Stimulating Circular Urban Regeneration through Cultural and Sustainable Communities: The Proposal for a Green Blue Youth Vision 2030

Abstract

In the European context, culture has a key role in sustainable development strategies. Within the framework of the UNESCO Culture 2030 Agenda, new cultural approaches support sustainable policies by affecting individual and collective behavior towards interpreting sustainability as a ‘common good’. This paper aims to define innovative sustainability strategies from the perspectives of younger generations, in order to understand the transformative potential of new cultural approaches to sustainability and common goods in achieving the Agenda 2030 goals. The ‘Green Blue Youth Vision 2030’ approach analyses the different multidimensional components of possible innovative cultural alternatives by emphasizing the potential of the proposals from young people. The initial results consist of defining “Green Blue Youth Vision 2030” proposals collected during the co-design roundtables, and analyzing key results from a survey on the direct and potential beneficiaries of the Green Blue Days project in Southern Italy. In conclusion, the research allows for preliminary reflections on the definition, by the new generations, of a new way of understanding sustainability as a common good, oriented towards overcoming cultural, economic, environmental, and social conflicts to stimulate circular urban regeneration in Southern Italy.

1. Introduction

On the European political agenda, culture has assumed a key role in sustainable development strategies [1,2]. Cultural strategies and sustainability policies are closely interrelated, benefiting from a wealth of national and regional policy frameworks [3].

In order to frame the possible objectives of city transformation processes from a ‘green–blue’ perspective, it is crucial to understand how culture can drive change through new imagery affecting individual and collective actions. Within the perspective of the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ outlined in the 2030 Agenda [4], the cultural and creative sector can support sustainable policies by affecting individual and collective behavior as well as enhancing individual cognitive abilities. This occurs through the utilization of creativity and talent, which serve as drivers for fostering equitable and inclusive quality education (Goal 4), promoting equal opportunities in public life and in the political/economic sphere (Goal 5, Target 5.5), implementing social and economic inclusion (Goal 10, Target 10.2), guaranteeing public access to information (Goal 16, Target 16.10), facilitating access to innovations, technologies and scientific discoveries (Goal 17, Target 17.6), and promoting and activating public–public, public–private, and civil society partnerships in general (Goal 17, Target 17.17). Additionally, this is facilitated by the different legal forms that are being experimented with in the cultural field [5,6].

Furthermore, cultural policies and sectors promote products and services geared towards local development, the establishment of fair employment opportunities, the encouragement of entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovation [7,8,9], and the promotion of training and growth of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, including access to financial services (Goal 8). They also promote the adoption of clean and environmentally friendly technologies, improving the efficiency of the resources to be used (Goal 9). Additionally, they are aimed at the realization of urban transformations that take into account the cultural and natural heritage to minimize the impacts of urban agglomerations on the environment through a participatory approach (Goal 11).

Culture plays a crucial role in decision-making processes due to its ability to connect people to their surroundings and to each other, building cohesion, community, and collective action [10,11]. This is demonstrated by new initiatives, such as the New European Bauhaus, that strongly emphasize the role of art, culture, and creativity in promoting experimentation and connection within public spaces to build a more sustainable and inclusive future [12].

Artists and cultural professionals contribute to raising awareness, for example on climate change, and their work can be a powerful vehicle for mobilization. Cultural institutions, such as museums and libraries, thus become platforms [13] for listening communities and centers for multicultural and intergenerational interchange, capacity building, and knowledge sharing through accessibility and public trust. The urban cultural scene is the context in which they inspire their communities and audiences, resulting in greater public engagement in green–blue issues.

These processes should be evaluated and monitored using innovative decision-support tools for cultural and sustainable planning of territories [14,15]. Among the various toolkits at the international level, the most recent tool developed by UNESCO is the framework ‘Thematic Indicators for Culture in the 2030 Agenda’ [16]. Its main objective is to monitor the contribution of culture in the implementation of the SDGs, which are also related to local histories and knowledge (referred to as ‘endogenous technologies’ in the Paris Agreement) [17]. This framework also considers the ecological and social functions of spaces [18] and promotes collective, reflective, and resilient ways of action [19].

Based on these premises, this research aims to investigate the results derived from the experience of the Green Blue Days, the first forum on systemic sustainability in Southern Italy. In particular, the talk ‘Green Blue Days Youth vision 2030’, coordinated by the authors, promoted the triggering of networking processes among associations, institutions, and startups consisting of young people aged between 18 and 35. The aim of this forum was to discuss the objectives of the Culture 2030 Agenda. The whole process spread knowledge on sustainability approaches intended as a common good and explored how these new forms of culture can improve the application of sustainable development processes. The aim of this research is to contribute, through the perspectives of younger generations, to defining innovative strategies for understanding the transformative potential of new cultural approaches to sustainability and common goods. These strategies will aid in achieving the Agenda 2030 goals, particularly in the territories of Southern Italy [20,21].

In light of this perspective, the paper aims to address the following research questions to establish a shared vision among young people regarding green–blue common development: What types of approaches and tools can be used to experiment with and disseminate knowledge about sustainability as common good? How can new cultural approaches contribute to achieving the Agenda 2030 goals?

In responding to these questions, the research has been structured as follows: Section 2 analyses the literature on common goods, commons, and green–blue development. Section 3 describes the main co-design tools and methodological approach used in the study. Section 4 presents the results and a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the work. Finally, Section 5 presents preliminary conclusions and suggests possible perspectives for future research.

2. Common Goods and Commons for Green–Blue Development

In the current context, marked by strong criticalities at a global level, including environmental issues related to climate change, the spread of pandemic viruses, as well as socio-political imbalances caused by recent war events, the need to elaborate shared strategies capable of empowering individuals as part of a community oriented towards the common good is evident [22].

The concept of the ‘common good’ has evolved over time and is often used to refer to goods that facilitate the free development of all persons within a community. The Rodotà Commission has defined these goods as having functional utility in respecting fundamental rights and enabling the free development of human beings [23]. This characteristic has led to their interpretation as goods accessible to everyone, regardless of economic availability, and thus socially inclusive. As a result, Sacconi and Ottone [24] propose a definition that includes natural resources, as well as artificial goods (such as historical–cultural heritage) or infrastructures (aqueducts, communication routes), digital resources (internet or other networks), and immaterial ones (knowledge and the system of relationships and communication through which it circulates). These goods are characterized by a specific kind of governance and management. It is here that the role of public administration becomes important as an enabler of collaborative relations between different actors, both from the public and private sectors, in defining innovative models of circular governance. The potential of multi-stakeholder networks [25,26] is expressed both in terms of innovation in territorial and social policies, and in terms of actions aimed at transforming and regenerating places.

Experiences of urban regeneration, aimed at achieving the common good both as a value and as a resource to be guarded and regenerated, have demonstrated the fundamental role of cooperative management models as a ‘third way’ able to overcome conflicting interests between public and private stakeholders [27,28]. These models are based on the recognition of objectives that transcend the traditional hierarchy of roles and competences dictated by cultural convention between public subjects, private actors, and citizens. Recent experiences of active citizenship and coordination between administrators, economic, social, and cultural actors, along with citizens, represent practices capable of operationalizing the approach promoted by UNESCO in 2001 through the document on the Historic Urban Landscape [29]. This approach emphasizes the need for adopting a systemic perspective for the identification of new governance models capable of overcoming the criticalities of bottom-up and top-down processes. In this regard, the responsible involvement of local communities assumes a crucial role in improving the integrated quality of urban systems (ecological, social, and economic levels).

