An Environmental Participatory Governance (EPG) Model for the Ecological Transition: The Case of the Basilicata Region

Abstract

In the current poly-crisis scenario, in which we face the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and unstable geopolitical conditions, a just ecological transition increasingly plays a pivotal role in determining our visions for the future. Communities must be adequately prepared and made protagonists in order to ethically orient and support this transition. This article shows an experience from the Basilicata region (southern Italy) that is intended to engage the community in the just ecological transition process. To that end, an Environmental Participatory Governance model was implemented, exploiting both the synod of the churches for existing community networks and scientific expertise to support multi-actor knowledge integration and learning. The developed model allowed us to obtain an in-depth knowledge of the main players who carry out environmental education, the strengths and weaknesses of their environmental strategies, and the synergy among them. Bottom–up outcomes, in terms of perceived environmental risks and suggested priority actions, represent a challenge for stakeholders, but confronting these has led to significant alignment of visions for the implementation of a shared action plan. The most significant result of this work is the learnings concerning the implementation of a participatory experience, which should be replicable at different scales and for any environmental problem. Such an experience allows for the possibility of forming consolidated networks, which make environmental governance more effective at the regional level.

1. Introduction

As the horizon of the 2030 Agenda [1] nears, the challenges of sustainable development in the economic, social, and environmental dimensions must be tackled as soon as possible [2], but these are more challenging than ever before considering our fragile poly-crisis scenario [3].

In the last few years, the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and increasingly unstable geopolitical conditions have hampered efforts to make socioeconomic and production models sustainable, turn climate and environmental challenges into opportunities across all policy areas, and lead a transition that is just and inclusive for all.

On a political level, these ambitions have led to the definition of development strategies and the approval of programs and funding for recovery, sustainability, and innovation, such as the Green Deal [4] at the European level and Italy’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) [5] at the national level.

From the international to the national level, the ecological transition—understood as a resilient recovery process in which we respond simultaneously to the economic recession and the climate crisis [6]—presents a challenge. Achieving this transition hinges on technological innovations devoted to achieving societal changes in compliance with the criteria for environmental sustainability [7].

In order to be efficient, the process of ecological transition should include social collaboration and political participation [8,9], as these are key factors in ensuring we build a more resilient society. At the political level, it is crucial that we develop a governance process for actively supporting sustainability transitions by steering and aligning societal processes [10]. This is a multi-actor process [11,12]; hence, it cannot be thought of as being vertically controlled or predetermined by a single authority [10]. Instead, transition governance requires a polycentric system to help manage cross-scale and dynamic environmental issues as well as address the extant complex interrelationships with social and environmental systems [13]. Such a governance is based on a complex combination of multiple levels and diverse types of organizations (e.g., governmental units, agencies, quangos, and several stakeholder organizations) that overlap in their realms of responsibility and functional capacities. In this context, voluntary associations and community-based organizations play critical supporting roles, even if those are not assigned in an official manner [13]. The coordination of diverse people interacting within different contexts and conditions and the exchange and integration of their knowledge, interests, perspectives, and values [14] potentially produces innovative results; this is conducive to mutual learning, though achieving such positive outcomes is an ongoing challenge [15].

To make global efforts to bring in an ecological transition and thereby build more resilient societies, it is vital to consider the crucial importance of polycentric governance structures and to promote flexible and scalable governance solutions. At the local scale, each region has to face its own challenges, which requires adopting tools and paths that account for local abilities, resources, and cultures, in a continuous mode of adaptation between feasibility and impact [14].

A model understood as “a simplified, stylized and formalized representation of (a part of) reality” seems to be the best solution to deal with the complexity of sustainable transitions [16]. Furthermore, explicit, clear, and systematic models best allow for managing the dynamics of a system and facilitate systematic experiments that might not be possible otherwise [16]. In this regard, a systematic participatory modeling (PM) approach holds great potential for facilitating the governance of transitions.

Public participation in environmental decision making is a legal right in Europe. This principle was established two decades ago by the Aarhus Convention. Since then, it has been increasingly recognized that participation is a practical necessity for transitioning into sustainability [17]. The European Green Deal highlights that citizens must be considered a driving force of the transition to sustainability and that the conditions for empowering citizens and building effective forms of public participation need to be created. This requires deep cultural, institutional, legal, and potentially constitutional changes [17], favoring both the involvement of the population and the implementation of green policies.

