Urban Innovation Through Co-design Scenarios

Lessons from Palermo
  • Enza LissandrelloEmail author
  • Nicola Morelli
  • Domenico Schillaci
  • Salvatore Di Dio
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 95)


This paper aims to contribute to current research on learning through designing for urban innovation. It provides a framework methodology for a multidisciplinary ecosystem as a participatory method developed in the context of Mobility Urban Values (MUV), an EU Horizon 2020 project (2017–2020), that addresses the issue of behavioral change towards (more) sustainable mobility lifestyle in EU cities. The paper frames the MUV method through the combination of theories on collaborative urban planning and participatory design with a background rooted on governance of public participation, as the interplay between co-creation (thick participation) and co-design (thin participation). MUV participatory method is envisioned as a learning infrastructure that engages at different levels communities, citizens, and stakeholders. This paper addresses the question on how enabling urban innovation through sensitive phases of sociological and technical components to produce learning. The conceptual background of the MUV method and the first application phase of co-creation/co-design for the old city center neighborhood in Palermo, Italy, provide lessons on the results of this approach for a future research agenda and the loop learning. While the method is adopted specifically in relation to mobility urban values, MUV method can inspire a variety of other cases questioning urban innovation through socio-technical learning.


Participatory methods Capacity building Loop learning 



This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, under grant agreement No 723521. Our thanks to three reviewers SLERD 2018 for their helpful comments on a first draft of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Coaffee, J., Healey, P.: My voice: my place: tracking transformations in urban governance. Urban Stud. 40(10), 1979–1999 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E.: Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plann. Theor. Pract. 5(4), 419–436 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fung, A.: Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm. Rev. 66(s1), 66–75 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Healey, P.: Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. Eur. Plann. Stud. 14(3), 299–320 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cars, G., Healey, P., Madanipour, A., De Magalhaes, C.: Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux. Routledge, London (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manzini, E.: Design research for sustainable social innovation. In: Design Research Now, pp. 233–245 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., Hillgren, P.-A.: Participatory design and democratizing innovation (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manzini, E., Jégou, F., Penin, L.: Creative communities for sustainable lifestyles (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nabatchi, T., Leighninger, M.: Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy. Wiley, Hoboken (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Argyris, C., Schon, D.A.: Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1974)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Romme, G.A., Van Witteloostuijn, A.: Circular organizing and triple loop learning. J. Organ. Change Manag. 12(5), 439–454 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tosey, P., Visser, M., Saunders, M.N.: The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: a critical review. Manag. Learn. 43(3), 291–307 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Healey, P.: The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 28(3), 277–292 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blanchet-Cohen, N.: Igniting citizen participation in creating healthy built environments: the role of community organizations. Commun. Dev. J. 50(2), 264–279 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manzini, E.: Design. When Everybody Designs. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Argyris, C.: A life full of learning. Organ. Stud. 24(7), 1178–1192 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    González, S., Healey, P.: A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Stud. 42(11), 2055–2069 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., Mulgan, G.: The Open Book of Social Innovation. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Art, London (2010). Young Foundation NESTAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vinci, I., Di Dio, S.: Reshaping the urban environment through mobility projects and practices: lessons from the case of Palermo (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Di Dio, S., Rizzo, G., Vinci, I.: How to track behaviours’ change towards more sustainable habits: the serious game of Traffic02 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Molinari, A., Maltese, V., Vaccari, L., Almi, A., Basssi, E.: Big data and open data for a smart city (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PlanningAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Architecture, Design and Media TechnologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  3. 3.PUSH Design LabPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations