Cities 96 (2020) 102459

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Understanding orchestrated participatory cultural initiatives: Mapping the T

dynamics of governance and participation
⁎
Lucia Biondia, , Paola Demartinia, Lucia Marchegiania, Michela Marchioria, Martin Piberb
a
Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, Italy
b
Department of Organization and Learning, University of Innsbruck, Austria

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study investigates Participatory Cultural Initiatives (i.e., cultural and creative projects, events, and ex-
Participation periences that involve civic engagement), shedding light on how participation unfolds and what elements best
Governance explain its dynamics. Based on a sound literature review in the field, the paper focuses on four European case
Cultural initiatives studies: the MuseumsQuartier in Vienna, Matera as a European Capital of Culture, Big City Life in Tor Marancia
Orchestrator
and Rome City of Film as part of the UNESCO network of creative cities. The findings highlight the dynamics of
the governance and the significant role of the orchestrator(s) in shaping the vision and enabling participation of
all relevant stakeholders. From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the literature and debate on
culture as a driver for local regeneration and development. Furthermore, cultural professionals, urban and re-
gional planners, policy makers, institutions and citizens get new insights for designing and managing cultural
projects.

1. Introduction organisation leveraging stakeholders' participation and civic engage-

This paper aims to investigate Participatory Cultural Initiatives
(PCIs) and their development and governance. In particular, a partici-
patory approach to cultural and creative initiatives entails civic en-
gagement for creating and sharing cultural projects, events and ex-
periences. Participation, in fact, highlights the subjective relevance of
individual contributions and strengthens the feeling of being socially
connected with one another (Piber, Biondi, Demartini, Marchegiani, &
Marchiori, 2017). Culture helps to build up individual and collective
identities and is a crucial asset that can be developed by communities
for far-reaching benefits.
Participation (Voorberg, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2015) has been stu-
died extensively as co-creation in the private sector (e.g., Chesbrough,
2003; Fursov, Thurner, & Nefedova, 2017) and as social innovation in
public decision-making and management (e.g., Jung, Lee, Yap, &
Ineson, 2015; Yang & Pandey, 2011). But how participation unfolds in
cultural initiatives is still unclear. In cultural settings, a participatory
approach allows citizens to engage in cultural initiatives as co-designers
(e.g., Ciolfi, Bannon, & Fernström, 2008), co-implementers, or as in-
itiators (Voorberg et al., 2015). In this study, we have particularly fo-
cussed on cultural initiatives, aimed at regenerating the social, eco-
nomic, and environmental fabric of urban settings, that are initiated
and developed by an individual, a small group of individuals, or an
ment.
Culture-led local development and urban renewal initiatives have
gained momentum over the past decade, showing that citizen partici-
pation is positively associated with socially-inclusive innovation pro-
cesses and cultural value creation (Nakagawa, 2010; Sasaki, 2010).
However, the impacts of participation in community-based urban re-
generation projects are complex, usually contested, and often contra-
dictory (Dinardi, 2015; Pollock & Sharp, 2012). Yet, there is still a lack
of understanding of how and under what conditions participation
evolves.
Hence, by exploring the essence of the participatory approach in
cultural initiatives and providing interdisciplinary insights on how PCIs
unfold in different contexts, this research is also a contribution to the
debate on culture as a driver for local regeneration and development
(e.g., Stolarick & Florida, 2006; Cooke & Lazzeretti, 2008; Pratt, 2010;
Nakagawa, 2010; Sacco, Ferilli, & Blessi, 2014; Sacco, Ghirardi, Tartari,
& Trimarchi, 2019).
Culture is certainly a significant factor in the socio-economic de-
velopment of cities and countries, and the proper management of cul-
tural initiatives is vital (Shipley & Kovacs, 2008). Various international
agencies, NGOs, think tanks, and social platforms involved in fostering
the arts and culture have recommended principles of good governance
to increase public participation in cultural projects. But political

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lucia.biondi@uniroma3.it (L. Biondi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102459
Received 10 April 2019; Received in revised form 12 August 2019; Accepted 2 September 2019
0264-2751/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Biondi, et al.
conflicts and social issues may hinder the innovative participatory ap-
proaches in the cultural sector (Clark & Wise, 2018; Dudley, 2002;
Gerometta, Häussermann, & Longo, 2005). Our research highlights
different patterns of governance and, in particular, the significant role
of orchestrators in influencing, enabling and organising the dynamics of
participation and interactions of citizens and stakeholders within the
social texture of a PCI.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. First, we outline
the relevant literature on participation in cultural contexts, followed by
an explanation of the methodology and analysis framework. Section 4
presents the case studies, and Section 5 contains our analysis and dis-
cussion. The paper concludes with a summary of our findings and the
theoretical and practical implications of the research.
2. Participatory cultural initiatives as a cultural phenomenon
A growing body of literature across a diverse range of disciplines has
tackled issues relating to culture and creativity and their associated
socio-economic values. Heritage can be tangible or intangible and in-
cludes a wide variety of artistic and cultural forms of expression like
literature, visual arts, architecture, music, and theatre. Further, new
models of production and consumption are showing that heritage may
provide significant societal and economic benefits (Blessi, Grossi, Sacco,
Pieretti, & Ferilli, 2016; Sacco & Blessi, 2009). Concepts such as cultural
networks (Comunian, 2010), clusters (Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman,
2002), districts (Santagata, 2002), ecosystems (Borin & Donato, 2015;
Zukin, 2006), and even business models (Coblence, Normandin, &
Haro, 2014) have been used to understand the conditions under which
culture functions as an economically-effective, socially-sustainable
factor of development. To invest in cultural resources means con-
tributing to improvements in quality of life, and forging new economic,
financial, and human resources. Culture helps to define the social and
economic objectives of a region (Sacco et al., 2014), it can guide social
practices and shared norms, and it can promote systemic equity because
it explores and then reflects moral principles and values.
The literature clarifies that, through a participatory approach,
creative clusters and cultural initiatives lead to urban development
(Throsby, 2010) and regeneration (Bailey, Miles, & Stark, 2004; Sasaki,
2004, 2010). Moreover, cultural-creative experiences are not merely
single events in the life of an individual; they also contribute to a joint
sense of identity. Far beyond their intrinsic artistic value, community-
based cultural initiatives foster the participation of citizens at various
levels, thus increasing civic engagement and community pride. They
can also enhance economic development and education (Jackson,
2004). The UNESCO, 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage
is one of many sets of guiding principles that advocate a participatory
approach. This covenant grants local groups, communities, and in-
dividuals a central role in the creation and stewardship of their in-
tangible cultural heritage (Blake, 2008). From a super-national stand-
point, UNESCO recognises the importance of participation in the
development of creative cities and their networks (UNESCO, 2005).
One outcome of this philosophy is the Creative Cities Network and its
cultural capitals program (Johnson, 2016). Participation is also one of
the principles of good governance for its ability to balance the power
wielded by managers and political leaders (Shipley & Kovacs, 2008).