Over the last decade, the concept of the commons has experienced a rise in popularity that has been as fortunate as it has been turbulent. In many countries, it has been the subject of a rich and intense debate involving scholars from different disciplines [30]. This ongoing debate continues to evolve and renew itself on a nearly daily basis. In recent years, there has been much discussion of the commons, not only in Italy and among legal experts, but also among economists, political scientists, and sociologists in many academies due to their interests in exploring this topic. In fact, the aforementioned outcomes indicate a shared direction towards a process of ‘institutionalizing’ the commons in the pursuit of a just and egalitarian order based on access and rather than exclusion.

The debate highlights the urgency of including a specific category on ‘common goods’ in the civil code, in order to provide adequate protection independent of their ownership status, whether public or private. In this way, the approach aims to achieve a ‘common’ care of goods for general utility rather than individual holders or owners. The goal is to prioritize not only the interests of individuals, but also the universal and general interest of humanity as a whole. However, it is not always clear what exactly is meant by commonly used expressions, such as “water as a common good”, especially when aspects like health, environment, school, culture, and work are also defined as common goods. Certainly, these expressions have changed the operating logic of national and international legal systems by questioning the existing relationship between legal institutions and the planet. They have allowed for the diffusion of the sharing mindset and the concept of the commons, understood as collective participation in the care of resources that are of collective utility.

They have changed the interpretation of the relationship between people and goods, so much so as to arrive at the assertion that it is no longer the objective characteristics of the good that make it common for a given social group. Instead, it is the particular relationship between the group and the good (such as to create or strengthen the social bond between the members of a community) that would lead to considering the good as common. This consideration is primarily driven by the goal of protecting the interests of future generations.

When assessing the current state of the calls for common goods, it must be noted that there is a very rich framework of reflections, ideas, and sometimes conflicting opinions. Navigating through this complex landscape it is not easy [31], as it gives rise to voices urging for a more methodologically rigorous definition of ‘common goods’ [32,33,34]. For these reasons, tackling the theme of the commons means untangling variegated expressions, including ‘common’ [27,35], ‘global commons’ [36], ‘new commons’ [37], ‘material commons’ [38,39], ‘immaterial commons’ [39], ‘social goods’ [40,41], ‘global public goods’ [42,43] and ‘collective rights of civic use’ [44].

The contemporary reflections on the commons have originated from concepts and methodologies of investigation that are not juridical, but rather economic. This has influenced subsequent reconstructions and narratives to the extent that it has caused many to study the subject of the commons [45] with the assumption that it should be a matter of non-excludable and rivalrous goods, according to the canons of classical economic theory, only to then exclude their coincidence. As Zamagni stated [46], the traditional scheme of classification of goods widely used in economics is based on the characteristics of not rivalry and not-excludability [47] and is adequate to differentiate private, public and club goods but not to define the nature of common goods. Considering this approach, the description that is currently most widely adopted is that of the so-called ‘Rodotà Commission’ [23], stated in Article 1(3)(c) of its proposal, in which common goods include natural resources as well as archaeological, cultural, environmental and other protected landscape areas. Assets are characterized as ‘(...) non-rivalrous, but exhaustible consumption (...) having a functional utility for respecting the fundamental rights and the free development of human beings and of which, therefore, the law must in any case guarantee collective, direct and universal use, also in favour of future generations‘ [48].

The work of jurists in qualifying and classifying common goods has led to the identification of resources that are:

a.

Closely related to a community of interest and, in a certain sense, contribute to the community itself and the social ties within it.

b.

Managed—or intended to be managed—collectively, or at least in a participatory manner.

c.

Independent from the formal title of ownership (public or private property).

This definition transcends naturalistic data and lends itself to accommodating the outcomes of social practices of creation/individuation of the common.

Assuming urban contexts as a privileged scenario for experimentation, this theme takes on particular relevance in relation to the care of public space, which is considered as a common good. The theme of the urban commons has only rarely been the subject of organic treatment from jurists specializing in this field [49].

The Anglo-American debate, on the other hand, dedicates a wealth of literature—including legal literature—to the urban commons. All the elements that are part of public space, such as squares, streets, parks, and public gardens, are peacefully recognized as commons, as they are places in which public opinion or democratic political participation has taken shape. This viewpoint is moreover in line with the definition of commons that we have adopted. Undeniably, public space is functional to the free development of the human personality and the exercise of fundamental rights. On the basis of these premises, it is also justified for groups of citizens to take care of these commons when local administrations do not or cannot do so. Of course, the interpretation of urban spaces as commons is relevant and complex from a legal point of view, as it raises issues that directly impact the notion of property within the current system. These issues are briefly mentioned at here [50,51], and they find their solutions in the social functions of private property.

Particularly when this function is seen in relation to the realization of the fundamental rights of others, the identification of a common good justifies the recognition of collective rights of access and use [52]. This is most commonly observed when social activism translates into actions aimed at restoring urban resources to the community that have been previously withdrawn from public access, perhaps as a result of the public–private management of urban land. These actions are capable of generating urban commons that are open to a multitude of individuals, regardless of ownership or associative ties. Hence, these common resources are capable of redistributing utilities, satisfying essential needs, and creating social ties beyond the narrow confines of the single committee or small community.

In Italy, this concept has been concretely experimented through important experiences such as the Teatro Valle Occupato in Rome and the Ex-Asilo Filangieri in Naples. These spaces have been recognized as assets for civic use for open and participatory management. In this case, with a number of city council resolutions, the Neapolitan administration incorporated the self-government charter (a form of regulation from below) adopted by the occupying communities.

Although the bill was never approved, the discussion of the commons was translated into social practices carried out by citizens’ associations or spontaneous groups, often even outside the law. These experiences have contributed to establishing a new head of application for the commons, identifying in the city and its abandoned or underused spaces as the resources to be recovered and administered in a participatory manner to return them to the community.

In tracing the dogmatic coordinates of the subject matter, the doctrine has at times also resorted to circumstantial historical frameworks, particularly focusing on Roman models with reference to “res in publico usu” and popular actions, especially when referring to urban commons. The new paradigm emphasizes the need, on the one hand, to return centrality to the category of use (regarding the destination to public use as a qualifying element of the category of common goods, see notes in Ferrari Zumbini [53]), and on the other hand, to search for juridical instruments to govern the fruition of utilities and the protection of the goods that these utilities offer.

The “res in publico uso” were goods that could not belong to anyone specifically, as they belonged to the entire community, but were open to public use. As such, they had a differentiated regime, marked by the protection entrusted to the “civis” as such (popular legitimation). It is important to note that the qualification of public did not mean, as is often the case today, belonging to non-private persons. Instead, it connoted the common and free use allowed to individuals (in this sense their distinction from res in patrimony that, instead, owed their qualification to the subjective criterion of belonging to a public body), as members of a community. The focus was not on who owned the thing, but on who could act to have their right to its use protected. Therefore, their allocation to a collective function and, as a result, their removal from the sphere of patrimonial legal relations appeared decisive [54,55].

The active role of participation and responsibility acknowledged to each “civis” in the management of such property was peculiar and decisive [56]. That is, they could be exercisable by anyone (“quivis ex de populo”) for the defense of the common interest [57], and also jointly by individuals who held specific and personal interests [58]. The focal point of the treatment was the category of “utilitas”, which could concern either the community as a whole, the individual belonging to the community, or to individuals with their own exclusive interests [59,60,61,62].

