Bottom-up resistance against gentrification in Rome
This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at Countering Gentrification: Community Based and Collaborative Methods.
- 1 Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention
- 1.1 1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]
- 1.2 2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]
- 1.3 3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference
- 1.4 4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?
- 1.5 5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see Appendix 1: Three modes of governance)
- 1.6 6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?
- 1.7 7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?
- 2 b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work
- 3 c) Actor constellations
- 3.1 10. Who initiated the intervention?
- 3.2 11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)
- 3.3 12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?
- 3.4 13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.
- 3.5 14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?
- 3.6 15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?
- 3.7 16. Exclusion:
- 4 d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention
- 4.1 17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)
- 4.2 18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along Appendix 2: Policy typology)
- 4.3 19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?
- 4.4 20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)
- 4.5 21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?
- 4.6 22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?
- 5 e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation
- 6 f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles
- 6.1 24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)
- 7 g) Reported outcomes
- 8 h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention
- 8.1 Learning context
- 8.1.1 26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:
- 8.2 Learning content
- 8.3 Learning process
- 8.3.1 28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?
- 8.3.2 29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?
- 8.3.3 30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote) and the actors involved in using them.
- 8.1 Learning context
- 9 i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)
- 9.1 31. Suggestions regarding transferability.
- 9.2 32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?
- 9.3 33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)
- 10 j) Structural learning
- 11 k) Reflections on important governance concepts
- 11.1 35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?
- 11.2 36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?
- 12 Appendix 1: Three modes of governance
- 13 Appendix 2: Policy typology
Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention
1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]
The selected intervention refers to anti-gentrification resistances in the Roman district of Trastevere (Italy). The district is going through a long-lasting process of gentrification, which applies to the whole city centre of Rome. As a result of the increasing evictions, citizens have started to resist displacement, namely by “staying put” (AGAPE_01: 1). The intervention has been primarily developed at the local level but tackles different scales. Organized resistances started in neighbourhoods by tenants' unions and individual squatters occupying buildings. Anti-eviction platforms voice these claims at the district level in Trastevere. Multiple pressures on public authorities (from the public housing authority, the municipality of Rome, the Lazio region) result in the implementation of regulatory policies at the municipal or the regional level (e.g. sanatoria to regularize squatters).
2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]
This intervention is implemented in the fields of housing policies and urban social policies, specifically in a context of austerity policies.
3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference
The Trastevere district is facing gentrification resulting from a roll-back of state protection of housing stock and privatized public housing. As a result, the prices of tenancies dramatically increased, which led to a severe housing crisis and to police-led evictions. In this context, anti-gentrification resistance emerged from the civil society as a call for the right of local residents to remain in the district. The resistances address social justice in the following terms:
- Call for regularizing informal housing such as squatting in public housing estates.
- Tenants' request of becoming owners of the public housing.
- Call to freeze and stabilize the prices of tenancies in public housing.
The sustainability issue is not directly addressed by the residents of the district. AGAPE addresses sustainability with respect to social justice in terms of “social sustainability”. The latter refers to the fight of low income and marginalized people struggling to survive day to day and to their right to “stay put” i.e. to remain in their homes.
4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?
In Rome, anti-gentrification resistance progressively emerged in line with the gentrification process. This ongoing process started in the 1990’s with a national law abolishing the rent control (i.e. guaranteeing moderate price rental) (AGAPE_01: 5). Specifically, the AGAPE project focuses on resistance from 2014 (when the project started) until present.
5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see Appendix 1: Three modes of governance)
The intervention is firstly characterized by non-government led governance mode and progressively turned to a co-governed or hybrid governance mode as soon as public actors engaged in the intervention.
The case of Trastevere district is interesting because it specifically focuses on urban social (in)justices (i.e. participation, exclusion). It sheds light on the governance arrangements emerging from anti-gentrification practices in a specific context of crisis and austerity in southern European countries (SECs).
7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?