Supporting a participatory approach in cultural and creative con-
texts requires gathering together diverse actors: from the public to the
private sector, from industry associations and local communities to ci-
tizens (Abraham & Platteau, 2004; Farinosi, Fortunati, O'Sullivan, &
Pagani, 2018; Stern & Seifert, 2009). Moreover, redeeming the most
value out of a particular cultural-creative initiative typically requires
some sort of collaboration between diverse actors. For example,
Borseková et al. (2017: 200) stress the importance of networking in the
cultural sector, claiming that collaboration and partnership between
“institutions and organizations from the private, public and non-profit
sectors actively contribut[e] to the project's implementation and future
2
Cities 96 (2020) 102459
sustainability”. A key issue is to transform the individual visions of
single actors and, specifically, their means and ends into a joint un-
derstanding. As Della Lucia & Trunfio (2018: 36) argue, “In the creation
of a shared vision of urban development, the greatest challenge is to
overcome the significant barriers that inevitably arise when a wide
variety of stakeholders are involved, all with different backgrounds,
power agendas, aims, roles and competencies.”
Participatory initiatives involve a plurality of actors and aim at a
variety of objectives, thus these projects are usually complex (Dinardi,
2015; Pollock & Sharp, 2012). Referring to the impacts of participation
in community-based urban regeneration, Ferilli et al. (2016: 95) state:
“Concrete examples suffer from major flaws in terms of instrumental or
ineffective involvement of parts of the community.” There is also a risk
of abusing “the role of culture and creativity in urban processes to le-
gitimize and even encourage organized forms of appropriation of
common symbolic and material resources” (Sacco et al., 2019: 200).
Culture-driven gentrification is one example of this type of appropria-
tion (Zukin, Kasinitz, & Chen, 2015; Sacco, Tartari, Ferilli, & Blessi,
2019).
In general, past studies show that when diverse stakeholders form a
network to achieve a common objective, an orchestrating actor or ac-
tors can raise the likelihood of the project's success by uniting all par-
ticipants in a common cause and facilitating their relations (Ahuja,
Soda, & Zaheer, 2012; Batterink, Wubben, Klerkx, & Omta, 2010). What
is less investigated is what constitutes governance, and how PCIs are
initiated, governed, and develop over time. Hence, the main research
question we address in this paper is: What elements provide a deeper
understanding of the development and the governance of PCIs?
3. Methodology and framework of analysis
The paper involves multiple case studies (Stake, 2013; Yin, 1993,
2009) and an abductive approach to analysis (Dubois & Gadde, 2002).
Abductive reasoning is a pragmatic approach to advancing the social
sciences through a process of “systematic combining”. This means that
both the analytical framework and the design of the case studies de-
velop over time according to what the empirical fieldwork, and its
analysis and interpretation, help to reveal. In this way, “the researcher,
by constantly going ‘back and forth’ between empirical observations
and theory, is able to expand his understanding of both theory and
empirical phenomena” (Dubois & Gadde, 2002: 555). During the two-
year period of this research, we authors constantly shared our views on
the data gathered and discussed any questions that arose as we at-
tempted to identify the main features of the PCIs under study. There
have been few theoretical contributions on this topic, and there were no
immediately obvious conceptual frameworks to refer to. Hence, an
abductive approach meant we could engage in collective reasoning to
form and evaluate alternative explanations (Grandori, 2010).
Initially, our discussions were guided by the theoretical concepts of
governance, participation, and orchestration of cultural initiatives,
which gave way to an emerging framework of analysis as summarised
in Table 1. These dimensions form the structure of our discussion in
Section 5.
The PCIs were selected through a purposeful sampling technique
(Patton, 2002). The motivation for this study sprang from the growing
importance of participation as a major theme at the European level.
Therefore, we decided to select from European PCIs. To the purpose of
the inquiry, we identified four cases, each of which involves different
forms of orchestration and governance – public, private, hybrid:
– The MuseumsQuartier in Vienna (MQ);
– Matera as the 2019 European Capital of Culture (M19);
– Big City Life, a street art district in Tor Marancia, Rome (BCL);
– Rome City of Film, as a member of the UNESCO Creative Cities
Network (RCF).
L. Biondi, et al.
Table 1
The research process in light of the abductive approach.
Selected concepts as guidelines Discussion of the outcomes of the interviews
Key points of the semi-structured Main questions arising from the discussion
questionnaire
• Story and mission of the initiatives • Who are the key actors of the initiative and what role do they play?
• Value created • Who are the main stakeholders and what impact does the initiative generate
• Main actors for them? Was it planned or did it emerge?
• Impact • What do participation and civic engagement mean in the case study?
• Civic engagement • How are participation and civic engagement achieved and when?
• Who and what legitimate the initiative?
• What role does space play, both as physical and symbolic?
All four initiatives are of different sizes, scopes, territorial scales,
geographical locations, stages of maturity, etc. Their diversity makes
them the perfect context for our analysis.
We collected data from both primary and secondary sources. In
terms of primary data, each researcher conducted an in-depth in-
vestigation of one case through direct observations and semi-structured
interviews with several key actors and stakeholders. The secondary
sources of data included documents, official reports, press releases,
publicly accessible videos, social media postings, meetings observa-
tions, and websites (see Appendix 1).
4. Description of the cases
4.1. The MuseumsQuartier in Vienna (MQ)
The MQ is today one of the largest cultural areas in Europe. It is
home to four major cultural institutions (the Leopold Museum, the
mumok, the Kunsthalle Wien, and the Architekturzentrum Wien) as
well as around 60 small-to-medium-sized cultural organisations. The
precinct is also dotted with restaurants, bars, museum shops, a book-
shop, and other amusements. The independent organisations within the
MQ pursue their own individual strategies, but they also form a cultural
cluster. The main stakeholders are the funding bodies, the visitors
(tourists and citizens), the residents of the area, the artists, and other
members and patrons of the cultural organisations.
The MQ is located on the site of the former Hapsburg stables, and
the current buildings are a mixture of historical and modern archi-
tecture. The precinct was established after the Vienna trade fair left the
area in the 1980s. The initial idea for a cultural centre originated from
the federal and municipal governments. They agreed on the design and
infrastructure requirements and called for proposals. In 1987 the pro-
ject was awarded to the architecture firm Ortner & Ortner by a jury.
Then the process opened. Many other stakeholders came to the fore and
participated in the planning process: architects, the federal monuments
authority, a citizens' initiative, other important museums in the area,
NGOs as well as other prominent members of the civil society. The
mainstream media was also an outlet for public discussion. The first
blueprint of a “museums-quartier” came to the fore in 1989 by a poli-
tician and cultural visionary. However, this was not the end of the
planning stage. On the contrary, it marked the beginning of a mixed-
governance approach to the precinct's design, which resulted in a
second call for proposals and several major revisions of the project. The
most evident changes were the removal of a landmark tower and a
general downsizing of the project. In 1997, a full decade after the ori-
ginal proposal was awarded, ground was broken. The MQ finally
opened in 2001 and the implementation started.
We cannot argue that the participation of all these actors was
planned in a top-down-manner. Rather, it emerged out of circumstance
and after the ‘winners’ of design tenders in two stages were selected.