When “utilitas” could be traced to an interest of the community or of individuals, as its components, the good was always to be safeguarded in its function, and the private individual was not permitted to alter its nature and destination.

The historical approach outlined allows us to understand the underlying logic of our legal tradition, from which debate on certain current trends seems to be successfully reconnecting with the past. In fact, it is evident that the empirical and pragmatic approach with which Roman jurists tackled legal issues could currently allow us to escape the impasse of today’s law, directing it towards an axiological connection with reality without being circumscribed in formal legality. Therefore, the turning point seems to be the adoption of a new management model for the common goods—one that is public but not of a state-bureaucratic type, but rather democratic-participatory, which truly corresponds to the interests of the citizen.

Therefore, due to the lack of a national legislative framework, we are witnessing a normative translation of the logic of participation and caring into institutional local regulations for the shared management and regeneration of the urban commons, thus enhancing civic autonomy [63].

If it is now possible to officially legitimize citizens’ initiatives, this must not be interpreted as a concession (citizens can do something because they are allowed to do it), as a form of retreat of public power from its duties, or an instrument of instrumental outsourcing to reduce the costs of a service. Nor is it even as an opportunity for the inhabitants of a given territory to freely substitute themselves for the public function. On the contrary, this recognition must be understood as an instrument that allows different subjects, all belonging to the same community, including the current public administration, to cooperate with each other in the general interest.

Rethinking governance models from an inclusive and participatory perspective involves regenerating trust between individuals and identifying it as a ‘glue value’ [64,65] for the community. This value serves as a bases for restoring a sense of collective identity and belonging, also being capable of serving as a driver of development and regeneration for territories. This process starts from the renewed organizational capacity of a given community [66].

Starting from the assumption that civic values underpin sustainable and lasting local development [67], it is fundamental to understand the conditions that trigger virtuous and symbiotic processes between human and social capital regeneration, physical regeneration, and economic benefits. In other words, it is important to explore how it is possible to activate processes capable of generating value in the different dimensions [68].

In this perspective, the user is increasingly becoming considered a prosumer, i.e., a person capable of being both a producer and a user of places and co-producing actions [69,70], values, and services in which the responsibility to act on a common good for the common good widens to an intergenerational perspective that is also capable of encompassing the needs of future generations [71]. The concept of co-production [72,73,74], also addressed by Ostrom [75], becomes fundamental for projecting the role of institutions and the third sector in a logic of commonality in which the boundary between providers and recipients is reduced in favor of a dimension of collective responsibility that is equally distributed among the various actors.

In the broad and varied context of active citizenship experiences, green and blue communities are emerging as virtuous practices capable of implementing strategies at a local level that are defined and recognized in European and international contexts. This importance is also confirmed in the proposal of ‘Integrated Ecology’ outlined by Pope Francis in the Encyclical Laudato Si [76] as the ethical, cultural, political, and institutional basis for many of the actions in the environmental and economic fields, which is realized through ‘care for the Common Home’.

The ‘humanization of care’ [77] is at the center of the international debate for a sustainable future in which the well-being of citizens is at the heart of policies and strategies for territorial development and circular regeneration [78,79,80]. Taking urban contexts as a privileged scenario for experimentation, this theme takes on particular relevance when considered in relation to the care of public spaces as a common good. Places of care play an important role, and it is increasingly necessary for urban planning to build an ‘environment of health’, bearing in mind the close correlation between individual and collective wellbeing, education regarding shared values, and the configuration of space.

The progressive degradation of living places, especially in Southern Italy, has led to a distancing between public spaces and local communities, with the consequent loss of identity values. This condition highlights the need and urgency to invest in existing knowledge by analyzing the needs and values shared by citizens in order to transform this knowledge into opportunities for local growth.

Green communities are the perfect tool for rethinking the social and economic model of action for territories [81] as, from their inception [82], they are designed as a means of engagement on a territorial scale, requiring collaboration between different territorial authorities to shape development policies and strategies. They are a reflection of the innovative scope represented by Law 221, the first law on the green economy, with which Italy was among the first European countries to commit to following up on the Paris Cop21 agreements. This law highlights the interconnectedness between the environmental, social, and economic crises and underscores the consequent need to identify integrated management tools. Green communities represent the new frontier of a civic activism that is aware and responsible with respect to local problems of a global scope. For this reason, they are capable of immersing themselves in instances of the contemporary world with a critical and reactive spirit. Article 72 of the ‘National Strategy of Green Communities’ [82] recognizes water, forests and landscape as ‘main resources’, which are quintessential common goods. Their care and shared management open “a new subsidiary and exchange relationship with urban and metropolitan communities, so as to be able to set up, in the green economy phase, a sustainable development plan” [82].

The transversal nature of Green Communities and their potential to resolve issues pertaining to different spheres is evident. For this reason, they are considered as a foundational category with respect to the more specific experiences, such as ‘Energy Communities’ and ‘Community Cooperatives’.

While it is true that the initial and very numerous cases of self-organized communities have achieved successful results with the existing material and economic (as well as human) resources, it is also true that if one aims to enable participatory management models, and thus at their concrete impact on the territories [83], it is necessary that institutional recognition and formalization be followed by the support of adequate implementation tools and infrastructures [84].

For this reason, this research focuses on the role of ‘green–blue communities’ as a specific kind of community that is able to take care of common goods in a sustainable way. The term ‘green–blue’ aligns with the definition proposed in 2020 by the GEDI Editorial Group for the launch of their content hub ‘Green & Blue’, in which green represents the color of the environment and blue symbolizes the intersection of science and economics. This concept resonates with the concerns of younger generations for the future of the planet and the innovative solutions proposed by research-oriented companies [85]. This message has been taken up and expanded upon within the Green Blue Days project, in which the concept of systemic sustainability permeates an integrated vision aimed at “promoting, developing and determining, through synergic interaction, research, technological innovation, industrial production and the social well-being of the territory” [86,87].

In order to be green, communities must also be smart. However, this is a condition that takes place outside of their will and activism; it concerns the responsibility of institutions and large businesses in managing investments, finding new forms of partnerships, and adopting new financing models. By adopting this perspective, in which digital technologies support (and in many cases accelerate) sustainable development processes, is it possible to interpret Green Communities as a concrete opportunity to reconnect people, communities, and places in a long-term sustainability framework.

Completing the framework introduced by Law 221 includes the bonus recognized to municipalities “that systematically use environmental and urban accounting systems and innovative forms of reporting on administrative action” (Article 70). The importance of adopting tools with the dual objective of both monitoring and evaluating the policies and actions undertaken in terms of effectiveness and efficiency is therefore recognized, as well as supporting the analysis of the status quo and different forms of existing capital (physical–environmental, natural, economic, social, human, and cultural). Adopting evaluation and monitoring systems assists in making the decision-making process clearer and more transparent, as it is supported by objective data obtained scientifically and from reliable sources. Moreover, evaluation tools are increasingly taking on the role of facilitators of dialogue between different parties, supporting inclusive and participatory co-design processes.

By involving users in the decision-making process, even before the management process, it is possible to create conditions for rebuilding links between individuals, thus regenerating the social capital and reinforcing its sense of belonging [88].