- AGAPE_01_Everyday resistances in gentrifying contexts_ANNUNZIATA_2019
- AGAPE_02_Garbatella. Heritage, Gentrification, and Public Policies in Rome, Italy_ANNUNZIATA_2019
- AGAPE_03_Resisting ‘Austerity Gentrification’ and Displacement in Southern Europe_ANNUZIATE_et_LEES_2016
- AGAPE_05_Philipp Katsinas reviews anti-gentrification workshop, ‘Staying Put’_KATSINAS_2017
8. EU Project-context of the intervention:
- a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).
The intervention has been developed in the framework of the EU-funded project AGAPE (2014-16). The project aims at exploring the development of anti-gentrification practices in three Southern European cities (SECs) (i.e. Rome, Madrid and Athens) in the context of the post-2008 economic crisis. Specifically, the project seeks to determine the repertoire of collective actions to “stay put” (AGAPE_01) and to resist displacement as well as to contribute to gentrification resistance theories.
Gentrification refers to “a process involving a change in the population of land users such that the new users are of a higher socioeconomic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment in fixed capital” (Clark 2005: 263, in AGAPE 01: 3).
- b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.
The intervention best fits under the Reconceptualising urban justice and sustainability and the Right to housingapproaches. The project is explicitly mentioned in the database under these two approaches.
- c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?
Yes: AGAPE_01_Everyday resistances in gentrifying contexts_ANNUNZIATA_2019
9. Problematization and priority:
- a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?
In the case of the gentrification process in Trastevere, inequality and exclusion have been problematized by local inhabitants as well as researchers (from AGAPE project). They refer to the exclusions of lower income residents from Rome’s city center due to the privatization of public housing and the correlated gentrification process. Here, gentrification consists in a subtle transformation of the residential tenures and retails oriented to tourism and the eviction of the former working-class dwellers.
- b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?
The achievement of justice has been named as a major motivation behind the intervention. The project AGAPE seeks to draw attention to anti-gentrification practices in Southern European cities (SECs) “with a particular focus on their incorporation into - and capabilities to inform - local policy makings”. Hence, the goal is to support and voice anti-gentrification practices and policies in order to counter “urban inequality” as well as to set up a “post-crisis urban agenda aimed at achieving social justice”. The intervention in Trastevere district in Rome has been selected because it sheds on social injustices but also because the intervention has a potential for informing about resistances and “alternative narratives” on counter-gentrification practices.
- c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see Database of drivers of injustice)
c) Actor constellations
10. Who initiated the intervention?
The intervention was initiated by some citizens in Rome, especially the local inhabitants directly targeted by the gentrification process and the evictions. Resisting gentrification includes a set of practices from “everyday” and individual to “collectively organized” actions i.e. within groups created for this purpose such as neighborhood organizations, community groups and tenants’ unions (e.g. The Comitato di Lotta per la casa del Centro Storico or the Network of San Saba) (AGAPE_01: 7). It is primarily a bottom-up intervention.
11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)
The benefiters of the intervention are the local residents themselves (i.e. people used to live in Trastevere district) who “stay put” and might have a chance to remain in the district. Scaling up, the intervention also benefits other low income and marginalized residents of Rome potentially targeted by gentrification and austerity and housing policies. Generally, counter this process will benefit everyone concerned by social justice.
12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?
|Actor types||Yes||Actor name and role|
|Civil society organizations||X||Organized anti-eviction platforms (i.e. platforms are citizens’ organizations including local tenants’ unions as well as anti-gentrification activists). They support and help targeted residents and voice their claim to fight evictions. They also advocate for social justice and housing solutions as well as pressure the Housing Authority and the municipality (AGAPE_01: 9).|
|Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations|
|For profit entreprises|
|National government||X||National government enforced in the 1990s the right-to-buy legislation that regulates the alienation of and the privatization of public properties (AGAPE_02: 6).|
|Other initiatives||X||The Housing Authority of Rome. It is responsible for allocating and administering social housing. It enforced the rental-homeownership conversion (i.e. according to the right-to-buy national law), which consists in offering tenants of public housing to buy their housing at moderate prices.|
13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.