A new eco–social citizenship should be promoted [8], posing, at its basis, the promotion and application of Environmental Participatory (EP) processes to ensure that citizens’ sense of social belonging to the community is more concrete. The construction of a path of participation through the implementation of participatory scenarios of self-sustainable local development allows the creation of a sufficiently complex and articulated local society for the care of the territory, supporting ecological transitions [18]. There is, in fact, a need to build trustful interactions which empower people and value their identities. This makes possible the connection of innovative energies already acting on the territory, stimulating them to build together shared scenarios of the future starting from the cultural change of local populations [19].

In practice, this new system should translate into an operational program capable of combining environmental protection with economic development and social growth, where all the people involved at different social and political levels are the main actors of the ecological transition—they are the ones making the world safer and healthier (Figure 1).

However, achieving effective coordination and cooperation between public authorities and civil society has proven difficult [10]. This remains the case despite the fact that, in this context, renewable energy communities (RECs) have emerged as a way to “organize” citizens that want to cooperate in an energy-related activity based on open and democratic participation and governance, so that the activity can provide services or other benefits to the members or the local community. They are introduced as key players, capable of fostering cooperation between individuals, businesses, and organizations (and public administrations) involved in the production, sharing, and use of locally produced energy according to innovative management schemes [20]. Their growth is a result of collaborative efforts from both public and private sectors, and the crucial involvement of public administrations in promoting and expanding RECs is undeniable. In this sense, a renewable energy community can be an effective solution in accelerating the transition towards cleaner and more decentralized energy systems [21,22,23].

This paper explores this complex matter, suggesting an Environmental Participatory Governance (EPG) model as a flux of methodological steps to be followed for achieving the ecological transition on a regional scale. It is based on previous experience from the framework of the 49^th Social Week of Italian Catholics, held in Taranto in October 2021 [24]; here, the ecological transition was faced with a trans-disciplinary approach which has taken integral ecology [25] as its paradigm. In this work, the subject of ecological transition has been investigated under the environmental profile, exploiting the Synod of the Catholic Church [26], that represents a precious opportunity for people engagement exploring participatory ways of exercising responsibility in the effort to build a more habitable world.

In this paper, the first EPG model for ecological transition governance has been planned for the Basilicata region (i.e., B-EPGm), as the first realistic attempt to create a knowledge and sharing network and disseminate, over the territory, the urgency of an enlarged governance structure. The latter is a complex, adaptive system, facilitating parallel efforts able to experiment with different single ideas and role combinations which, when combined with information, transmission, and learning, can lead to institutional innovation to cope with change [27].

The article is structured as follows: Section 2 explains the theory of the participatory modeling for environmental planning. The Basilicata region has been selected as case study in Section 3. Section 4 describes the developed methodology. Section 5 focuses on the obtained results, along with an in-depth discussion on the strengths and weakness of this kind of analysis. The conclusions are provided in Section 6.

2. Environmental Participatory Governance Models

In recent decades, environmental governance has increasingly made use of public participation in the decision-making process, adopting the collaborative approaches required by new political and regulatory directives [28].

The benefits of participation include increased public trust, transformation of adversarial relationships, and higher quality and more durable decisions [29,30]. Participatory approaches generally share common concepts such as systems thinking, inter-disciplinarity, and multi-stakeholder representation [31].

High levels of trust and a shared sense of purpose among the participants facilitate the construction of an overall vision, collectively identifying and agreeing on solutions to problems [32], deriving from the contributions of all social actors for an effective governance of the territory. Communities are asked to take part in defining the strategies, fostering creative pathways towards sustainability and ecological transition, and planning and implementing measures for the care of territories with a view to ensuring the integral and sustainable development of a territory.

Although much of the scientific literature reports on successful experiences of participatory processes, the complexities, and difficulties of implementing them cannot be denied. The complexity of environmental issues makes it crucial to coordinate decision making across geographical scales, organizational boundaries, and policy fields. Engaging public participants in such nested decision-making processes represents a major challenge [33]. In practice, one-way activities for public input, such as public hearings and public notice and comment, have become standard, while collaborative approaches such as co-management and community science remain underutilized [34,35,36].

