Title
Brief description
Keywords
Air pollution, co-creation, responsible research and innovation, living lab, policy making
City/Country
Time period
2018 - 2021
Lever(s)
Methodologies
World Region
Scale(s) of the case analysed
Target audience and dimension
Domain(s) of application
Context addressed
Solution applied
Challenge addressed/ Problem-led approach
Barriers addressed
Main Practices
Impact
Co benefits
Engagement Journey
Impact to climate neutrality
By developing the new Air Protection Plan of the region, not only the goal to reduce air pollution in the metropolitan areas of Krakow was set. The Program consists in a concrete action plan and binding new regulations for emission limits for public buildings and industry forcing non-compliant companies by law to take measures to lower their emissions.
Context & Public policy of reference
The Air Protection Plan refers to the policies regulating the emission levels allowed by law. Furthermore, it specifies obligatory measures to be taken to be compliant with the new regulations that are established to lower the emission levels and improve air quality significantly by 2023.
Its main contents are:
Grading system for air pollution dangers
Guiding questions for the stocktaking of sources of emission
Directions for the analysis of air quality
Actions to be taken
Tools that can be used for implementation
Innovative approach(es) addressed
Initiator
The initiator is the living lab and one-stop-shop for business solutions Krakow Technology Park (KTP). After having been involved as external consultants for the regional government in creating the overall strategy, the team proposed to plan and execute a process of co-creating to co-develop the elements of the legal document together with citizens and a variety of stakeholders from varied fields.
Stakeholder networks and organisational model
The responsibility of the Air Protection Plan was part of the Marshall office, but the development process was governed by the project team at KTP. As a third-party entity, conflicts of interest were excluded and even with the last decision being always made by the Marshall office it was the mission of the project team at KTP to ensure that all voices were heard and considered in the decision-making process.
Citizens were contacted and kept up to date mainly via mailing lists to invite them to events, workshops and updating them on the status of the process.
Initially the same approach was applied for the other stakeholders including policymakers resulting in little response and participation. Direct phone calls or in-person appointments proved way more effective and engaging for policymakers to ensure their feedback and long-term participation.
The communication among stakeholders (especially citizens) was mainly direct during in-person events and workshops.
To find a common language, the project team applied design tools to creatively explore and visualize complex concepts valuing the different kinds of expertise present in the group. When developing and refining the final Action Plan, citizens could not actively participate anymore due to their lack of expertise in developing legal documents, but the project team functioned as their voice in the consultation meetings to make sure their needs are considered and met with the final solution.
Democratic Purpose
Participant Recruitment
nteraction between participants
Resources
Key enablers
1. Active support and participation from policy- and decision makers
2. Opportunity for real impact by creating a long-term legal document as part of a greater regional plan
3. Positive results of the co-creation process and methodologies raised interest from other groups and departments leading to the establishment of a team of co-creation experts within the organisation
Key inhibiting factors
Difficulty in engaging citizens and keeping them motivated throughout the process
Complexity of legal documents as the Air Protection Plan led to difficulties in aligning citizens' needs and tangible aspects to the policy landscape
Drawbacks/pros/cons of the solutions (after implementation)
1. Successful development and deployment of the Air Protection Plan
2. Establishment of a relationship of trust and good collaboration with the Marshall office to likely result in future projects and engagements
3. Positive results of the co-creation process and methodologies raised interest from other groups and departments leading to the establishment of a team of co-creation experts within the organisation
Scalability
The approach could be scaled nationwide to other political documents and even internationally adapting the participative and inclusive process to different regulatory contexts.
Key lessons
The initiative showed how lay people can and should be involved in policy making despite their lack of expertise in developing large-scale strategies and legal documents.
However, it also demonstrated the difficulties in keeping citizens engaged and ensuring a consistent involvement.
Indicators
The main indicators that measured the success apart from the successful creation and approval of the Air Protection Plan were the three main dimensions analysed in the SISCODE project, namely:
Stakeholder Engagement
Completeness of involvement considering all groups of relevant stakeholders (e.g. industry, research communities, NGOs)
Possible impact of the involved stakeholders (being passively informed or possibility to actively influence the outcome)
Continuity of the involvement (one-time, sporadic, or continuous)
Co-Creation
Continuity of application of co-creation throughout the process
Expertise and knowledge gained and applied
Spread of co-creation beyond the project in the organisation or ecosystem
Dissemination
Number and kinds of channels covered when disseminating
Groups of stakeholders reached
Numbers of posts and publications
Opmerkingen ()