(Please, note that italicized sections are speculative)
The residents organize themselves locally, especially within anti-eviction platforms that are responsible for helping residents in distress but also voicing their claim to the public authorities. Anti-eviction platforms are crucial mediators because they convey the claims of the most deprived inhabitants (e.g. isolated persons, squatters) as well as of the neighbourhood groups or tenant’s unions. They are the identified interlocutors of the municipality and the Housing Authority and perform this back-and-forth work.
14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?
This intervention is based on and driven by citizens. The anti-eviction platforms as well as the community groups (e.g. of squatters) are the results of grassroot initiatives. The intervention of public actors (i.e. the housing authority and the municipality) to alleviate evictions or of external supporters (i.e. activists or researchers in the framework of AGAPE project) voicing the claims add to the already existing grassroot resistances.
15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?
- a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?
Migrants (and to some extent Romany people) are excluded from this intervention. Although many are living in informal housing and are more likely to be targeted by evictions (recalling the example of a massive and brutal eviction in the via Curatone which took place in August 2017) (AGAPE_01: 12), they are not included in resistance groups and are thus not represented.
- b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?
The intervention is mainly implemented by community groups that frame themselves by neighbourhoods. However, the neighbourliness as understood and mobilized by local inhabitants is ambiguous. It recalls the idea of “‘popular’ neighbourhood” (AGAPE_01: 7) without being altruistic or supportive of other social groups. As a consequence, neighbourliness might be exclusive in particular towards migrants who are not parts of this “historical working-class narrative” (which in this context is also related to collective memories of solidarity and resistance during the German occupation and to anti-fascist pride) (AGAPE_01: 7).
The exclusion of some social groups (i.e. migrants, Romany) potentially breaks down solidarity among activists. It also weakens and reduces the impact of anti-gentrification resistance since only long-time local inhabitants who share this “working class” narrative may benefit while neglected social groups are even more likely to face evictions.
d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention
17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)
The intervention takes place in a context of economic crisis and austerity after the 2008 crisis. This reinforced the ongoing housing shortages that began in the 1990's. The gentrification process fostered by the enforcement of neoliberal housing policies (e.g. the abolishment of the rent control) and the multiplication of the evictions were the catalysts of the citizens' resistances.
18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along Appendix 2: Policy typology)
The intervention is framed by urban social policies and housing policies. It addresses regulatory policies enforced both at the local level, specifically the abolishment of rent control (1992-1998) (i.e. referring to the abolishment of a housing price ceiling guarantee by the municipality), and at the national level, specifically the sale at moderate price of publicly owned residential stock (i.e. the right-to-buy national law, December 21, 1993, no. 560) (AGAPE_01, AGAPE_02: 1). In the framework of the right-to-buy national legislation, the local government established the rental-home ownership conversion that offers a cheaper buying price than the normal market and only applies to tenants.
These refer to economic policies because they provide favorable economic conditions for targeted actors (i.e. tourists, multinational companies and wealthy people) while they are economically detrimental for others (i.e. low income inhabitants).
Before the enforcement of the right-to-buy legislation, public housing was nationally administered by a public autonomous body called the Istituto Case Popolari (ICP)(AGAPE_02: 1). Entitlement to public housing was conferred in perpetuity to tenants, protecting them from being evicted. This system of tenure prevented the sell of units for profits (Annunziata 2019_AGAPE 02).
However, the privatization of public estates started in 1993 and was enforced in a national law. The denationalization of public assets was fostered in 2001 to solve the public debt (decreto Legislativo, September 25, 2001, no.351). “In 2006 the Lazio region, in charge of Rome’s building and planning regulations, approved legislation requiring that the city sell up to 70 percent of its public housing” and in 2007 a list of public properties to be sold was issued by the municipality (AGAPE_02: 7).
19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?
The privatisation of public residential property since 1993 was established in accordance with constitutional norms, in particular the art. 47 of the constitution. The national law of December 24, 1993, no. 560 defines the framework of the privatization of public estate. It gives regional governments the power to administer the alienation of 50 to 75 percent of public property (AGAPE_02: 12). Incentivized from a national impulse, the privatization of public housing is enforced in regional (i.e. Lazio region) and municipal (i.e. Rome) legislation.