Insofar as we can see, wider participation boosted the vision of the
single actors accountable for the design process, but these
3
Cities 96 (2020) 102459
Emerging framework (Refinement of selected
concepts)
Input for the narrative of the case studies and output
discussion points
• Governance and orchestration
• Participation of various stakeholders and civic
engagement
• Legitimacy
• Space
enhancements did not necessarily carry through to all stages of the
project.
The central organisation in charge of the MQ's overall management
is MQ E + B (MuseumsQuartier Errichtungs- und BetriebsgesmbH),
which is 75% owned by the Republic of Austria and 25% by the city of
Vienna. MQ E + B is responsible for maintaining the space and the
cultural cluster, especially in terms of its marketing and branding,
fundraising, organising events, maintaining infrastructure, overseeing
systems and procedures, and stakeholder relations. Interestingly, the
MQ E + B has no influence on the institutions within the quartier
(Abfalter & Piber, 2016). However, MQ E + B has developed its own
cultural calendar with a strong fit with the MQ brand. Examples are the
“Summer of Sounds”, a literature festival, fashion-related events, and a
Christmas market.
Moreover, the MQ area serves as a living space, an art space, a
creative workspace for artists and cultural entrepreneurs, and a tourist
destination. It is one of the strongest cultural brands in central Europe,
attracting around 4 million visitors annually. Approximately one-third
of the visitors buying an entry ticket to one of the cultural institutions.
The space has become a hotspot and why shouldn't you take advantage of
it, if the place is that attractive and people enjoy meeting each other over
there?
(Former Director of an MQ institution)
Several scholars have researched and written about the initiative
from different perspectives (Abfalter & Piber, 2016; De Frantz, 2005;
Roodhouse & Mokre, 2004). However, the participatory character of
the MQ becomes obvious in all studies. One major challenge for the
initiative is curation. Currently, the 60 institutions are in charge of their
own programs, while the MQ E + B organises the program for the
common spaces and tries to coordinate the program of the institutions.
However, the close proximity of 60 institutions in a limited space
supports and even triggers cooperative projects.
A further important challenge is jointly developing the brand.
Hereby, the special architecture of the precinct plays in favour of a
strong identity:
The closed form of the premises makes it easy to immediately experience,
that one has entered the space.
(Director of an MQ institution)
With the institutions, we will develop joint projects, joint ideas and
present the Musemsquartier as a joint space.
(Former Head of marketing and communication of MQ E + B)
This point of space is an important one because it can be a crucial
element in the motivation to participate for the artists, tenants, and
visitors.
4.2. Matera as the 2019 European Capital of Culture (M19)
In May 2015, Matera was formally designated one of two 2019
European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) by the European Union. Hence,
L. Biondi, et al.
M19 is a long-term cultural project (2015–2019). Its aim is to generate
urban renewal through a new model of development that leverages
knowledge, research, innovation, and new technology in the context of
sustainability, social cohesion, and inclusion.
Matera is a very ancient town located in southern Italy with 60,000
inhabitants, and space plays a key role in its identity. “Sassi” is an iconic
symbol that constitutes many of the city's traditions. Inhabited from
Palaeolithic times up to the 1950s, the two Sassi districts are a special
symbiosis between calcareous rocks, facaded cave dwellings, and
human artefacts. In the 50s, the Government of Italy forcefully re-
located most of the Sassi population due to the unhealthy living con-
ditions but, since the 90s, the local administration has promoted its
regeneration as an urban area. Renewed interest in the districts was
thanks in part to the World Heritage Site status granted by UNESCO in
1993. Since then, the Sassi of Matera have once again been inhabited
and undergone comprehensive recovery and restoration actions. Many
of the dwellings are now home to commercial and tourist activities.
Engaging citizens to participate occurred over three main phases,
with each phase led by a different group of key actors. In the starting
stage (2008–2010), the main actor was a group of young professionals
working for some of the local cultural organisations. At the end of 2008,
they founded the “Associazione Matera 2019”, which ultimately played
an important role in influencing the town council's decision to put
Matera forward as a candidate for the ECoC 2019. The Associazione
provided a significant contribution in constructing a vision of the
candidacy process as participatory and inclusive, and as an opportunity
for Matera to regenerate itself based on a synergy between ancient
values and a new sustainable development model.
In the second opening-up phase (2011−2013), the Matera
Committee 2019 was established, which mostly consists of institutional
actors (regional and municipal governments). A general director was
appointed and the process of institutionalising decisions began, but the
project still remained relatively participatory. For a time at least, the
Committee succeeded in balancing the needs of style and the techni-
calities required by a European bid with a cultural project that gathered
proposals from an active citizenship. “Together” was chosen as the
brand of the M19 candidacy program and was the title of the first bid
book prepared for the application. In this phase, participation might be
regarded as one of the main goals of the cultural project. The 2013
Dossier for the bid explains: one of the main aims of the project is to
create a “cultural citizen” – a responsible, informed inhabitant who:
understands that culture is a fundamental resource; actively helps to
collaborate and co-create cultural and creative initiatives; and takes
care of the town's heritage (Dossier, 2013: 5, 8–9, 24, 30, 41, 80–82).
More than a hundred citizens and local organisations signed the bid
book (Dossier, 2013: 94–95), which is a form of social storytelling
(Ferilli et al., 2016: 97). At the same time, a group of “digital” volun-
teers began to narrate and spread the experiences and the story of
Matera's ECoC candidacy on the web.
After Matera made the shortlist, the Committee had to define a
structure for the program and its governance. Hence, the 2014 Dossier,
titled “Open future”(Dossier, 2014), speaks of a vision that welcomes
the most advanced international experiences, and John Grima, a fa-
mous New York architect, was appointed as Artistic Director. The ‘open
future’ vision is strongly supported in a statement by the Committee's
Director in the Municipal Council of Matera Report, 2014:
The culture that will be produced in Matera in 2019 will be the cultural
project of reference for all of Europe.
However, the move attracted some criticisms. There were com-
plaints about “the propensity to import foreign models and little at-
tention to the valorisation of local experiences, the territorial identity of
the people and the genius loci” (Associazione Matera 2019 website).
The EU's decision to award Matera the ECoC in 2015 marks the
beginning of the third implementation phase (2015–2019). At this
point, the Foundation Matera Basilicata 2019 was established with the
4
Cities 96 (2020) 102459
task of formally implementing the cultural project. In the years fol-
lowing, economic appetites grew and conflicting political interests at a
city level fuelled strife within the Foundation (Della Lucia & Trunfio,
2018). These conflicts caused delays in the project's development,
which negatively impacted public opinion. The local newspapers and
blogs reflect a lack of confidence and trust in the local administration
by Matera's inhabitants, citizen associations, potential supporters, and
sponsors (Ferilli et al., 2016: 95).
The result was the bureaucratisation of governance. As revealed in
the first report by the Monitoring and Advisory Panel (European
Commission, 2016: 5–7), decision-making processes had slowed down
and the participatory processes had weakened.
4.3. Big City Life, a street art district in Tor Marancia, Rome (BCL)
Big City Life (BCL) is an initiative launched by “999contemporary”,
a not-for-profit cultural association. It is an urban project that was
undertaken in 2015 in a social housing complex of more than 500 re-
sidents in Tor Marancia (Rome). Within this complex, artists from 10
countries have painted enormous murals on the facades of 11 buildings,
giving rise to the first open-air “residents' museum” in the world. Only a
decade ago, that area was considered a working-class suburban area
filled with crime.
