REPAiR)” implemented an innovative Geodesign approach. Moreover, it explored its capability to support spatial decision-making processes for the circular economy transition of the built environment within urban planning practices. This article aims to understand to what extent a process of Geodesign, which is conducted with the support of a digital tool and a Living Lab approach, can support the creation of localised circular economy strategies and foster the circular economy transition in cities and territories. The analysis explores and compares the results of three European cases -Amsterdam, Hamburg and Naples. It considers the kind of data input required to run the process in every phase, the stakeholders involved and their typology, the specific urban or territorial, planning and governance scales of analysis, and the final output definition after the Geodesign process implementation. The approach outputs constitute a decision support system for easing negotiations between local actors regarding the circularity strategies to implement. The findings reveal an intertwinement between different forms of knowledge included in the process, ranging from sustainability to governance and design, and the actors engaged in planning a circularity transition spatially. However, even using similar starting data, the local information and the starting conditions strongly influence the process and the types of strategies elaborated in each case.
Heritage Communities Urban Living Lab (HeCo ULL)
A Circular Methodological Approach for Co-Design Through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation
This research aims to define an integrated methodological approach for activating and implementing Urban Living Labs focused on cultural resources, landscapes and assets, and their enhancement, shaped by the role of the local community and significant historical sites. The CHANGES project - Cultural Heritage Active Innovation for Next-Gen Sustainable Society - is the context to design a circular Urban Living Lab approach where evaluation acquires a central and enabling role. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE) is suitable for inclusion in this decision-making context, instigating a Collaborative Decision-Making Process within co-design phases that actively engage diverse stakeholders, incorporating preferences and facilitating consensus building. Specifically, SOCRATES represents an interesting multicriteria method to investigate for this purpose as part of a methodology that consists of multiple methods of work, design and research. The methodological proposal is the Heritage Communities Urban Living Labs (HeCo-ULLs) approach, a circular framework recognising multidimensional complex values and the aspiration to generate new, locally rooted, and community-driven values. The proposal incorporates the SOCRATES method across various Urban Living Lab development stages. This methodological approach has to be implemented and validated case-by-case, involving local actors and considering the peculiarities of different cultural heritages and related contexts.
...
This research aims to define an integrated methodological approach for activating and implementing Urban Living Labs focused on cultural resources, landscapes and assets, and their enhancement, shaped by the role of the local community and significant historical sites. The CHANGES project - Cultural Heritage Active Innovation for Next-Gen Sustainable Society - is the context to design a circular Urban Living Lab approach where evaluation acquires a central and enabling role. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE) is suitable for inclusion in this decision-making context, instigating a Collaborative Decision-Making Process within co-design phases that actively engage diverse stakeholders, incorporating preferences and facilitating consensus building. Specifically, SOCRATES represents an interesting multicriteria method to investigate for this purpose as part of a methodology that consists of multiple methods of work, design and research. The methodological proposal is the Heritage Communities Urban Living Labs (HeCo-ULLs) approach, a circular framework recognising multidimensional complex values and the aspiration to generate new, locally rooted, and community-driven values. The proposal incorporates the SOCRATES method across various Urban Living Lab development stages. This methodological approach has to be implemented and validated case-by-case, involving local actors and considering the peculiarities of different cultural heritages and related contexts.