Participatory modeling is widely recognized, useful approach in understanding complex socioenvironmental problems by improving social learning and integrating the knowledge of experts and stakeholders [37]. This includes different methods and tools to support collaboration and stakeholders’ involvement throughout an environmental planning process, from problem formulation to knowledge generation, enabling the development and evaluation of alternative decisions and their implementation. Nevertheless, participatory modeling has important potential to support the finding of solutions for the difficulties of participatory planning. A literature review suggests that it is still necessary to better understand the complexities of participatory processes and to investigate how best to select and implement methods and tools to achieve the desired benefits [38]. In the meantime, it is important to understand participatory modeling in relation to the real-world complex decision-making contexts of environmental problems. These span over diverse legislations and policy fields at multiple geographical scales, administrative levels, and actors [39].

In addition, environmental participatory modeling systematically addresses knowledge integration and learning, neglecting the facilitation of a multi-value perspective within a democratic process and integration across organizations within a governance system [37].

From a theoretical point of view, the concepts of integration (understood as an effort to include and combine the key aspects of a certain issue, including the understanding of their relationships, e.g., integration of knowledge across values and organizations) and participation (understood as a way to engage people and generate commitment, legitimacy, and acceptance) should guide the design of an integrative and participatory process, along with all the procedural aspects they include.

As a process-oriented approach, participatory modeling comprises three phases: problem identification, data and knowledge collection, and problem analysis. These can be approached using the 4Ps rule (Figure 2): purpose, process, partnerships, and products [38].

According to the investigated topic, the geographical scale has to be defined, and one must determine the types of participants that should be involved. Almost all studies in the literature (70%) have a regional scale of interest. This scale commonly requires coordination with both larger and smaller scales and should be embedded within the surrounding governance system [37].

The capability of engaging people in this governance structure significantly affects the model-based outcomes [28]. Participatory governance is expected to contribute to improving the “quality” of environmental outputs by incorporating locally held knowledge and by opening the political arena for environmental interests in governance decisions affecting environmental outcomes [30]. The involvement of those with local knowledge helps in creating better-informed decisions, enables social learning, helps in revealing potential win–win interventions, and fosters the making of more sustainable decisions. According to the boundaries and the scopes of the PM, different types of knowledge, such as scientific, expert, and layman knowledge, can be targeted. Experts, stakeholders, and local community members represent the main sources of information that can be used to identify knowledge needs.

Methodologically, it is very important to establish the width of engagement through the selection of a range of stakeholders and other actors included in the participatory processes. Because it is impossible to invite all possible participants, there are preestablished selection criteria which identify actors that should be involved (those who may support implementation, those who possess valuable knowledge and perspectives, and those who are affected by the process).

With reference to this, the literature assigns the leading role in initiating and leading the PM processes to the initiators who correspond to the governmental agencies, scientists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [37].

In detail, scientists take on the role of strategic facilitators in order to promote the dialogue between the various social actors and determine the contextual conditioning factors at every stage of the process, both inside and outside the EPG. In addition, scientific support is essential for enhancing the mutual knowledge of the main social actors; this is also required to bolster comparisons and dialogues for co-planning, creating occasions for public formation. Researchers, as professional mediators, establish clear rules and procedures based on the characteristics of the process, and provide a representation of the environmental issues of the region. Skilled facilitators or mediators may be able to bring initially adversarial parties together, establishing and maintaining ground rules for negotiation and ensuring fairness [40]. The sharing of technical–scientific information through simple and clear universal language facilitates a full awareness of the existing environmental problems and increases the collective sense of responsibility. Cultural institutions have a strategic role: to facilitate participation, to help in the creation of social capital, to spread the “culture of sustainability”, and to train the subjects involved in the decision-making processes.

The environmental groups and other actors motivated by environmental concerns specifically have a strong incentive to participate in EPGs for environmental matters and thus can be rather strongly represented.