999contemporary consists of two project curators. They had an
idea, applied for official approval, raised the money, executed a cultural
translation process with the residents, invited the artists, and still dis-
cuss the initiative through interviews and social media. The orches-
tration of this PCI went through different stages:
(i) The starting phase: where 999contemporary conceived of the idea
of the project – drawing from their vision of “bringing art into or-
dinary life” – and began to promote the initiative.
(ii) The opening-up phase: where they involved different stakeholders,
such as the public entity who owns the buildings (ATER), the City
of Rome, the VIII Municipality, the Department of Culture and
Tourism, Fondazione Roma (a not-for-profit philanthropic entity),
the artists, and the residents. As one of the project curators com-
mented: “We wanted to share the project and make decisions all
together” and, therefore, they defined the project as “a project of
participated public art at different levels”.
(iii) The implementation phase: where the project was in motion and
marketing through interviews, websites, social media, journals,
institutional visitors, etc. was at its height. Although, in a sense,
this phase is ongoing as the curators still publicly discuss the
project to this day.
BCL highlights different forms of participation and many people
have been involved in the project in different ways from the very be-
ginning of the project up to its current management. First, the local
neighbourhood gang played the role of “cultural translator” (Lotman,
2001), explaining what the project's proponents had in mind to the
other residents. After gaining their acceptance, the artists spoke with
the inhabitants, whose stories inspired the sketches. Then came nego-
tiations with the residents and neighbourhood schools about the sket-
ches for each building. Once the murals were complete, a residents'
association was created to maintain, manage, and promote their new
cultural heritage. In this context, the project can also be thought of as a
“relational art” project (Bargna, 2011; Ferilli et al., 2016).
The project also showcases how internal and external stakeholders
can work together. As mentioned, 999contemporary was the key or-
chestrator of the entire project and its main funder. Its objective was to
create a direct link between art and the ordinary. The residents played a
meaningful role in the opening-up and implementation phases. And
now they reap social, economic, and cultural benefits from the project.
As one example of a social benefit, they begun to positively identify
themselves with the district, from which a sense of belonging emerged.
L. Biondi, et al.
When we first met the residents, they said ‘Don't touch our buildings’, but
after we explained the project they changed their minds saying, ‘I want
this sketch to be painted on my wall!’
(Project Curator)
Their welfare improved as a result, and now they are proud to live
there. Economically, royalties from the use of the artworks on TV and in
movies, from music videos, from guided tours, and workshop sessions,
etc. are now used to pay for the utilities of the compound. The area has
become a tourist destination; an important pharmaceutical company
restored a school; and a new library has opened. As a consequence, the
entire neighbourhood has benefited from this urban renewal project.
The participating artists have benefited too. The publicity their work
has received has enhanced their reputation and increased the value of
all their work. The institutions (the local government and the owner)
have taken advantage of this project as well. They have gained social
inclusion, an active citizenry, and urban regeneration all at little to no
cost.
From a legitimacy standpoint, one might say that the initiative has
been legitimated ex-ante, mainly by institutions, and ex-post, mainly by
the acknowledgements received (number of visitors, media impact,
participation at the XV International Architecture Exhibition within the
Venice Biennale, etc.).
Space is also an important element that has fostered participation by
generating identity and a sense of belonging.
In the Tor Marancia project, people have also been involved in the pro-
cess of ‘musealization’, which means the evolution of the graffiti into
artworks.
(Project Curator)
This was made possible by the architectural space of the complex.
According to the idea of the “white cube” (O'Doherty, Inserra, &
Mancini, 2012), the process of “musealisation” happens when people
perceive that the pieces of art are organised – put in order as if they
were an exhibit. This is what occurred in the Tor Marancia complex due
to its peculiar features: it is a neighbourhood, a complex of 22 identical
facades owned by a single entity, and the people who live there form a
community of residents. It is bounded by a perimeter, but it is an open
boundary. Its periphery is more of a mental divide than a geographical
one.
4.4. Rome City of Film, as a member of the UNESCO Creative Cities
Network (RCF)
Rome City of Film (RCF) is the story of the process that led Rome to
join the UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN). The UCCN was
founded in 2004 with the aim of promoting cooperation between cities
that view creativity as a strategic factor in sustainable urban develop-
ment. The RCF designation was given to Rome on 11 December 2015.
Participation in RCF represents a shared socio-economic interest in
fostering the development of Rome's audio-visual industry. As an in-
itiative, it spans collaborations between several organisations – public
and private, for-profit and not-for-profit. Unlike other Creative Cities,
where the local administration has taken charge of their UCCN candi-
dacy, the Municipality of Rome appointed an independent organisation
and an independent project manager (PM). This project manager has
served as the initiative's orchestrator ever since.
In the beginning, the potential effects of the project on local busi-
ness was not very clear to all the stakeholders. It was therefore difficult
to bring a variety of actors with different needs to the same table. The
personality of the PM, his vision of the project, and the desired out-
comes went hand-in-hand with his ability to manage the dialectic be-
tween the different bodies, associations, and private stakeholders on the
RCF Commission. Each had a stake in the audio-visual industry either as
providers or consumers, and even as public representatives. During the
opening-up phase, these diverse needs and visions had to be reconciled
5
Cities 96 (2020) 102459
in order to finalise the city's candidacy in joining the UCCN.
Through the PM's coordination, all actors participated in preparing
the application, and each participant offered to lend its expertise in the
film industry. Although this was formally proposed as a top-down ap-
proach, such a collaboration would not have been possible without
everyone's cooperation. As the PM states:
It was clear from the beginning that we had to prepare a first-class project
to sustain our candidacy. Everybody's pride in being part of the Roman
film tradition was leveraged to develop an outstanding project!
Participation was thus instrumental for legitimation and business
networking. The RCF was built on the quintessential role of Rome's
historical spaces as a reason for admittance to the UCCN. Space has
been critical to the long tradition of audio-visual projects in Rome. The
city has been the centre of many historical films, and many mas-
terpieces have been shot alongside its beautiful landmarks. However,
prior to this venture, the filmmaking community had felt disconnected
and needed a place to reconnect. Thus, the opening-up phase was both a
locus of conflicts and dialectics and provided a virtual space for colla-
boration and co-operation. Once Rome had been admitted to the UCCN,
the network of stakeholders grew bigger. Thus began the implementa-
tion phase.
Symbols play an important role in Rome's collective identity and its
ideals as a film city. Part of the implementation phase was to create an
umbrella brand for the RCF, which could be used for collaborative sub-
projects by the stakeholders. The brand has also been used unofficially
by single members of the RCF to promote their own initiatives.