20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)
Both citizens and public actors have ambivalent views on the regulatory framework of the intervention. On the one hand, while citizens and local inhabitants strongly denounce privatisation policies, some of those who can afford to buy (at moderate price) their (public) housing are likely to do it. On the other hand, although the municipality and the Housing Authorities implement privatisation policies, they are responsive to some extent to citizens' claims and negotiate some sort of rental tenure (e.g. the regularization of informal housing or the re-housing of evicted inhabitants). These formal/ informal negotiations and mutual pressures between public actors and citizens result in a nexus of ordinary and collective resistances (AGAPE_01: 5).
21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?
22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?
Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.
e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation
23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:
- a. Regulatory framework
The above mentioned (Q.18) regulatory framework of privatization of public housing is detrimental for those who resist gentrification. In addition, the negotiated agreements between public actors and citizens can also hinder the resistance. For instance, the rental-home ownership conversion accepted by some tenants creates disagreement between citizens (between those who accept and those who decline) and contributes to weaken civil society resistances to gentrification.
- b. Legitimacy
Narratives from public actors pose obstacles to legitimacy. Moralizing and criminalizing illegal housing (AGAPE_01: 6) are the counterparts to the spatial cleansing (i.e. privatization and eviction) they perform. The stigmatization of squatting practices is used to justify the eviction of illegal occupants of public housing.
- c. Public awareness
- d. Finances
For some inhabitants, staying put and anti-gentrification resistance consists in accepting the rental-home ownership conversion (i.e. according to the right-to-buy legislation) offered by the Housing Authority. However, even at moderate prices, only middle class tenants can afford to buy their own housing while people of lower means cannot even afford it (AGAPE_01: 8).
- e. Others (please name)
The rental-home ownership conversion breaks down solidarity among community groups. Buying their own housing represents a “deep cultural aspiration” (AGAPE_01: 11) for some tenants and will prevent them from being evicted. A large number of them stand for it, especially middle class people who can afford to buy it. However, this standpoint is not shared by everyone. Specifically, those who cannot afford to buy their housing (i.e. people of lower means) or are not offered it by the Housing Authority (tenders are rather arbitrary) are very dubious about the rental-homeownership conversion. As S. Annunziata and C. Rivas Alonso recall, the right-to-buy at moderate price in prestigious locations (the city center of Rome) reduces the stock of housing available as well as “reduces future allocation and results in an individual appropriation of the value gap produced by de-commodified assets now solving social needs”(AGAPE_01: 11). The right-to-buy legislation is controversial because it breaks down solidarity among social groups and fosters gentrification rather than resolves it.
f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles
24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)
|Name of obstacle||What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?|
|Displacement and eviction of some illegal occupiers of the public housing.||To (partly) curb the gentrification process and react to citizens' claims, public actors negotiated with community groups to find solutions against displacement. This includes the re-location of former residents in public housing or the regularization of illegal occupiers (i.e. in the framework of a sanatoria). The latter results from the call for anti-eviction moratoria issued by the anti-eviction platform as a way “to recognize the chronic housing deficit and the inadequacy of the public housing authority to act promptly in case of housing deprivation” (AGAPE_01: 9).|
|Eviction and public narrative criminalizing squatting practices.||To fight eviction and pressure public authorities, anti-eviction platforms and other organized groups try to draw public attention to the housing issue. Inviting more actors to join the resistance and make it visible increases the critical mass and puts a greater pressure on public authorities. As an example, one anti-eviction platform (one of the most influential in Rome) asked the informal squatter to participate in a strike and to be actively a part of the collective struggle for housing. As a result, the request for housing is also voiced by those directly concerned as well as “scandalize the housing authority for not being capable of providing responses” (AGAPE_0: 91).|
g) Reported outcomes
25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.
(Please, note that italicized sections are speculative)
The asserted economic outcomes (not observed up to now ) are to stabilize and freeze the prices of tenancies in public housing in the city center of Rome, especially in public housing and to protect the latter from being privatized.
