The current political, economic, and ecological crisis, marked by the erosion of welfare state and care policies, is leading to episodes of marginalisation, here understood as a process involving both spatial segregation and exclusion from decision-making opportunities and their implementation. However, the dynamics of exclusion are not always overt and can result in various outcomes in terms of engagement in public life. The most vulnerable groups – e.g. migrants, young people, people in difficult socio-economic circumstances (observed more and more from an intersectional perspective) – are the most affected by this situation. They are often the focus of discourses on alternative practices of care and social inclusion, both institutional and non-institutional, which encompass participatory processes and community-driven initiatives.
Although there is a widespread desire to empower the aforementioned social groups (e.g. the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development), the numerous attempts only occasionally achieve the expected results. Sometimes, projects and policies are promoted without adequately surveying the needs of the target groups. In other cases, they generate co-optation dynamics that further strengthen inequalities. What times, spaces and methods for participation and sharing currently exist? Are these opportunities effective, or do they reproduce and reinforce the status quo? What factors can influence participatory processes, such as temporalities, emotional, spatial and power relations in the institutional and non-institutional places of participation (e.g. squares, schools, community health centres, housing, places of work, consumption etc.)? How can these places be produced, used or transformed to support a changing Europe from an equality perspective?
Contributions, whether in the form of oral presentations, videos, performances, podcasts, or other formats, can develop case studies, theoretical and/or methodological aspects. We welcome particularly those that explore critical aspects and contradictions.
|
Local youth strategies in Slovenia: meaningful impact or symbolic efforts
Pina Klara Petrović Jesenovec, Naja Marot
University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Slovenia
The presentation examines whether local youth strategies, which have become common practice in larger municipalities in Slovenia, can be considered a success or a failure. It questions whether having such a strategy creates inclusive community for young people and whether the document really reflects the municipality’s commitment to implementing youth-targeted measures or it primarily serves its own purpose. Local policymakers have highlighted participatory approaches as a key factor in determining whether a youth strategy becomes a good practice. This includes ensuring adequate financing and fostering collaboration among various local and national stakeholders, as well as young people themselves.
Two cities, Ljubljana and Celje, both of which have youth strategies and are considered exemplary municipalities in addressing the needs of young people, were selected as case studies. The analysis included a review of these strategic documents, as well as interviews conducted in the autumn of 2024 with policymakers, implementors, youth organisations, and youth representatives. The document analysis revealed that both strategies ambitiously address various youth-related areas, such as housing, social inclusion, and youth participation in decision-making, and propose measures to meet the needs of young people at the local level. However, discussions with youth highlighted a different perspective and brought attention to certain challenges especially in the implementation of these strategies.
As the needs and priorities of young people evolve over time, youth strategies risk becoming outdated and irrelevant to current issues, particularly as strategies in Slovenia are often designed for periods of five or even ten years. This makes it difficult to predict whether the measures needed today will still be relevant in the future. While these measures aim to address youth needs, they often follow national or European trends rather than being tailored to the specific context of a place. Although young people are usually invited to participate in local youth policy-making, they are often not adequately empowered to engage actively, leading institutional policymakers to perceive them as passive or indifferent. On the other hand, young people might claim that their participation is only symbolic and that their needs and suggestion are often overheard.
Placing participatory and transdisciplinary approaches with young people at the forefront of transformation for climate change
Kathy Reilly, Frances Fahy
University of Galway, Ireland
Increasing calls to place often marginalised young people’s voices at the forefront of transformation for climate change have resulted in many emerging opportunities and challenges for supporting participatory research in the sustainability field. This paper presents insight on the design and implementation of an innovative transboundary, transdisciplinary and co-productive approach developed and adopted by the CCC-CATAPULT team. CCC-CATAPULT was a four-year (2020-2024) European research project, engaging young people in Galway (Ireland), Bristol (UK), Genoa (Italy) and Tampere (Finland) that aimed to explore how young people, teachers and other key actors shaping the learning of children, understand the value-action gap in tackling the climate emergency. Within this paper, we present some critical reflections on the overall process and complexities that emerged while working across multiple cultural contexts, using the same methodological approaches to collaborate throughout the project’s duration with 15-18 year olds in all four European city region settings. The paper concludes by highlighting promising practices and lessons learned.