One of the results of the project and its brand has been a waterfall of
benefits for those indirectly involved. For example, many sub-projects
were aimed at shooting videos in some less developed areas of the city,
which led to their restoration. A Museum of Cinema was established in
the Cinecittà district, which can be thought of as an urban renewal
project. In reality, some of these sub-projects could have been suc-
cessfully undertaken by a single member organisation. But, undertaken
as a partnership, the RCF umbrella identity was more appropriate,
which has had a reinforcing effect on their collective identity. In the
PM's words:
Istituto Luce [the most important organisation in the Italian film
industry and one of the founding organisations of RCF] could have set
up the Museum of Cinema by itself, as they have the required expertise.
Instead, they decided to do it with the other partners to create more
added value and make the Museum part of the shared heritage.
This sense of identity also reflects a sort of social storytelling that
feeds social media and the online narrative.
One of the most relevant co-creation sub-projects is the Reaction
Roma project. Reaction Roma is defined as a social movie (www.
reactionroma.it). In essence, it is an ongoing visual-installation fed by
movies and photos of Rome taken by citizens through their smart-
phones. It is a highly innovative way of communicating the atmosphere
of the city.
Throughout all phases of the RCF project, the PM has played the role
of visionary orchestrator and social negotiator, struggling to balance
the different viewpoints of all the stakeholders involved. Three key
elements made participation and governance successful in the RCF: a)
the participation of organisations and professionals of the film industry
under a collective identity; b) the participation of Rome's citizens that
supported and nurtured a range of co-creative sub-projects; c) a public
administration that presented itself as a partner and not the owner of
the process:
We were able to avoid a vertical approach. Instead, we always
pursued a partnership. (PM).
5. Discussion of the results
Generally, we found a similar pattern of development in all the PCIs:
L. Biondi, et al.
i) the starting phase (generation of ideas); ii) the opening-up phase
(design/preparation/production of the cultural project); and iii) the
implementation of the project (expected uses according to the goals of
the PCI). During these phases, the complex dynamics of participation
unfold. In attempting to understand these dynamics, the following in-
terrelated aspects are analysed: governance and orchestration, partici-
pation, legitimacy, and space. These elements are described in more
detail in Table 1, and the remainder of the section is framed by these
characteristics.
5.1. Governance and orchestration
In all cases, we found institutions, associations or individuals who
emerged as the key actors in the project and played the role of or-
chestrator(s). Further, the changing roles of the orchestrator in different
phases of the PCI are clearly discernible. In the starting phase, the or-
chestrator is an engaged actor with an idea or a preliminary con-
ceptualisation of the project. This actor may be an individual (BCL,
RCF), a group of citizens (M19), or a political body (MQ). Thus, the
starting phase is characterised by the orchestrator's vision, which is
long-sighted and requires others to be convinced of its aims and merits.
Next, the orchestrator opens up the creative process to other stake-
holders until the project takes its basic shape. In the MQ, the opening-
up phase started after the first architectural competition. In M19, it was
preparing the first Dossier (2013) with its many contributions from the
citizens, local organisations, and civil society. In both these initiatives,
quite crucial conflicts arose as more stakeholders joined the cause and,
for MQ, some of these conflicts resulted in political fallout. Similarly,
the orchestrators of M19 were initially successful in balancing the views
of a growing number of institutional actors without compromising the
involvement of the residents, local business owners, and their associa-
tions. However, after being awarded the title of ECoC, the pressures and
interests of institutional actors and political forces grew stronger and
the style of governance became more centralised and more bureau-
cratic. The end result was a hindering effect on the participatory pro-
cess.
In BCL, both the artists and the residents of the neighbourhood
joined in and contributed to the development of the initiative. In RCF,
the opening-up phase started with the establishment of the RCF
Commission – an arena for political debate. In these two cases, we see
that the orchestrators somehow anticipated conflict. This means they
balanced the interests of various stakeholders especially in the starting
and the opening-up phases. Their knack for finding consensus was
backed by a strong vision, charisma, and good social negotiation skills.
Ultimately, this ‘anticipated conflict management’ prevented disputes
that may have paralysed, or at least stalled, the implementation phase
later on. In the implementation phase, the orchestrator establishes
procedures and/or runs the project with the participation of several
stakeholders. This typically requires a higher level of formalisation and
more structure.
Frequently, the combination of vision, orchestration, and partici-
pation is a precarious circumstance. On the one hand, an orchestrator
can assemble and coordinate the various elements of a system, i.e.,
rather a top-down model. This process can be less organised or more
organised depending on the power structures and formality of the sta-
keholders. Orchestrators might also have their own political agendas or
that they are instrumentalised by powerful political elites (Dudley,
2002). On the other hand, an orchestrator can also consciously leave
empty canvasses – these are open windows for genuine participation.
The challenge is then for orchestrators to find the right mix between
governance and participation. In this way they act as bricoleurs (Levi-
Strauss, 1962).
In two of the cases studied, we found a more governance-oriented
approach. BCL and RCF were orchestrated by charismatic leaders acting
from powerful positions who managed to adequately steer the process
of participation. With a solid knowledge of the various stakeholders,
6
Cities 96 (2020) 102459
they were able to balance the vested interests of the main constituents.
In the other two cases, M19 and MQ, we found that the participatory
process broke down during the opening-up phase. The orchestrators
were confronted with new opinions and roles of relevant constituencies.
Unlike BCL and RCF, these orchestrators were not able to overcome the
divided interests in the early stages and, thus, could not maintain co-
hesive participation or a common goal as their projects matured.
5.2. Participation
Since stakeholders may have different and sometimes conflicting
interests in a cultural initiative, envisaging common goals and com-
bining different interests are seemingly preconditions for effective
participation. As shown in the cases discussed, the degree of partici-
pation differed within the PCIs. In M19, participation was the centre of
the city's proposal. A group of young professionals launched the in-
itiative; they persuaded the other stakeholders to participate in the
application process; and promoted the value of civic engagement.
During the opening-up phase, participation became the mainstay of the
first bid book “Together”. How better to exemplify the participative and
inclusive nature of the initiative than through collective and choral
storytelling (Ferilli et al., 2016) of the many young, small businesses
and various cultural and social associations of Matera (Felicetti, 2015).
The idea promoted in the bid book was that of opportunity – a chance to
transform the people of Matera into “cultural citizen” who, in turn,
would nurture culture as an endogenous growth process (Sacco & Segre,
2009). Unfortunately, political tensions and fragmented economic in-
terests weakened this vision and, along with it, civic engagement.
At MQ a far-reaching participation was not planned from the be-
ginning, but as the first winning project triggered manifold resistance, a
long mediating process started. Hence, this generated new participation
with a more balanced solution at the end. For BCL, participation was
manifold. First, the neighbourhood gang acted as ‘cultural translators’
by explaining the initiative to the other inhabitants in their jargon and
asking for approval. As a result, the residents took part in the whole
project. The artists were inspired by the anecdotes, life experiences, and
stories of the people who live in the suburban neighbourhood (Bottini,
2018). Moreover, participation continues both practically and virtually.
Practically, in that the inhabitants are still taking care of the murals,
explaining the artwork to visitors, and economically benefitting from
the venture, and virtually, in that 999contemporary is still engaged in
social networking about the project (Petersen, 2008) and in social
storytelling on the Internet (Ferilli et al., 2016).