Direct democracy initiatives cannot be limited only to actors with higher sociocultural statuses. It is for this reason that also non-state actors, such as environmental associations, have been targeted in this initiative [8]

3. Case Study

In this work, the Basilicata region represents the test area for designing the EPG model. As in the reference study [24], this region was chosen mainly for its heterogenous environmental pressures and for its strategic role from an energetic point of view at national level (Figure 3). In addition, a plan for the ecological transition is completely missing in this region.

Basilicata is a small region in Southern Italy. It consists of two provinces, Potenza (PZ) and Matera (MT); from the ecclesial point of view, the region is divided into six dioceses (Figure 3). These have been selected as the minimal territorial units capable of guaranteeing an effective and sensible interface with the various communities (see Section 4.1).

The investigated region is mostly mountainous, with a lot of forests and isolated small villages. It is a sparsely populated region, due to the poor infrastructural endowment, the lack of attractiveness, and the constant migratory phenomena. This has contributed to the protection of the territory, characterized by significant environmental features, landscaping, water resources, and hydrocarbons. In fact, there are several parks, both national and regional, and protected areas [41]. Basilicata is rich in surface and underground water resources and is characterized by the presence of an important system of water infrastructures (reservoirs, weirs, and pipelines) for the accumulation and conveyance of water [42]. The subsoil is rich in hydrocarbons (crude oil, gas fuel, sulfur, and LPG) producing 74.4% of national onshore natural gas production, 90.1% of oil, and 100% of LPG [43]. Hydrocarbon production in Basilicata comes mainly from the Centro Olio Val d’Agri (COVA), in a highly anthropized area, and from Tempa Rossa and, to a lesser extent, Pisticci plants. In addition, the regional territory hosts two national interest sites (NISs): Tito (PZ) and Val Basento (MT). These represent contaminated areas classified as dangerous by the Italian State and which require soil, subsoil, and surface and groundwater reclamation interventions to avoid environmental and health damage [44]. The first one, Tito, is also characterized by the co-presence of industrial, commercial, and residential sites.

Basilicata is among the few Italian regions to have already achieved the objectives defined by the Burden Sharing Decree in 2020; this decree was produced by the RES to cover the final consumption. Terna data as of 2020 show how the Basilicata region satisfies the entire annual electricity demand through production from renewable sources (52.1% gross final consumption of energy covered by RES [45]). The structure of the regional RES production park (

Table 1. Main RES plants in Basilicata (Source: [46,47]).

Kind of RES	No. of Plants	Nominal Power (MW)	Net Annual Production (GWh)
Wind	1572	1282	2405
Photovoltaic	8269	378	484
Hydro-electric	14	130	188
Biomass	31	81	255

) is also significant. Wind represents 13.3% in terms of the number of renewable installations and about 70.3% of the total installed power (1280 MW). The plant consistency of renewables in the Basilicata Region in 2020 have been schematically summarized in Table 1.

It should be emphasized that Basilicata is the region with the highest percentage of wind farms on the national territory (25%), followed by Puglia (20.8%). The local community and the media have called it an area of “wild wind”.

The greatest penetration of PV panels installed on the ground on non-marginal land is observed in the southern regions of Italy and in Puglia and Basilicata, with an incidence of 72% and 64%, respectively [47].

Inadequate energy–environmental planning and the intensive exploitation of these resources are not adequately supported through effective environmental management and information systems and have produced social conflicts. Environmental and health impacts (which have not been yet scientifically proven), the lack of transparent environmental information on monitoring data, and the non-involvement of the community in territorial governance have led to a decrease in trust among the citizens [48].

The RECs constitute an innovative model for which the energy requirement is met locally, independently, in a shared way, and using RES alongside the creation of an intelligent infrastructure. This is legislated with the law “Basilicata RECs and collective self-consumption groups”, 16 June 2022. To date, there is only one REC in Tito, although there is considerable progress facilitated by the establishment of a Consortia involving the municipalities [49].

4. The EPG Model

In light of a mandate from the Regional Council of the Laity and the significant experience gained in the context of [24], taking into account the importance of the EPG, the authors of the present paper propose a methodology which consists of six phases (see Figure 4).

The Basilicata Environmental Participatory Governance model (B-EPGm) was operationalized by a multi-level participatory approach along a sequence of procedures that made use of specific tools and generated different outputs according to the vertical structure reported in Figure 4.