The intervention aims at setting “social sustainability” in cities (i.e. the right for local inhabitants to “stay put") in the policy agenda and at drawing attention to the detrimental effects of privatizing public housing stock on low income communities. In Rome, it seems that negotiations started between anti-gentrification resistants/ activists and public authorities. However, no tangible outcomes are so far accessed (this is also related to the fact that AGAPE project is not yet disseminated to policy makers. Due to some constraints, the project is not yet over).
h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention
Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project). Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.
(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)
26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:
- a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.
- b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?
Anti-gentrification resistors in Rome did not reportedly learn from experiences elsewhere. However, researchers from the AGAPE project learnt from the cases of anti-gentrification resistances in the cities of Rome, Madrid and Athens (AGAPE_05).
27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?
- a. from previous experiences in the same urban context
- b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere
- c. from other knowledge gathering/research
Yes, knowledge was acquired during a workshop organized in the framework of AGAPE. Held at Roma Tre University in Italy in October 2017, the gathering enabled activists from different resistances groups from Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece to meet and to exchange about their local experiences of gentrification and their ways to resist it: “activist groups analyzed their campaigns, illustrating the varied experience of evictions and struggles in different states and the potential for cross-border synergies” (AGAPE_05).
Examples included “principles of assembly-ism, horizontalism, and non-party politics” in resistance groups in Spain as well as “their campaign of escraches putting pressure on politicians, and their popular legislative initiatives to change the law regarding evictions by collecting signatures” ; or the “anti-eviction activism through the physical blockade of court proceedings” in Greece(AGAPE_05).
28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?
29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?
The obstacles (which were not really overcome) contributed to raise awareness especially among policy makers and public actors about the issue of gentrification and its consequences on the local population. This awareness allowed countervailing legal measures to be taken (as mentioned in Q.24).
- Workshops organized in the framework of AGAPE
- Mediated discussions between citizens and policy makers.
i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)
31. Suggestions regarding transferability.
- a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]
The transferability of the intervention in a core element of AGAPE project. Indeed, the latter aims at issuing an “Anti-gentrification Toolkit for Southern European cities” (AGAPE_05) based on the fieldwork conducted in the three case study cities (including Rome’s experience). The toolkit consists of a framework of prevention, mitigation and civil disobedience experiences which occurred elsewhere. It provides tools and examples of good practices for local communities, activists, and collectives to fight evictions and gentrification. It also addresses policy makers by providing them with concrete ideas. Thus, transferability is central to the project to “provide the basic tools that local communities can draw on to fight gentrification and concrete ideas for policy makers” depending on local contexts.
- b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?
Transferability is primarily suggested in Southern European cities context because it is what the project is about. There is a form of unity in the gentrification process in SECs which is exacerbated by the debt crisis and the consequential austerity behaviors of nation states. Thus, the framework of AGAPE project, including fieldwork, theoretical research, and practical tools against gentrification processes, addresses primarily this particular kind of context. However, according to Prof. Loretta Lees, these learning experiences can apply to any urban context.
- c. Who has made the claims?
The claim of transferability is included in the project call and has also been pointed out by the project leader.
- d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?
32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?
The findings and knowledge resulting from the project will be disseminated to city makers in the form of the Anti-gentrification toolkit.
33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)
j) Structural learning
34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?
- For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
- Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?
k) Reflections on important governance concepts
35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?
36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?
The findings and knowledge resulting from the project will be disseminated to city makers in the form of the Anti-gentrification toolkit.
Appendix 1: Three modes of governance
(from NATURVATION project)
NATURVATION's NBS-Atlas distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":
- Government-led (Gov)
- Co-governance or hybrid governance (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
- Led by non-government actors (NGO)
Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology: Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95
- Self-governing, intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
- Provision, greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
- Regulations, enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
- Enabling, supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”
Appendix 2: Policy typology
(from NATURVATION project)
|Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)||Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors||Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.|
|Economic (financial, market-based)||Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors||Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.|
|Informative (educational)||They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change||Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.|
|Voluntary||Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.||Voluntary actions and agreements.|
- Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.
- AGAPE project on the Cordis portal. Last view on: 10/02/20: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/625691.
- Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.
- If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.
- The ICP was created in 1903 to better provide and manage decent housing for the working-class (AGAPE_ 02).
- Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .
- http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .
- Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.