In RCF's case, participation meant collaborations between public
and private organisations, each with a stake in Rome's audio-visual
industry. In the implementation phase, engagement by citizens fed the
‘Reaction Roma’ sub-project and other sub-projects led urban renewal.
This concept of participation is coherent with the UNESCO, 2003
Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003) where
local actors and communities are granted a central role.
5.3. Legitimacy
Institutional and new institutional theories show that legitimacy is a
key aspect of the behaviour of organisations (Marchegiani, Giustiniano,
& Brunetta, 2014). From this perspective, PCIs can be seen as entities
aiming for a common goal through active collective collaboration. Or-
ganisational legitimacy refers to the extent to which the (cultural) en-
vironment recognises explanations for an organisation to exist
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Accordingly, PCIs strive for legitimacy as
instrumental to success.
In PCIs, legitimacy plays an important role as a factor that motivates
collective effort, ignites participation, and enables the coordination of
collective actions towards a shared goal (‘ex-ante legitimacy’, found in
all the cases). Matera began as a grass-roots initiative promoted by a
group of inhabitants, and civic engagement was both one of the main
L. Biondi, et al.
aims of the cultural project as well as the method used to implement it.
This participation was a crucial element in giving legitimacy to the
initiative, and eventually to the designation of Matera as an ECoC for
2019. Similarly, RCF was motivated by an intent to gain legitimacy
from UNESCO and be admitted to the UCCN. In BCL, the efforts of the
orchestrator led to legitimacy for the owner of the complex and the
Municipality of Rome, which partially funded the initiative.
Legitimacy also stems from recognition of the PCIs' success. Once an
initiative has received public recognition and attention, and generated
economic benefits, legitimacy reaches a broader audience and acts as a
collector of wider participation (‘ex-post legitimacy’, found in all cases).
In RCF, “Rome City of Film” became an umbrella brand and the logo
has been used to represent both joint projects and solo endeavours. The
reinforcement of legitimacy is also true in MQ, where ex-post legitimacy
has emerged from visitor numbers and the perceived success of the area
given its many flourishing restaurants, events, and positive media
coverage. The same is true for BCL, where many awards and ac-
knowledgments have reinforced the initiative's legitimacy and enriched
the identity of the citizens.
In line with the debate on the consistency of an institutional theory
of art (Dickie, 1974), our study shows that legitimacy is not anchored to
any aesthetic or intrinsic artistic value. It is participation that triggers
legitimacy, and each case study shows a turning point marked by a
concurrent rise in participation, legitimacy, and institutionalisation of
the PCI. Hence, we can conclude that legitimacy plays a central role in
the dynamics of a PCI.
5.4. Space
Individual and organisational action is embedded in space, which
provides both physical and institutional conditions (Montanari,
Scapolan, & Mizzau, 2016). Through participation, space entails an
intangible dimension, like an icon, by reinforcing or generating in-
dividual and collective identities (Våland & Georg, 2018). In line with
previous literature (Martí-Costa & Pradel, 2011; Smith & Strand, 2011;
Van Aalst & Van Melik, 2012), the empirical evidence demonstrates
that space plays a crucial role in legitimising cultural initiatives and in
considering cities as social and participatory spaces (Ferilli et al., 2016;
Sacco et al., 2019).
When considering space as a physical place, the territory in which
each initiative is located has been an important element in fostering
participation. This highlights the significance of context as content and
as a preliminary condition for generating or enhancing identity.
Consider the “quartier” in Vienna or the “complex” of Tor Marancia.
Both have open boundaries where a community lives and interacts. At
the MQ, the spatial fabric of the entire precinct acts as a shared ‘agenda’
that encourages more intense cooperation of the participating institu-
tions and even a common understanding of cultural projects. In quite a
similar way, BCL has created a sense of belonging and promoted greater
civic awareness for the common good. As Ferilli et al. (2016: 99) point
outs:
The logic of public art and culture interventions that is of interest here
does not imply thinking of public space as a stage for artworks or per-
formance (Pollock & Paddison, 2014). It is, quite differently, turning
public space into a co-creation arena where the very fact of being a re-
sident sets the conditions to become part of the design process.”
In the same way, the Matera landscape with its Sassi districts (M19)
and the beautiful landmarks of the Eternal City (RCF) provide addi-
tional meaning to the initiatives.
The PCIs we analysed each promote an at once urban, cultural, and
socio-economic regeneration process. Markedly, M19 and BCL show
that areas which were once considered as disadvantaged and declining
are now living a brand new life. All the initiatives also include a strong
link between the past and the future, bringing time into space. In the
city of Matera, the landscape and its surroundings give the impression
7
Cities 96 (2020) 102459
of being suspended in a dimension between tradition and modernity.
Aptly, their project is called “Ancient Future”. At MQ, space is an
idiosyncratic urban ensemble of historic and modern buildings. In BCL,
the architectural space of the compound has implicated a “musealisa-
tion” process. Therefore, it has also created a bridge between the past
and future of the area. In RCF, the city's historical significance features
in modern masterpieces of technology shot alongside beautiful land-
marks within a long-lasting and ever-developing tradition of film. From
each of these case studies, it is clear that time and space are important
and symbolic places for the generation of identity and collaboration.
6. Conclusions
This study aims at a deeper understanding of PCIs. Especially, we
focus on the way how they are orchestrated and the role of the or-
chestrator(s). We propose an abductive approach analysing four distinct
aspects shaping a PCI: governance and orchestration, participation,
legitimacy, and space. These intertwined elements draw a picture of the
four PCIs we studied as complex and multifaceted phenomena.
Disentangling this complexity, we lay the groundwork for further de-
bate on participation in cultural initiatives. Hereby three elements of
participatory governance play a crucial role: balancing top-down co-
ordination and bottom-up participation, legitimising the initiative (in-
ternally and externally) as well as enabling and organising commu-
nication.
First, orchestrating a PCI means walking a tightrope between top-
down coordination and bottom-up participation. The disparate interests
within a PCI warrant a top-down coordination to enable relevant sta-
keholders as well as less powerful ones to have a voice in the pre-im-
plementation phases. Therefore, a big advantage in project develop-
ment emerges if the orchestrator has a distinct vision and a charismatic
personality. On the other hand, the orchestrator may also consciously
leave empty canvasses to provide open windows for genuine partici-
pation. Thus, the challenge is to find the right mix between governance
and participation. Taking into account all vested interests in the early
stages of the project serves as a kind of anticipated conflict manage-
ment, which ultimately helps creativity flourish.
Second, the orchestrators continuously act in legitimising the pro-
jects – internally and externally. Internally means that they develop and
refine the vision of the PCI, trigger civic engagement and participation
of local communities and handle conflicts. External legitimacy means
that the orchestrators develop a consistent perception of the PCI to
outside stakeholders. To a certain extent, we can technically speak
about establishing a brand (MQ, RCF and M19). This increases public
awareness as well as participation through all phases of the project. In
each of our four case studies, we found the orchestrators leveraged the
symbolic power of space – the quartier, the complex, the districts, the
eternal city – and built a consistent external appearance on these arenas
of co-creation.