Specifically, Phase 0 consisted of a preliminary process design through the environmental challenge selection and the purpose definition processes. This was carried out through research in the literature, analyzing the studies already carried out on the issue with the intention of building an understanding of the current scenario.

The proposal to join the B-EPGm was formalized and publicly presented in the context of a plenary assembly held in the presence of journalists and television representatives.

Phase 1, in fact, is intended to launch the challenge to set up a so-called “engagement community” that is able to promote the “necessary cultural revolution for the integral development of the Basilicata region. Such revolution should, of course, be respectful of the resources of this territory and the dignity of its inhabitants” [50].

In this way, it was possible to begin to identify potentially interested parties, building a database of contacts and references.

The participatory process was triggered from the early stages to ensure a truly shared decision.

Phase 2 was represented by the collection of data sources, intended to identify the kinds of knowledge that are needed to understand the issue. This means the identification of data and data source types. Through the processing of the acquired data and direct contacts (e.g., email, phone calls), it was possible to implement a participants and stakeholders database.

In the third methodological phase, a think tank was created. The co-design and co-management aspects of the entire process have been ensured thanks to the creation of a sort of control room that involves representatives of the different territorial units; each of these are characterized by specific environmental problems.

The perceptions and preferences of citizens and interest groups are, in fact, presumably not neutral in terms of the geography of the environmental resources and problems, and the engagement of actors is likewise not neutral in terms of the level of governance [30]. The “think tank” was entrusted with the task of implementing the methodological steps and the fine-tuning of the survey tools; the planning and sharing of the contents, methodological approaches, and technological supports to be adopted were under their remit. For the entire process, the coordination and management of this “think tank” was carried out to ensure full sharing of the goals to be achieved and the tools with which to pursue them, as well as representativeness at the regional level. The implemented tools were workshops and a cover letter addressed to the participants.

The fourth phase was the territory explorative investigation. This concerned two processes: a consultation process and a survey on the perception of environmental risks. The tools used for this territory explorative investigation were questionnaires that were addressed to participants and workshops to help obtain a shared knowledge through the return of the supplied material. In addition, another output was the creation of a network.

Phase 5 involved a training seminar on a strategic topic through the identification of the contents of the training and related speakers as an epistemic moment for the community, according to [51].

The co-project process represented the sixth methodological phase, finalized through the identification of priority actions for a just ecological transition. The adopted tools were questionnaires and the request for proposals from participants, interviews with stakeholders, and a public focus group [52,53,54,55]. The expected outputs were the alignment of visions and the integration of knowledge, structured in an action plan to support a just ecological transition in the case study region. These two most important public events are detailed in the Supplementary Materials file.

All the methodological phases and their materials, in terms of the methods and tools regularly used in the B-EPGm, have the potential to act as a learning phase, supporting discussions among the involved scientists, participants, and stakeholders; the goal is to understand both reality and knowledge, which are fundamentally connected.

4.1. Data Sources and Tools

According to the B-EPGm purpose, it is necessary to identify the knowledge needed to understand and address the issue. The sources and types of data, both qualitative and quantitative, required for this kind of study should be as heterogeneous and diversified as possible to assist an understanding of the reality. The proper selection of participants capable of bringing knowledge and valuable expertise to the B-EPGm is of paramount importance. This adds to the information presented by the sources in the literature, the examination (by semi-automated textual analysis) of the studies already carried out, and the documents provided by the government of the territory, such as the regional authority’s current plans.

As shown in Figure 5, the scientists lead and manage the process of collecting data. These have been grouped into two boxes.

The first one includes the sources from the literature; these were used to acquire information about the state of the art in the investigated field. All documents/plans drawn up on the local scale by regional bodies have been also collected and examined for an overview of the investigated area.

The second part refers to the knowledge holders, divided into categories: “Participants” and “Stakeholders”. Both of these interest groups can be seen as different types of social actors, having fundamental and transversal impacts on the quality of the process and the success of the outcomes. All have been selected through procedures that aim the clarify the roles and the mandate.