'Left behind' people within 'left-behind' places: a grounded theory approach
Marta Moschetti
Gran Sasso Science Institute, Italy
In the last decade, place-based approaches have been considered critical to address the territorial marginalisation of ‘left-behind’ places, and to alleviate the related spatial and socio-economic inequalities driven by uneven development. They often rely on bottom-up approaches and participatory processes, entailing the involvement of local actors in the design of territorial development strategies. However, the unequal capacities of local inhabitants to take part in those processes are rarely taken into consideration. It, therefore, emerges as a relevant issue the question of ‘left-behind’ people within ‘left-behind’ places, of those who de facto turn out to be excluded from those kinds of approaches that should contribute to more spatial justice and social equality.
The research investigates how the ‘voice’ of some people gets excluded in the context of place-based approaches to rural development, using a grounded theory approach to iteratively construct a theoretical and analytical framework for exploring the mechanisms of this exclusion. Concretely, this is done in the context of the co-construction with local actors of Smart Village strategies, integrated within the LEADER programs implemented by Local Action Groups.
Through the use of qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups and participant observation, the research highlights how the participatory dimension of the place-based approaches may favour those people that already have the social and institutional capabilities to take part in those processes. A capability approach for regional development is therefore integrated with a more critical literature which comes from decolonial thoughts, feminists’ epistemologies and critical pedagogy in analysing how the participatory, bottom-up dimension in the development of local strategies run the risk to exclude those subjects who are less able to express their ‘voice’ within hegemonic frameworks. In particular, the research shed the light on the role that EU discourses, tools and language, together with the process of ‘projectification’ of policies, may play in exacerbating spatial and social inequalities in rural contexts and in creating power differentials in the context of public participation. The research results offer practical insights for refining place-based approaches for rural areas to ensure more equitable participation and fairest resource allocation across diverse contexts.
Inclusion/exclusion in Marginalized Areas: Examining the Italian Migration and Reception System
Giovanna Di Matteo
Gran Sasso Science Institute, Italy
This contribution examines the Italian reception system for people seeking international protection, focusing on three main types of centres: CPA, CAS, and SAI (formerly SPRAR). Specifically, it compares the “extraordinary” reception centres (CAS) with the “ordinary” and more diffused SAI network. Established over 20 years ago, the SAI system aimed to introduce a geographically widespread and integrated reception model that balanced respect for fundamental rights with effective management, fostering social inclusion for those received. This system, based on collaboration between public institutions (local administrations) and private entities (associations, NGOs, cooperatives), has, however, proven to be largely marginal. Today, it primarily serves the most vulnerable groups, including individuals with chronic illnesses, disabilities, or families with young children.
During the same period (2012-2014), Italy introduced the National Strategy for Inner Areas, targeting depopulated and economically struggling areas. Both the strategy and academic literature have identified the presence of foreign nationals as a potential driver for repopulating and revitalizing these areas. Notably, 53,56% of reception facilities in peripheral municipalities and 61,24% in ultraperipheral municipalities belong to the SAI network.
This research investigates the experiences of individuals seeking international protection who, without choice, are placed in reception centres within marginal areas. It examines how these placements align with broader goals of repopulation and integration, questioning whether small-town settings genuinely facilitate social inclusion. While CAS are known for their lack of planning in fostering integration and community participation, the study focuses on the comparison with the SAI system: what conditions are provided for migrants hosted here? To what extent can they participate in societal life? Are these projects effectively integrating migrants into these “left behind areas”, or do they merely perpetuate marginalisation?
The study combines the analysis of secondary source, including official documents, with primary data gathered through interviews and mental mapping. Two case studies from mountainous areas in Abruzzo (Italy) illustrate the findings, offering insights into the challenges and opportunities of integrating migrants in such contexts.
|