To this end, the ‘Green Blue Days Youth vision 2030’ experience identified co-designing tools as the starting point for drawing up shared development scenarios, starting from the needs of the stakeholders involved. In the proposed methodology (see Section 3) for the definition of a youth plan on the goals of the 2030 Agenda, digital technologies were used in three different moments and with different ways of involving the stakeholders. Firstly, the ‘Green Blue young survey’, elaborated and distributed through Google Forms after the first co-design phase, was used to assess respondents’ sensitivity, awareness, and involvement in collaborative co-design processes for sustainable development. Secondly, digital platforms (such as Zoom, Meet, Skype) were used for the management of online Focus Groups that were organized periodically during the first and fourth phases of the methodology (see Section 3) in order to share objectives and contents of the talks related to the first and second Green Blue Days event in 2022, respectively (Green Blue Days Association, 2022). Finally, during the first and second event, media support was used to facilitate interactions during the talks with remotely connected individuals and open participation to a wider audience.

3. Materials and Methods

The ‘Green Blue Days Youth vision 2030’ experience was aimed at facilitating the processes of knowledge sharing and the elaboration of proposals within a network of associations, institutions, and start-ups at national and local levels in order to discuss the objectives of the Culture 2030 Agenda. The objective was to contribute cross-generational visions in defining innovative sustainability strategies capable of extending and influencing research and production contexts at a national level, particularly in Southern Italy territories. The ultimate impact is intended to be on stakeholder behavior through an operational and productive interaction between the ‘change makers’—the actors of change—and the new generations called upon to answer a set of exploratory questions.

For this purpose, the methodology adopted was based on the use of co-design tools. In the context of urban management, co-design refers to a way of constructing, entrusting, and managing social initiatives and interventions through a partnership between public administration and private social actors [89]. The term is often used in different processes that have commonalities in the active involvement of stakeholders and actors interested in a given topic or development. Co-designing techniques enable participants to analyze the general context of certain aspects that may be socio-economic and cultural, while also considering the territory as an essential element to be considered in the project proposal by analyzing and assessing the needs, problems, and criticalities present related to the theme and intervention to be defined. Co-design methods have a special place in the field of sustainability, as they allow for a fundamental dimension of sustainability to be grasped: the participatory dimension.

Since the Rio+ Earth Summit and the Aarhus Declaration [90], participation is referred to as one of the integrated elements of environmental protection, land stewardship, and the socio-cultural heritage of a community. Since then, several authors have proposed models to frame participation within ‘sustainability’. D’Alisa [91] proposed a concentric model in which he added the dimension of democratic participation to the traditional dimensions of sustainability, identified in the environmental, social, and economic dimension, as shown in Figure 1. In this model, the dimensions are placed concentrically to signify a scale of importance related to sustainability.

The feature that distinguishes co-design from a simple participatory experience is the fact that it follows a careful and precise methodology that is generally chosen according to the topic to be addressed, the type of project to be implemented, and the number of participants at the co-design table [92]. To date, several instances of co-design can be found in the literature for the recovery, valorization, and circular regeneration of social, environmental, and cultural spaces and heritages. These can be found both in Italy [93,94,95] and abroad [96].

In the experience of the Green Blue Days talks, which focused on applying co-design in the field of sustainability, two particular methodologies were tested at the co-design tables: the Talanoa dialogue and the World Café [97,98,99]. The former was taken from a traditional Fijian practice that was later repurposed for extended stakeholder involvement in international climate negotiations. The latter is a collective survey method that was developed by Juanita Brown and David Isaac [100] based on informality, simplicity, and flexibility. It lends itself well to complex issues, as it is a methodology that is rooted in the philosophy of organizational change, adaptive complex systems, and chaos theory [100]. Both methods aim to establish the conditions for which the shared activity and intersubjectivity of participants enable positive responses to problems and challenges.

In the following paragraphs, a description of the individual methodologies and their combined application in the co-design sessions during ‘Green Blue Days Youth vision 2030’ will be given.

3.1. World Café

The World Café is a collective survey method suitable for groups of 12 to 2000 participants [100]. It takes the form of a structured conversation process aimed at facilitating an open and informal discussion. The World Café [99] is based on the assumption that participants’ contributions can be maximized and enhanced by the dynamics of action, informal dialogue, and free expression. The methodology is an incremental and circular discussion that is complemented and enriched by the rotation of participants at regular time intervals. Its function is to activate links between ideas within a larger group to unleash the ‘collective intelligence’ of participants and to share and understand multiple points of view as a learning activity. The format of the World-Café is primarily that of an open forum for creative thinking. After defining a main purpose or question, a target group is chosen and a maximum number of participants may be defined: in a vision within the open-innovation paradigm [101], the more varied the type of participants, the richer the possibility of idea generation.

The performance space of a World Café should evoke both informality and intimacy. Usually, tables seating 4–6 people are arranged randomly. Each co-design table represents a sub-topic of the main topic. Each table can be associated with a moderator, and all participants are generally rotated within the session and must attend each table at least once [102]. The duration of a session is from 45 min to 3 h [103], and the technique is particularly fitted for heterogeneous and mixed groups of participants who are interested in a common theme.

3.2. The Talanoa Dialogue

‘Talanoa’ is a traditional term used in Fiji and throughout the Pacific that refers to an inclusive, participatory, and transparent dialogue process (UNFCCC, 2018). The term generically refers to a conversation or exchange of ideas, and is shared between Tongans, Samoans, and Fijians. In peaceful culture, Talanoa dialogue can be formal or informal, and can be used for different purposes, such as teaching a skill, sharing ideas, solving problems, building and maintaining relationships, and gathering information [104]. The goal of Talanoa is to share experiences, build empathy, and make proper decisions for the collective good. The Talanoa process involves sharing ideas, capacities, and lessons learnt. Throughout the process, participants establish an initial basis of trust through empathy, understanding, and active listening. Blaming is incompatible with the development of mutual trust and respect, and thus contradicts the Talanoa principle. Talanoa, on the other hand, fosters inclusiveness and debate by creating a safe space that values mutual respect in order to provide participants with a platform for decision-making that is aimed towards a greater collective common good.

As of 2017, i.e., COP 23, the Talanoa dialogue is also one of the methodologies used in the Conferences of the Parties during international climate negotiations to arrive at a common solution involving the participation of all parties. Drawing on the indigenous tradition of the Fiji Islands, it is based on three questions:

• Where are we?

The objective of this question is to identify the current state of the issue and the point from which the resolution of the problem will start.

2.

Where do we want to go?

This question is aimed at establishing the objectives of the meeting.

3.

How do we get there?

This question is aimed at establishing the strategy and methodology that will be used to achieve the set objectives.

Typically, a Talanoa session consists of an initial knowledge-sharing phase where, following a talk by an expert, participants begin a discussion on the topic. Then, a second elaborative phase divides participants into co-design tables to answer the three guiding questions.

3.3. Methodological Approach

Starting from these reflections, the research considers dimensions, criteria, and actions for the definition of a youth plan on the 2030 Agenda goals with a focus on the declination made by UNESCO in the document ‘Culture 2030 indicators’ [16].

The ‘Green Blue Youth Vision 2030’ approach (Figure 1) aims to analyze the different multidimensional components of possible innovative cultural alternatives by emphasizing the potential of the proposals of young people under 35 in terms of social, environmental, and economic impacts. The methodological proposal was divided into the following stages:

• Identification of the problem and definition of shared objectives;
• Co-design I;
• Survey structuring;
• Analysis of preferences detected;
• Co-design II.

The methodological approach seeks synergy between the cultural proposals of young professionals, activists, and researchers under 35 by transforming the different dimensions of the UNESCO Culture 2030 tool into alternatives to be submitted to the direct and potential beneficiaries of the Green Blue Days.