Third, communication in PCIs emerged as a common aspect of the
main discussion points. Etymologically, communication means ‘to
share, to make common’. It is an act of sensemaking that takes on a
fundamental role in creating and nurturing participation. In a PCI,
engaging stakeholders, reaching consensus, and mediating conflicts
demands that the orchestrator organises and enables communication
within and beyond the boundaries of the project. For the engagement in
the projects also emotions, consistency and trust play a central role.
Pure rhetoric is often felt as the expression of power by influential elites
(Ferilli et al., 2016), which has the opposite effect of fuelling disaffec-
tion and a sense of frustration.
In the starting phase, the emerging vision for the project can be
understood as a narrative constructed by orchestrator and commu-
nicated to potential stakeholders. In the opening-up phase, the narra-
tive becomes one of shared and collective action by the most active
stakeholders that comes in the form of an artefact. It might be a
storybook (the dossier for M19, the website for BCL), a formal
L. Biondi, et al.
specification (the urban planning project for MQ), or an umbrella brand
(RCF). In this phase, communication becomes a means to negotiate and
balance the interests of the various stakeholders who, through their
involvement, take control of the initiative and legitimize it. In the im-
plementation phase, the narrative dons its public face. It becomes fluid
and widespread, driven by the various actors involved. It is channelled
through newspapers, social media, signage - to varying degrees of
success. In some cases, such as BCL, the story continues well beyond the
work itself. In other cases, such as M19, criticism and disaffection arise
that is difficult to quell.
To sum up, the dynamics of governance and participation can be
adequately understood with the figure of ‘bricolage’. According to the
very requirements of the situation, the orchestrator acts as a bricoleur
experimenting with an ephemeral mix of vision, coordination, empty
canvasses and loose ends (Levi-Strauss, 1962; Lidegaard, Nuccio, &
Bille, 2018). However, we have to be aware that the orchestrators
might also have their own political agendas or be instrumentalised by
powerful political elites (Dudley, 2002).
For cultural professionals, urban and regional planners, policy ma-
kers, institutions, and citizens, this study offers new starting points for
understanding how PCIs are initiated and governed, and how they
unfold over time. The case studies show how PCIs can make significant
and earnest contributions to urban, cultural, and socio-economic re-
generation. Once again, art, culture and human progress are in-
extricably linked.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix 1. List of websites
For MQ:
Official website of the MQ: https://www.mqw.at, latest access
August 2018.
For M19:
Official website of the Associazione Matera: https://www.
associazionematera2019.it/, latest access August 2018.
Official website of the Matera 2019 ECoC: https://www.matera-
basilicata2019.it/it/, latest access August 2018.
Municipal Council of Matera Report (2014). Minutes of the muni-
cipal council meetings: http://www.comune.matera.it/
amministrazione/consiglio-comunale, latest access January 2017.
For BCL:
Official website of 999contemporary: http://www.
999contemporary.com/, latest access July 2018.
Official website of BCL: http://www.bigcitylife.it/, latest access
July 2018.
Facebook Page of 999contemporary: https://www.facebook.com/
999contemporary/, latest access July 2018.
Facebook Page of BCL. https://www.facebook.com/
bigcitylifetormarancia/, latest access July 2018.
Instagram Page of BCL: https://www.instagram.com/explore/
locations/761296941/museo-condominiale-di-tormarancia-the-big-
city-life-project/?hl=it, latest access August 2018.
For RCF:
Official website of the Reaction Roma project: https://www.
reactionroma.it, latest access August 2019.
Official website of RCF: http://www.romecityoffilm.com, latest
access July 2019.
Official website of the Museum of Cinema: http://www.
romecityoffilm.com/en/miac-museo-italiano-dellaudiovisivo-e-del-
cinema/, latest access July 2019.
8
Cities 96 (2020) 102459
References
Abfalter, D., & Piber, M. (2016). Strategizing cultural clusters: Long-range socio-political
plans or emergent strategy development? The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and
Society, 46(4), 177–186.
Abraham, A., & Platteau, J. P. (2004). Participatory development: Where culture creeps
in. In V. Rao, & M. Walton (Eds.). Culture and public action (pp. 210–233). Stanford,
US: Stanford University Press.
Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). The genesis and dynamics of organizational
networks. Organization Science, 23(2), 434–448.
Bailey, C., Miles, S., & Stark, P. (2004). Culture-led urban regeneration and the re-
vitalisation of identities in Newcastle, Gateshead and the North East of England.
International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(1), 47–65.
Bargna, I. (2011). Gli usi sociali e politici dell’arte contemporanea fra pratiche di par-
tecipazione e di resistenza. Antropologia, 11, 75–106.
Batterink, M. H., Wubben, E. F. M., Klerkx, L., & Omta, S. W. F. (2010). Orchestrating
innovation networks: The case of innovation brokers in the Agri-food sector.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(1), 47–76.
Blake, J. (2008). UNESCO’s 2003 convention on intangible cultural heritage: The im-
plications of community involvement in “safeguarding”. In L. Smith, & N. Akagawa
(Eds.). Intangible heritage (pp. 59–87). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Blessi, G. T., Grossi, E., Sacco, P. L., Pieretti, G., & Ferilli, G. (2016). The contribution of
cultural participation to urban well-being. A comparative study in Bolzano/Bozen
and Siracusa, Italy. Cities, 50, S16–S26.
Borin, E., & Donato, F. (2015). Unlocking the potential of IC in Italian cultural ecosys-
tems. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 285–304.
Borseková, K., Vaňová, A., & Vitálišová, K. (2017). Building Košice European capital of
culture: Towards a creative city? In N. Bellini, & C. Pasquinelli (Eds.). Tourism in the
city. Towards an integrative agenda on urban tourism (pp. 193–205). Berlin: Springer.
Bottini, L. (2018). The effects of built environment on community participation in urban
neighbourhoods: An empirical exploration. Cities, 81, 108–114.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ciolfi, L., Bannon, L. J., & Fernström, M. (2008). Including visitor contributions in cul-
tural heritage installations: Designing for participation. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 23(4), 353–365.
Clark, J., & Wise, N. (2018). Urban renewal, community and participation: Theory, policy and
practice. Springer.
Coblence, E., Normandin, F., & Haro, S. P. (2014). Sustaining growth through business
model evolution: The industrialization of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
(1986–2012). The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 44(3), 126–144.
Comunian, R. (2010). Rethinking the creative city: The role of complexity, networks and
interactions in the urban creative economy. Urban Studies, 48(6), 1157–1179.
Cooke, P. N., & Lazzeretti, L. (2008). Creative cities, cultural clusters and local economic
development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
De Frantz, M. (2005). From cultural regeneration to discursive governance: Constructing
the flagship of the Museumsquartier Vienna as a plural symbol of change.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1), 50–66.
Della Lucia, M., & Trunfio, M. (2018). The role of the private actor in cultural re-
generation: Hybridizing cultural heritage with creativity in the city. Cities, 82, 35–44.
Dickie, G. (1974). Art and the aesthetic: An institutional analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dinardi, C. (2015). Unsettling the role of culture as panacea: The politics of culture-led
urban regeneration in Buenos Aires. City, Culture and Society, 6(2), 9–18.
