Cannot meet? Use online co-mapping tools. The participatory process “Vai Oltre” in Parma
Edited on
02 September 2022
By Patrizia Marani, lead partner of Thriving Streets and Andrea Panzavolta, Genius Loci, coordinator of the participatory process in Parma
Parma is located in one of the most polluted areas in Europe, the Po Valley, a densely populated and industrialized area encompassing four regions. The city has been implementing strategies and actions for mobility, energy efficiency and sustainability to reduce pollution for many years and improvements have been reached. However, traffic congestion, air pollution and the use of private cars are still high.
Within this context, Parma is facing the challenge of the regeneration of a historic neighbourhood that in the last years has undergone deep changes. The neighbourhood Oltretorrente is a mix of private dwellings, shops, bars, University, schools, and services that is still a reference point for the city. However, the enjoyment of Oltretorrente suffers from various challenges, related to traffic, noise and air pollution together with poor quality of some public spaces, closing of shops, changing population, scarcity of green areas, poor attractiveness for visitors and tourists.
At the beginning of Thriving Streets, Parma set up an inter-departmental team to manage the participatory process, with representatives of the mobility, welfare, urban planning, EU affairs, culture, active citizenship and equal opportunities offices.
After the stakeholder mapping and analysis, the first methodological choice was to work with the stakeholders in two groups. The first group was made of representatives of the local institutions; they contributed to the analysis of the problems, the vision, the local action plan, and discussed the synergies with other projects in Oltretorrente. The second group was made of representatives of the local community: they contributed to the steering of the project, the problem analysis, vision, definition of actions and played a central role in the development of the two small scale actions.
The participation in Oltretorrente was organised in the following phases:
1. Presentation of the participatory process, the planned schedule, the context analysis
2. The problem analysis with the use of an online participatory mapping system, online meetings, a walkshop, a lab with children
3. The vision: the co-construction of the desirable scenario to facilitate the collection of ideas and the objectives of the Integrated Action Plan
4. Actions: co-definition of actions for the Integrated Action Plan
5. Small scale actions in the Oltretorrente neighbourhood
6. Co-evaluation of the results of the small scale actions
7. Preparation of the draft and then the final version of the Integrated Action Plan
The coronavirus pandemic and the lockdown forced Parma, as all cities, to change the co-creation process and design new ways to cooperate with stakeholders in the URBACT Local Group.
The analysis of the problems started in Spring 2021, right in the middle of the coronavirus emergency in Italy. To better understand the link between causes, problems, effects in Oltretorrente, following the URBACT approach, we used an online co-mapping tool, the free Google MYMaps app. The digital map of the neighbourhood Oltretorrente was an “open” document, where each participant could intervene and modify the contents.
The mapping tool was presented during two online meetings to the two groups of stakeholders; during the meetings the macro challenges were identified and put in the map: cycling and walking; parking; traffic; collective, cultural and associative spaces; neighbourhood spaces (squares, streets, heritage etc.). Participants received a short guide and a personal link to the map and technical assistance via email.
In the following two weeks, the stakeholders completed the map and ‘located’ the challenges and problems on it; they also provided further information such as other stakeholders that should be engaged. The mapping tool allowed to work asynchronously, and was open 24 hours a day, so information could be entered at any time.
Participants contributed by indicating a dangerous crossroad, an uneven sidewalk, an abandoned space, a too far distance from a bus stop, a congested road in school time, an unsafe road at night, a declining commercial square etc. They could also leave short comments and upload photos or images. The map was viewed 316 times and 40 contributions were collected. The map was then discussed in online meetings and together with the Walkshop (https://urbact.eu/why-walkshops-matter-deep-dive-and-hands-participative-process-support-urban-regeneration) we could design the problem tree of Oltretorrente.
Co-mapping using MYMaps proved to be very useful to collaborate proactively with stakeholders in spite of the lockdown.
It is very stimulating in participation processes organized completely online, but it can also be used to support participatory processes organized in person; thanks to the use of the smartphone app it is very easy for participants to leave contributions, for example even during an exploratory walk or during a workshop in person.
Here we summarize some of the strengths and weaknesses of the tool.
My Maps is a free of charge and flexible tool that can be used by non-experts users. It is based on a Google Map interface, so it is well known by all users of this app. For this reason, it can be very useful also to work with youth. It allows to engage many participants in the same activity, even if we suggest a maximum of thirty participants. It can be used both in smartphones and computers. My Maps allows to uploading images in an easy way and add descriptions of the detected/photographed elements. Moreover, it allows to create or add personal shapes and layers with specific information on the map. Being a free tool, users can modify the map and delete other users' data. The tool is complicated to use with more than thirty users because of the many information to manage; for instance, the layout of the captions does not allow to enter many characters, it is not possible to provide explanations to the participants, and in general offers limited graphic possibilities (choice of colours, icons, etc). Finally, the tool does not allow to have a moderator filter and it’s not possible to export the map and the information collected, so checks of the map are needed by the moderator and processing the summary report might be a time-consuming activity.
Submitted by Patrizia Marani on