Phase 1 was structured through a deliberative process [105] which involved numerous online focus groups [106,107] oriented towards the construction of the talk tables during the first edition of Green Blue Days (Green Blue Days Association, 2021). These focus groups made it possible to use a hybrid mode (through the use of digital platforms such as Zoom, Meet, Skype) to involve various representatives of youth movements on sustainable development and climate change, as well as experts in these issues who are recognized as ‘change makers’.

From this collaborative process of interactions with stakeholders, the problem was identified, and the following shared objectives were agreed upon: to build a common vision of a ‘culture of sustainability’, to define the main facilitators of change, and to analyze the most suitable actions and tools for broad participation and more effective social inclusion.

This first phase of confrontation resulted in useful questions for the co-design phase, which were elaborated as follows:

1.

What do you mean by a culture of sustainability? How do we help the communities we interact with understand the meaning of contributions?

2.

Who are the change makers in your network? How do you ensure the widest participation?

3.

What do you expect from Green Blue Days? How to include different communities and cultures?

Following the elaboration of the shared strategy, three thematic working tables were set up in phase 2, ‘Co-design I’. The co-design tables (Figure 2) were structured according to three thematic groups based on the above-mentioned questions. This networking process was triggered between activists, researchers, under-35 professionals, and ‘change makers’ for a ‘Green Blue’ youth plan. Each group worked on a specific question for approximately 45 min, then switched tables so that all participants could give their input on each of the three topics. The facilitators summarized the issues that emerged from the work of each group so that the discussion was incremental and circular. The two approaches that were used, the World café method and the Talanoa Dialogue, made it possible to define changes on the theme of sustainability through the needs and proposals arising from the discussion between the younger generation and the experts. The mixed method was also amplified by the use of the media, which made it possible to communicate the proposals to a wider audience in real time. Figure 2 shows the organization of three thematic groups in three different round tables.

The co-design tables (Co-design I) resulted in perspectives, approaches, and project actions that became the alternatives of the survey carried out in step 3. These alternatives were framed within certain dimensions and criteria of the UNESCO Culture 2030 document selected on the basis of the deliberative process that involved the various stakeholders concerned (young people under 35 and ‘change makers’).

Table 1. Mapping of results according to the UNESCO Culture 2030 dimensions.

UNESCO Culture 2030 Dimensions	UNESCO Culture 2030 Criteria (‘Green Blue Youth Vision 2030’)
Environment and Resilience (co-design table 1)	Sustainable Management of heritage
	Culture of reuse through sustainable modes of production and consumption Impact on the territory Integral human development Promoting innovative tools for governance of the common good Giving confidence to young people and the third sector Cooperative formula as a winner Role of co-management
	2. Climate adaptation and resilience
	Culture of ‘energy transition from below’ Development of formal strategic instruments (Green pact) Supporting and guaranteeing the right to health through actions with a reduced environmental impact Profitable but land-friendly economy (e.g., zero-km products)
	3. Open space for culture
	Network of micro ecosystems of innovation and change in collective spaces Fostering collaborative relationships between different stakeholders Transforming ‘public’ space into ‘collective’ space Placing people at the center in the confrontation between public, private, and third-sector actors Going beyond the ownership of an asset and enhancing its social function
Knowledge and Skills (co-design table 2)	Education for Sustainable Development
	Encouraging the digitization of processes Strengthening ‘green–blue’ skills Defining co-education pathways Promoting the professionalization of culture Encouraging diversification of economies Young people learning to develop projects and business plans
	2. Cultural knowledge
	Think global and act local Campaign—awareness-raising Hacking—disruptive innovation Awareness, beauty, competitiveness Gift, trust, public happiness (Genovesi Civil Economy) Capillary culture to grow communities like the travelling theatre CREST Giving continuity to experiences
Inclusion and Participation (co-design table 3)	Access to culture
	Supporting and guaranteeing access to culture Supporting and ensuring the use of digital technologies
	2. Participatory processes
	Reducing margins Including and integrating the weakest groups Activation of projects Promoting forms of entrepreneurship related to the third sector CCI generate beauty and social inclusion like murals in the suburbs Suburbs as cultural heritage of the future Subsidiarity principle of the constitution Process of liberation of the individual through work People, places, and communities Youth employment at the center of processes Synergy between actors in the area

shows the mapping of results according to the UNESCO Culture 2030 dimensions.

In particular, for the alternatives that emerged from co-design table 1 on the subject of ‘culture of sustainability’, reference was made to the ‘environment and resilience’ dimension, which assessed the level of sustainable management of both tangible and intangible cultural and natural heritage, as well as the physical/spatial aspects of the quality of the urban environment, including public spaces and cultural infrastructures. Within this dimension, the following criteria were selected from the UNESCO Culture 2030 framework:

• Criteria 2. ‘Sustainable Management of Heritage’;
• Criteria 3. ‘Climate adaptation and resilience’;
• Criteria 5. ‘Open space for culture’.

For co-design table 2, which focuses on actions for a green–blue future, the participants emphasized the crucial importance of the knowledge and skills dimension. This dimension aims to assess the understanding of sustainable development and the transmission of cultural values, as well as the priority given to cultural training and the promotion of skills and competences in the creative sectors. In this context, the following criteria were selected:

• Criteria 13. ‘Education for Sustainable Development’;
• Criteria 14. ‘Cultural knowledge’.

Concerning co-design table 3 on the methods and strategies for community involvement, the thematic dimension ‘Inclusion and Participation’ provided a framework for the importance of culture in stimulating social cohesion and promoting inclusion and participation. This was accomplished by assessing the potential for people to access culture and the role of culture as a driver to stimulate effective engagement of local communities in public and civic life. Within this theme, the criteria selected were:

• Criteria 20. ‘Access to culture’;
• Criteria 22.’Participatory processes’.

Based on this context, the survey (Step 3), constructed with the help of the Google Form software, was structured using the Delphi method [108,109]. This iterative survey method allowed for the collection of common and divergent points of view through the consultation of a group of social actors.

The processing of structured questionnaires involved using a Likert scale [110] to assess the opinions and perspectives of approximately 70 subjects. These subjects were classified based on the activities conducted, age, area of belonging, and experience in sustainable development.

The sections of the questionnaire were divided according to the Talanoa Dialogue:

1.

Where are we?

What do you think is the current state of the topic ‘culture of sustainability’? Who are the ‘change makers’ in your network?

2.

Where do we want to go?

What actions do you think are most effective for the Green Blue future? What are possible goals for the Green Blue Days project?

3.

How do we get there?

What are the strategies and methods to help the communities we interact with understand the meaning of contributions?

The questions were developed using the stated preference (SP) method [111], which was operationalized by the Green Blue young survey (https://forms.gle/xBurx9fq4T8UsGX48, accessed on 5 July 2023).

SP methods are particularly useful for assessing individuals’ demand for non-market goods. These methods were used to understand how the preferences of the beneficiaries of Green Blue Days can improve the dissemination of the 2030 Agenda goals through culture. The SP survey targeted direct users of Green Blue Days (direct beneficiaries) and people interested or involved in similar sustainable practices (potential beneficiaries).

The objectives of the survey were to:

1.

Score the selected alternatives according to the preferences that can be expressed through the five-point Likert scale;

2.

Assess how much weight a person attaches to collaborative co-design processes for sustainable development;

3.

Survey how many stakeholders are involved or have been involved in co-design experiences for sustainability;

4.

Understand what the role of training organizations can be in the transition to green–blue development.

In order to bring out the potential of local community relations to increase actions, tools, and practices for sustainable development, the results of the survey were analyzed in Phase 4 (analysis of surveyed preferences). In the last phase of the research (Phase 5—Co-design II), the survey results were used as a basis for discussion for the second Green Blue Days talk (2022) on the topic of ‘Caring for the Common Home’.