Dossier (2013). Together. Available at: http://www.matera-basilicata2019.it/it/archivi/
documenti.html.
Dossier (2014). Open the future. Available at http://www.matera-basilicata2019.it/it/
archivi/documenti.html.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case
research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.
Dudley, E. (2002). The critical villager: Beyond community participation. Routledge.
European Commission (2016). Report by the monitoring and advisory panel, 2016,
Matera European capital of culture 2019, first monitoring meeting, Brussels.
Available at: http://www.matera-basilicata2019.it/it/archivi/documenti.html.
Farinosi, M., Fortunati, L., O'Sullivan, J., & Pagani, L. (2018). Enhancing classical
methodological tools to foster participatory dimensions in local urban planning.
Cities, 88, 235–242.
Felicetti, M. (2015). Innovazione culturale e sviluppo locale. Matera come distretto cul-
turale. LaborEst, (11), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.19254/LaborEst.19211.19201.
Ferilli, G., Sacco, P. L., & Blessi, G. T. (2016). Beyond the rhetoric of participation: New
challenges and prospects for inclusive urban regeneration. City, Culture and Society,
7(2), 95–100.
Fursov, K., Thurner, T., & Nefedova, A. (2017). What user-innovators do that others don't:
A study of daily practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 153–160.
Gerometta, J., Häussermann, H., & Longo, G. (2005). Social innovation and civil society
in urban governance: Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies, 42(11),
2007–2021.
Grandori, A. (2010). A rational heuristic model of economic decision making. Rationality
and Society, 22(4), 477–504.
Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and
findings. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 11–15.
Jackson, M. R. (2004). Investing in creativity: A study of the support structure for U.S.
artists. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 34(1), 43–58.
L. Biondi, et al.
Johnson, L. (2016). Cultural capitals: Revaluing the arts, remaking urban spaces. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Jung, T. H., Lee, J., Yap, M. H., & Ineson, E. M. (2015). The role of stakeholder colla-
boration in culture-led urban regeneration: A case study of the Gwangju project,
Korea. Cities, 44, 29–39.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1962). La Pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon.
Lidegaard, C., Nuccio, M., & Bille, T. (2018). Fostering and planning urban regeneration:
The governance of cultural districts in Copenhagen. European Planning Studies, 26(1),
1–19.
Lotman, I. U. M. (2001). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. London, UK: IB
Tauris.
Marchegiani, L., Giustiniano, L., & Brunetta, F. (2014). Il ruolo delle istituzioni nella
teoria organizzativa. In P. Boccardelli, & F. Brunetta (Eds.). Istituzioni, Mercati e
Imprese. Il Ruolo Delle Istituzioni Nelle Strategie di Crescita (pp. 97–110). Milano, Italy:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Martí-Costa, M., & Pradel, M. (2011). The knowledge city against urban creativity?
Artists’ workshops and urban regeneration in Barcelona. European Urban and Regional
Studies, 19(1), 92–108.
Montanari, F., Scapolan, A. C., & Mizzau, L. (2016). Embeddedness and locational
choices: A study of creative workers in a dance organization. Urban Studies, 55(5),
1–18.
Nakagawa, S. (2010). Socially inclusive cultural policy and arts-based urban community
regeneration. Cities, 27, S16–S24.
O’Doherty, B., Inserra, I., & Mancini, M. (2012). Inside the white cube: l’ideologia dello
spazio espositivo. Johan & Levi.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
Petersen, S. M. (2008). Loser generated content: From participation to exploitation. First
Monday, 13(3).
Piber, M., Biondi, L., Demartini, P., Marchegiani, L., & Marchiori, M. (2017). Pursuing
Civic Engagement through Participatory Cultural Initiatives: mapping value creation,
outcome, performance and legitimacy. International Forum on Knowledge Asset
Dynamics (IFKAD 2017) Proceedings.
Pollock, V. L., & Paddison, R. (2014). On place making, participation and public art: The
Gorbals, Glasgow. Journal of Urbanism, 7, 85–105.
Pollock, V. L., & Sharp, J. (2012). Real participation or the tyranny of participatory
practice? Public art and community involvement in the regeneration of the Raploch,
Scotland. Urban Studies, 49(14), 3063–3079.
Pratt, A. C. (2010). Creative cities: Tensions within and between social, cultural and
economic development. City, Culture and Society, 1(1), 13–20.
Roodhouse, S., & Mokre, M. (2004). The MuseumsQuartier, Vienna: An Austrian cultural
experiment. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(2), 193–207.
Sacco, P., & Blessi, G. T. (2009). The social viability of culture-led urban transformation
processes: Evidence from the Bicocca District, Milan. Urban Studies, 46(5–6),
1115–1135.
Sacco, P., Ferilli, G., & Blessi, G. T. (2014). Understanding culture-led local development:
A critique of alternative theoretical explanations. Urban Studies, 51(13), 2806–2821.
Cities 96 (2020) 102459
Sacco, P., Ghirardi, S., Tartari, M., & Trimarchi, M. (2019). Two versions of heterotopia:
The role of art practices in participative urban renewal processes. Cities, 89, 199–208.
Sacco, P. L., & Segre, G. (2009). Creativity, cultural investment and local development: A
new theoretical framework for endogenous growth. Growth and innovation of com-
petitive regions (pp. 281–294). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Sacco, P. L., Tartari, M., Ferilli, G., & Blessi, G. T. (2019). Gentrification as space do-
mestication. The high line art case. Urban Geography, 40(4), 529–554.
Santagata, W. (2002). Cultural districts, property rights and sustainable economic
growth. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(1), 9–23.
Sasaki, M. (2004). Creativity and cities: The role of culture in urban regenerating.
Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, 27(3), 29–35.
Sasaki, M. (2010). Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion:
Rethinking creative city theory through a Japanese case study. Cities, 27, S3–S9.
Shipley, R., & Kovacs, J. F. (2008). Good governance principles for the cultural heritage
sector: Lessons from international experience. Corporate Governance: The international
journal of business in society, 8(2), 214–228.
Smith, A., & Strand, I. V. K. (2011). Oslo’s new opera house: Cultural flagship, re-
generation tool or destination icon? European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(1),
93–110.
Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Stern, M. J., & Seifert, S. C. (2009). Civic engagement and the arts: Issues of conceptualization
and measurement. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.
Stolarick, K., & Florida, R. (2006). Creativity, connections and innovation: A study of
linkages in the Montréal region. Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1799–1817.
Throsby, D. (2010). The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
UNESCO (2003). Text of the convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural
heritage. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention.
UNESCO (2005). Jodhpur initiatives: Asia–Pacific creating creative communities—A strategy
for the 21st century. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.
Våland, M. S., & Georg, S. (2018). Spacing identity: Unfolding social and spatial-material
entanglements of identity performance. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34(2),
193–204.
Van Aalst, I., & Van Melik, R. (2012). City festivals and urban development: Does place
matter? European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(2), 195–206.
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-
creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public
Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation:
When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review,
71(6), 880–892.
Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zukin, C. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing
American citizen. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Zukin, S., Kasinitz, P., & Chen, X. (2015). Global cities, local streets: Everyday diversity from
New York to Shanghai. Routledge.