The participants in this work were identified firstly among the Catholic environmental groups (e. g. associations, movements, Laudato sì circles [56]), exploiting the preexisting network with their leaders and among local community members. It has certainly been more feasible to directly involve a few leaders who were already organized to engage a larger number of participants and spread the B-EPGm experience to a larger population. A total of 30 participants were directly involved in this work, whereas 200 were indirectly involved through their leaders.

A representation of leaders and local community members was incorporated into a think tank, a sort of control room through we could ensure their active participation in all phases of the process (model development and use, process preparation and setup, formulation of objectives, and training seminar). The think tank comprised 7 people.

In addition to the participants, the stakeholders were involved as knowledge holders.

As far as the representation of civil society is concerned, the selection was based on the integration of the most relevant values in relation to the topic. In light of this aim, layer environmental voluntary associations like WWF, Legambiente, and Italia Nostra were involved. The International Society of Doctors for the Environment was also identified as an organization that is supportive of the goals of this project due to the health-related impacts of environmental issues. The selection for the stakeholders and experts’ category was made with assurances of the competencies and responsibilities of the individuals, as regulated through current environmental legislation (the Italian Environmental Code approved by Legislative Decree n° 152 of 3 April 2006). This guaranteed the formal decision-making process occurred at all three local levels of the Italian government (i.e., regional, provincial, and local). The two categories included the technical managers of public administration (territorial administrative districts), the Director of the Regional Agency for the Protection of the Environment, and the institutional representatives of local authorities; we achieved a sample of 15 units.

Participants and stakeholders represent the “end-users” within the B-EPGm.

Regarding the tools used in this project, the consultation process envisaged a phase of territorial investigation which made use of online questionnaires. The general structure, content, and types of questions were developed by scientists in collaboration with the think tank. Online questionnaires have been implemented to minimize costs and facilitate maximum participation. They were planned in accordance with the sections described in Figure 6.

The first section, “Who”, comprised the implementation of the registry of associations in order to facilitate the mutual knowledge of volunteers and the organizations they represent. This part is aimed at obtaining the data necessary for the reconstruction of the data of the involved subjects with information relating to the territory to which they belong.

The second phase, “What”, was related to the valorization and sharing of the initiatives carried out at regional level by the individual organizations.

The third section, “Assessment”, carried out an assessment of the ability of the involved associations in disseminating and raising awareness of the culture of sustainability. During such processes, the various associations were asked to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of this action in the territory and the degree of environmental awareness in the Church’s training courses at various levels.

The fourth section, “Perception of environmental risks”, focused on the survey; this aimed to determine the perceptions of environmental risks that are considered the most dangerous in the area of origin of the participants.

The fifth section, “What to do?”, was dedicated to obtaining the strategic lines of action for the ecological transition of Basilicata region.

It was considered that environmental groups are mostly made up of volunteers on a non-profit basis. For this reason, all meetings and workshops were held online and outside of working hours. Since participants made room in their already stressful working schedules, attention was paid to making them feel warmly welcomed, receiving their ideas and opinions with respect, and allowing critical views. The training seminar was realized as an online frontal lesson that was open to the public who were not directly involved in the B-EPGm.

Plenary assemblies were held in a mixed mode, and these were open to the public to facilitate participation at a regional level and to maximize learning among end-users.

Tools and outputs, like meeting proceedings, video recordings, and dissemination materials, were made available on an i-cloud platform to support the various phases and discussion between researchers, participants, and stakeholders.

4.2. Experience

The experience gained through this research activity began with the mandate received from the Regional Committee. This has been secured according to the expertise and skills of the involved researchers by implementing a significant bottom–up research experience as a contribution to the scientific community regarding environmental participatory model debate.

Over a period of about six months (see Figure 7), an innovative and efficient participatory experience was carried out, achieving the involvement of people in the real world.