In this phase, the questions already presented in the questionnaire were refined and reshaped on the basis of the trends that emerged from the questionnaire. This was done in order to obtain more specific and in-depth information from the participants of the co-design tables of the second talk of the Green Blue Days 2022. As in the first co-design phase, periodic focus groups were organized in a hybrid mode (using digital platforms such as Zoom, Meet, and Skype) in order to share the objectives and contents of the second talk of the Green Blue Days (2022), starting with the main trends that resulted from the analysis of the survey. During the talk, three working tables were structured according to the thematic groups corresponding to the three co-design questions (

Table 2. Structure of co-design tables in the phase Co-design II.

Co-design table 1 The State of the Art Where Are We?	Co-design table 2 Goals/Objectives Where Do We Want to Go?	Co-design table 3 Method and Strategy How Do We Get There?
What meaning do you attach to the valorization of cultural heritage as a ‘common good’? Do you consider yourself a change maker or are you in contact with people you consider to be such? If yes, what kind of project initiative are you/they involved in?	How do you think the Green Blue Days project contributes to sustainable development goals?	How can we help the communities we interact with to value cultural heritage? How can cultural and creative enterprises contribute to the care and reuse of cultural heritage? What are other forms of enterprise/management/organization that can contribute to the enhancement of cultural heritage?

), as provided by the Talanoa method.

The next section brings together the preliminary results of the outputs of the co-design tables and the SP survey.

4. Results and Discussion

The results were interpreted as the first step of listening to the territory in order to map the needs of young people on the issue of sustainability as common good by systematizing all the human resources already active and fostering the creation of networks and virtuous relations. The deliberative process that was activated made it possible to experiment with a decision-making process that fostered dialogue between citizens, experts, creative young people, and activists by raising awareness among older and younger generations through knowledge and information activities. In particular, within Phase I (shared targets), people shared the main criticalities linking the sustainability dimension with the cultural dimension concerning individual and collective resistance to change, the scarce adoption of daily sustainable behaviors, the lack of awareness of the opportunities deriving from more sustainable choices (e.g., new production processes), and the scarce diffusion of training at the various levels of government (from the community to institutions and others). Subsequently, step 2 allowed for a productive dialogue on operational proposals by identifying a green–blue youth action plan for a common development vision.

In the following steps (3. Structuring of the survey; 4. Analysis of the stated preferences), through the SP method, the research showed that the beneficiaries expressed the high interest in the green–blue development actions proposed.

The next section shows the outputs of both the 2021 and 2022 co-design tables and the results of the SP survey, with an initial statistical review.

4.1. Output from Co-Design Tables

Starting from the methodological approach (Section 3.3), the results of the co-design tables were interpreted according to the dimensions and criteria selected by the UNESCO Culture 2030 document. In particular,

Table A1. Results of the co-design tables for the year 2021.

Co-design table 1: Where Are We? The State of the Art
‘Culture of sustainability’, current status?	Culture of change making Active listening to young people and dissemination of the Agenda 2030 goals in schools Culture as ‘care’: culturally based circular regeneration of spaces to build relationships with others and the environment Implementation of small, minimal transformations through play to raise awareness of caring for places Network of micro ecosystems of innovation and change in collective spaces Culture of reuse through sustainable modes of production and consumption Think global and act local Culture of “energy transition” from below
Who are the change makers in your network?	Young students aged 14–25 Young activists under 35 Professionals Researchers Professors Innovators Entrepreneurs Associations, third sector organizations
Co-design table 2: Where do we want to go? Goals/objectives
Actions for a Green Blue Future	Support independent research to stimulate the building of a multidisciplinary knowledge base for the benefit of wellbeing and socio-economic development of communities Introducing the topic of sustainability into school curricula Mitigating the negative effects of demographic trends through the development of innovative solutions in the medical and research, environmental, cultural, and social fields Promote clean technologies and the circular economy in production and consumption systems Preserving and enhancing cultural and landscape heritage in order to pass it on to future generations Increasing the capacity of welfare systems to understand and take charge of community needs Limit air pollution by promoting sustainable mobility policies and projects Promoting proper waste management
Possible outputs of Green Blue Days	Impact on the territory Better relations between stakeholders Development of formal strategic instruments (Green pact) Activation of projects
Co-design table 3: How do we get there? Method and strategy
Helping communities understand	Support the initiatives of Third Sector organizations Renew forms of cultural participation, identifying and experimenting with new models of making and experiencing culture Promoting the resilience of communities and ecosystems Promote the circular regeneration of contexts by caring for the relationships between people and the territory, the cultural revitalisation of neighbourhoods, and the rewiring of the urban fabric Improving dialogue between the world of research, institutions, and citizens Creating new ‘green’ job opportunities, facilitating access to the labour market for disadvantaged people and young people Combating poverty and conditions of social marginality
Improving inclusion	Integral human development: Reducing marginality Include and integrate the most vulnerable Support and guarantee the right to health through actions with a reduced environmental impact Support and guarantee access to culture Supporting and guaranteeing the use of digital technologies Promoting the digitalisation of processes Promoting forms of entrepreneurship related to the third sector (social enterprises, social cooperatives, community cooperatives, community foundations) Foster collaborative relationships between different stakeholders

(see Appendix A) summarizes the results of the co-design tables for the year 2021. The UNESCO dimensions correspond to the three thematic working tables, and the UNESCO criteria are categorized as the ‘Green Blue Youth Vision 2030’ proposals collected during step 2, ‘Co-design I’.

‘Co-design I’ enabled a productive dialogue between the different organizations, which became acquainted and triggered common projects. Participants from research centers, associations, and start-ups such as ANVUR, CNR, AICCON, Ashoka Italia, AIGU Campania, Young Sustainable Pathways, Economy of Francesco, Global Shapers, LCOY Italia, Climate Social Forum, Legambiente, Friday for future, and others were involved in the tables and focus group sessions. The synergetic effect of the comparison between these groups was amplified by the approaches used (World Café and Talanoa Dialogue), as participants shared information and ideas by evaluating the objectives and actions of green–blue communities and their possible impacts. The resulting discussion elements made it possible to build an initial youth action plan/manifesto for a new ‘culture of sustainability’. Similarly,

Table A2. Results of the co-design tables for the year 2022.

Co-design table 1: Where Are We? The State of the Art
Meaning of cultural heritage as ‘common good’? Do you consider yourself to be a change maker or are you in contact with people you consider to be such? If yes, what kind of project initiative are you/they involved in?	Experience of the Mar Piccolo Regional Park that protects nature and mankind. The aim is to set up an economy that is profitable and respectful of the land: zero-km products to sustain the local community and the consequent increase in well-being. We need to move from ‘public’ to ‘collective’ spaces. The association is thinking of switching to a cultural enterprise scheme with the aim of promoting tourism. Defining a space as ‘public’ emphasizes its connection to municipal property and is a distancing approach. In the ‘collective’ space, on the other hand, one goes beyond the constraints arising from the consideration of the regime of ownership of an asset and dwells on the fact that, if the asset maintains its social function, it is an asset to all, and its value is universally valid regardless of who the owner is. For the Cittadinanzattiva association, ‘common good is the other’. The person at the center of the confrontation between the various public, private, and third sector actors.
Co-design table 2: Where do we want to go? Goals/objectives
How do you think the Green Blue Days project contributes to the goals of sustainable development?	Campaigning Co-education Hacking Awareness-raising—campaigning Co-education (very often training recipients are not involved in the definition of training projects) Hacking—disruptive innovation (norm, structure, society) Promotion of innovative governance tools for the common good
Co-design table 3: How do we get there? Method and strategy
How can we help the communities we interact with to enhance cultural heritage? How can cultural and creative enterprises contribute to the care and reuse of cultural heritage? What are other forms of enterprise/management/organization that can intervene in the valorization of cultural heritage?	Creative Apulia Awareness, beauty, competitiveness, culture to convey messages CCI generate beauty and social inclusion as murals in the peripheries Suburbs as cultural heritage of the future, places, people, and connections CCI in Puglia produces 4.2% of the GDP and 4% employment, of which 5% is produced in Bari and 4% Lecce Taranto and Foggia have to catch up, even though Taranto is in 8th place for performing arts Problem of skills, professionalization of culture La Paranza/Catacombs of San Gennaro People, places, and communities starting with people—goal: youth employment Catacombs: 44 IT jobs, 33 working directly with the Paranza Giving confidence to young people and the third sector. Cooperative formula as a winner Giving continuity to experiences. Subsidiarity principle of the constitution Importance of co-management, process of liberation of the individual through work The public will follow gift, trust, public happiness (Genovesi civil economy) Taranto City Council Pride movement of cultural associations, focus on transforming the third sector into CCI Synergy between local actors, Minervini’s Bollenti Spiriti project created humus CCI without public intervention, diversification of economies necessary Capillary culture to grow communities like the CREST travelling theatre. Generations learning to make projects and business plans

(see Appendix A) shows the results for the year 2022. In the year 2022, the methodological structure remained the same, but the guiding questions for the three co-design tables were changed. The composition of the tables in terms of the types of participants was similar, although the geographical reference context was changed, as the co-design activities were carried out in another city (Taranto). The results of the discussions at the tables are reported in full in Appendix A. Furthermore, a frequency analysis revealed the keywords suggested most by participants in the two co-design editions (2021 and 2022), which are represented graphically in Figure 3.

4.2. Survey Data Analysis

In the following steps (3. Structuring of the survey, 4. Analysis of the stated preferences), using the SP method, the research showed the high interest for innovative cultural approaches that are able to activate microinnovation ecosystems on the territory in the perspective of green–blue development. The potential of this phase concerns the use of a mixed survey that includes both subjective and objective evaluation in a holistic perspective. The limitations were related to the low number of respondents and a limited sample regarding the types of beneficiaries.

The first four questions of the survey were related to the geographical and per-housing cluster distribution of the respondents (Figure 4 and Figure 5), their age (Figure 6), and their profession (Figure 7). These data were considered in order to understand and evaluate the possible influence of age and the origin of the sample on the answers given. Indeed, during the previous step 2, we noticed that people voluntarily linked their responses to their personal experience in terms both of age and the cultural context of a specific geographical area. In our perspective, crossing these data with their anagraphic information allowed us to evaluate issues and needs in a more realistic way, in order to elaborate on the strategies linked with the specific characteristics of a territory.

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the distribution by geographical cluster based on northern, central, or southern regions, as well as abroad, and by the population of the urban household, respectively.

The survey sample covered approximately 70 people, some of which were participants in the Green Blue days, as well as young people who could be potential beneficiaries, professionals, and activists that live and work on these issues, especially in fragile territories like Southern Italy. For this reason, almost half of the respondents were from Southern Italy (47.8%), a third was from Northern Italy (37.3%), and the remainder were from Central Italy (13.4%).

Furthermore, approximately half of the participants were from agglomerations with more than 500,000 (47.8%) inhabitants, and in second order were from cities and small towns (20.4%).

Figure 6 shows clustering by age, and Figure 7 shows clustering by profession.

The graphs show that the largest respondent age group was the 26–35 age group (also as a result of targeting when sending out the questionnaire), followed by the 36–50 age group: the millennials and the end of Generation X. Only 7.5% of respondents were from Gen Z, aged 18–25.

A total of 36.5% of the participants declared that they were employees, while 23.9% were freelancers, 10.6% were students, and only a small proportion were entrepreneurs. A total of 17.9% of the respondents declared ‘Other’, which included those who were unemployed, NEETs, and other categories that did not fit into the clustering.

The survey data offered an initial clustering of the sample, but one of the preliminary goals of conducting the questionnaire was to find out whether there was any prior knowledge among the participants regarding the topic of sustainability and related instruments for action and participation.

The majority of participants replied that they had already dealt with sustainability. The ways in which this was expressed were heterogeneous. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show a roughly equal distribution of voluntary work, self-employment, independent enterprise, or research as the means by which participants had obtained knowledge regarding sustainability.

In order to contextualize the demographic characteristics of the respondents with respect to their involvement in sustainability, we combined data on their geographical origin (Figure 10) and age (Figure 11) with their role in achieving sustainability goals. In the first case, the results showed that in both the South and the North of Italy, the majority of respondents were involved in sustainability as researchers. In the north, the other two most frequent positions were self-employed and volunteer. In Central Italy, all the positions were similar, except for self-employed, which was slightly higher, but comparable with those who responded that they were not concerned with sustainability.

In the same way, crossing the data from the age groups that responded most to the questionnaire (26–35 and 36–50) with their role in sustainability (Figure 11), it was determined that in both the 26–35 and 36–50 age categories, the most frequent roles were researchers and autonomous workers.

Finally, Figure 12 represents the percentages of those who stated that they had participated in one of the Green Blue Days. A total of 64% of participants said they had already participated in Green Blue Days, while 36% had not.

These results suggest that the questionnaire was more sensitive to those who had already come into contact with the initiative. In addition to the clustering questions, the questionnaire included a number of other multiple-choice questions, the full results of which can be found in Appendix A.

Here, we summarize some of the main observations on the most salient aspects: change makers, sustainability culture, and the role of Green Blue Days. With respect to the aspect of ‘change makers’ and sustainability culture, a large share of respondents (40/67) agreed with the idea of ‘culture as ‘care’. Specifically, this referred to culturally based circular regeneration of spaces to build relationships with others and with the environment, with an emphasis on free comments and the importance of community involvement, education, and the SDGs framework.

According to the respondents, most of the change-makers were young activists under 35, as well as associations and third sector organizations. The importance of training was emphasized in the free comments.

With respect to the role of Green Blue Days, participants agreed on a role of Green Blue days in ‘limiting air pollution by promoting sustainable mobility policies and projects’, ‘introducing the topic of sustainability in school education programs’, and ‘promoting proper waste management’. Additionally, in a future vision, the greatest expectation towards the next editions was in promoting ‘greater impact on the territory’, ‘activation of projects’, and ‘relations between stakeholders’: concrete actions both in the short and medium-long-term aimed at sustainability through the provision of knowledge and skills. These were also suggested in the free comments, encouraging greater engagement. It also emerged that the principle of taking care of heritage was understood as a culturally based circular regeneration of spaces to build ties. This trend became the main theme of the subsequent phase 5 of Co-design II through the talk ‘Valorization and management of cultural heritage: care for the common home for sustainable development’ and the World Café: ‘The role of cultural and creative enterprises in achieving the goals of the UN 2030 Agenda’ during the Green Blue Days 2022 in Taranto. The title and mission of the talk were inspired by the words of Pope Francis who, in the encyclical Laudato Sì, calls for a consideration of integral ecology as a new paradigm of justice, which requires an ecological conversion’ and a ‘change of course’ so that humanity will take responsibility for a commitment to ‘care for the common home’.

The strength of this phase was a productive dialogue between institutions, enterprises, and associations that participated with interest and proactivity in the talk and at the world café tables. The main limitations concern the difficulties in continuing the work to concretely to transform shared values into real opportunities for local growth.

5. Conclusions

The results of the research allow for preliminary reflections on the definition, adopted by the younger generations, of sustainability as a common good oriented towards overcoming cultural, economic, environmental, and social conflicts that may hinder sustainable development, particularly in Southern Italy. The pursuit of effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability goals related to the contribution of culture in different policies and the role of culture as a productive sector, as defined in the UNESCO Culture 2030 document, is crucial. Key factors such as to cultural heritage, creative industries, local culture and products, local materials, and community participation can help solve some of the structural problems underlying the phenomenon of sustainable development. These elements align with SDG 11 “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”, as well as SDG 12 “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns”. They contribute to the agenda of 2030, and there are several experiences in the literature that propose these connections [18,69,95].

Based on these reflections, the proposed approach aims to explore the synergy between the cultural proposals of young professionals, activists, and researchers under 35 by transforming the different dimensions (‘Environment and Resilience’, ‘Prosperity and Livelihoods’, ‘Knowledge and Skills’, and ‘Inclusion and Participation’) of UNESCO Culture 2030 into alternatives to be submitted to the direct and potential beneficiaries of the Green Blue Days.

The proposed approach aims to implement the current scientific debate on the topic of sustainable development from a systemic and transdisciplinary point of view in which culture is able to influence stakeholder behavior and sustainability is studied from the perspective of common goods. Furthermore, the co-design approaches analyzed foster the combination of tangible and intangible values that stimulate innovation in the cultural proposals of the new generations towards inclusive sustainable development.

Each stage of the research was aimed at answering different questions that emerged from the analysis of the literature and discussions with experts in the field. Within Phase I (shared targets), the critical issues were shared globally, as noted by the participants in the Green Blue Youth Vision 2030 pathway who were representatives of various nationally and internationally recognized realities. In particular, the people involved shared the main criticalities linking the sustainability dimension with the cultural dimension, concerning in particular the individual and collective resistance to change, the scarce adoption of daily sustainable behaviors, the lack of awareness of the opportunities deriving from more sustainable choices, and the scarce diffusion of training at the various levels of government. Furthermore, the focus group methodology allowed for the most relevant issues to emerge more quickly and efficiently in terms of a shared understanding of stakeholder needs.

In Step 2, ‘Co-Design I’, the combination of the two approaches enabled a decision-making process permeable to human emotions and experiences aimed at defining shared goals. Voices and corresponding stories were heard and acknowledged by the different participating organizations and were communicated to a wide audience through the media. The tables became a form of participatory negotiation that was open to the online/offline community.

Based on the results of the co-design tables, perspectives, approaches, and project actions emerged that became the alternatives of the survey carried out in step 3. These alternatives were framed within certain dimensions and criteria of the UNESCO Culture 2030 document selected on the basis of the deliberative process that involved the various stakeholders concerned (young people under 35 and ‘change makers’).

In particular, regarding the subject of ‘culture of sustainability’, the stakeholders focused on the ‘Environment and resilience’ dimension (related to Criteria 2: ‘Sustainable Management of Heritage’, Criteria 3: ‘Climate adaptation and resilience’, and Criteria 5: ‘Open space for culture’ of the UNESCO Culture 2030 framework). Regarding ‘Actions for a Green Blue Future’, they emphasized the crucial importance of the knowledge and skills dimension (linked with Criteria 13: ‘Education for Sustainable Development’ and Criteria 14: ‘Cultural knowledge’ of the UNESCO Culture 2030 framework). Finally, concerning the methods and strategies for community involvement, the thematic dimension ‘Inclusion and Participation’ provided a framework for the contribution of culture to building social cohesion and promoting inclusion and participation by assessing the accessibility of culture and the capacity for culture to stimulate the effective engagement of local communities in public life (connected with Criteria 20: ‘Access to culture’ and Criteria 22: ’Participatory processes’ of the UNESCO Culture 2030 framework).

The limitations related to these first two phases concerned the absence of representatives from other productive sectors related to sustainability in order to integrate the discussion and identify the problem in a more structured and shared manner, expanding the range of possible solutions proposed. The analysis of the survey results (Step 3 and 4) made it possible to recognize the critical role of community, cooperation, creativity, and intangible values in building a common vision of sustainability that is strongly linked to the care of collective space. With respect to the aspect of ‘change makers’ and sustainability culture, a large share of respondents agreed with the idea of ‘culture as ‘care’, which refers to culturally based circular regeneration of spaces to build relationships with others and with the environment. The free comments emphasized the importance of community involvement, education, and the SDGs framework. With respect to the role of Green Blue Days, participants mostly agreed on a role of Green Blue days in ‘limiting air pollution by promoting sustainable mobility policies and projects’, ‘introducing the topic of sustainability in school education programs’, and ‘promoting proper waste management’. Additionally, in a future vision, the greatest expectation for the next editions was promoting a ‘greater impact on the territory’, ‘activation of projects’, and ‘relations between stakeholders’. These included concrete actions both in the short and medium-long-term, aimed at sustainability through the provision of knowledge and skills, which were also suggested in the free comments, encouraging greater engagement.

It also emerged that the principle of taking care of heritage was understood as a culturally based circular regeneration of spaces to build ties. This trend became the main theme of the subsequent phase 5 of Co-design II through the talk ‘Valorization and management of cultural heritage: care for the common home for sustainable development’ and the ‘World Café—The role of cultural and creative enterprises in achieving the goals of the UN 2030 Agenda’ during the Green Blue Days 2022 in Taranto. The talk and the World Café aimed to inform the participants regarding tools and pilot experiences for the care and valorization of cultural heritage in order to understand the transformative potential and impact of care and the reuse of assets for collective use. The co-design tables in this phase showed how ‘community’, ‘social innovation’, and ‘creativity’ were the keywords of different bottom-up experiences. These became engines of heritage reuse and new economies, with impacts on socio-cultural empowerment and urban circular regeneration. From this perspective, follow-up research could address the co-production and co-assessment of creative services in synergy with local stakeholders and beneficiaries in the territories of Southern Italy, generating new job opportunities, awareness, and innovation through an advanced form of shared responsibility of green–blue communities as a driving force for sustainable projects. In particular, an analysis of these preferences could focus on understanding the trends by differentiating them according to the categories of the respondents identified.

This research proposes innovative co-creation approaches to listen directly to the interested stakeholders, as well as fostering the participative dimension of sustainability. Innovation comes from inclusion and structured active listening. This approach of providing a voice to the direct actors helps to “catch innovation from the ground up”, as the information is essentially derived from grassroot voices. The work of the tables was completed with the questionnaire to reinforce a broader audience with the participative information. In this way, the cross-referencing of the respondents’ personal data with the answers provided for the individual questions would allow for the next steps of co-planning to be oriented towards more specific questions and the needs for each category of stakeholders. Similarly, this aspect would affect the elaboration of sustainable development strategies that, although referring to a common vision, could nevertheless present distinctive features that are closely linked to the needs of a specific category. Therefore, the aim of the authors is to return an initial unitary picture with respect to the path that led to the definition of a common vision, and also to return the complexity and heterogeneity found in these experiences in future in-depth studies. This represents a resource and an added value in co-design processes for the circular regeneration and sustainable development of territories.