The construction of this real participation has faced considerable difficulties. Despite the initial sharing of values and ideals (including the predominant Catholic paradigm of the care of Creation) among the participants, it has not been easy for researchers to mediate environmental knowledge among such a heterogeneous people. The lack of dedicated funds and the scarce maturity of the Basilicata region with respect to citizen engagement, level of trust in institutions, and capacities in terms of the resources of public administration to plan for issues such as energy and the environment, was not supportive. However, the experience gained has produced positive feedback from the engaged participants and stakeholders. The latter appreciated the model for the methodological rigor, based on a scientific approach, and the opportunity it presented to compare knowledge and share experiences. Among these were the difficulties linked to their institutional roles in a historical period in which there is a need to recover relationships of trust and proximity. The complexity inherent in the socioenvironmental systems targeted by B-EPGm means that it is an urgent approach for participatory processes and greater investments, meeting the cultural challenge that is necessary if we are to implement an ecological transition.

5. Results and Discussion

The achieved results come from participants belonging to the six dioceses: 40% Tursi-Lagonegro, 35% Potenza, 10% Melfi-Rapolla-Venosa, 10 Matera-Irsina, 0% Acerenza, and 5% local members. Of the interviewees, 52.6% were between 46 and 60 years old, 31.6% were over 60, and 15.8% were between 31 and 45 years old. The total absence of young people under the age of 31 should be underlined. A proportion of 89.5% of the interviewees were women, 10.5% were men.

All the results achieved in this paper reflect the idea of people in the dioceses being able to manage environmental education/formations.

The questionnaire addressed to the participants (see Section 4.1) provided the following results, in terms of the weaknesses and strengths of the educational action for environmental awareness.

The main significant weaknesses are summarized in the following points:

-

The lack of a structured formative plan, provided by the dioceses, in facing environmental challenges.

-

The scarce knowledge of environmental issues, both in terms of technical skills and ethical issues provided by the Laudato sì encyclical.

-

The lack of a network among environmental groups.

-

The scarce capacity for dialogue within the local community/territory.

On the other side, a deep sensitivity to environmental issues, at both global and local scales, was recorded, along with an increasing ecological awareness for taking care of the environment as a common goal. This means that people want to be trained and involved in the process of ecological transition as well as in all initiatives focusing on the Laudato sì. These initiatives are considered precious opportunities for achieving increasingly widespread knowledge, according to the integral ecology paradigm. In addition, as suggested by most of the interviewees, common guidelines and best practices cases have to be implemented and shared with the local communities.

A cultural revolution is mandatory in overcoming all the above-mentioned weaknesses and in enhancing the current observed positives.

Figure 8 shows the results of our analysis of perceptions of environmental safeguarding in training courses at the diocesan level.

Section 4 of the questionnaire (see Figure 6) provided a list of the risks that were reported to be the ones that are affecting the territory most. These are presented in order here:

-

The impacts of hydrocarbon extraction on both the environment and human health.

-

Water pollution.

-

Drought.

-

Hydrological risks.

-

Climate change.

-

Global warming.

-

Soil pollution from inefficient waste management.

-

Coastal erosion.

-

Loss of biodiversity.

The perception of environmental problems is linked to personal experiences, knowledge, and attitudes. It is also influenced by the media and public policy issues [57].

The participants have provided important results that reflect what they think is the most urgent in supporting a just ecological transition in the Basilicata region.

The analysis of the obtained proposals gave us a very interesting picture of the actions which the participants considered to be priorities.

The main results are reported in

Table 2. Suggested action priorities from the bottom–up co-project phase.

Action Description	Percentage
Dissemination of ecological culture (rational use of resources and respect for rules) through effective educational action	87%
Energy conversion from fossil fuels to decarbonization	84%
Promotion of dialogue between institutions and associations, promoting communication and collaboration among the various institutional and non-institutional actors	82%
Strengthening management and control bodies	69%
Increasing planning capacity and environmental governance with an integrated approach between the various environmental matrices	54%
Remediation of polluted sites and redevelopment of industrial areas	50%
Increasing monitoring and research activities to gain knowledge of the real state of the environmental matrices and the risks for the population	49%
Optimization of resource use (water, raw materials)	46%
Enhancement and care of territories, with redevelopment where necessary	43%

.

Looking at Table 2, the environmental groups demonstrated that they are fully aware of the pivotal role they are called to play in increasing the presence of environmental education (according to 87%). This is fundamental in increasing the awareness among citizens and communities of their responsibility and in increasing their attention surrounding environmental issues and good governance. The concept of integral ecology, with the interconnections between environment, society, and economy, gives them the mandate to educate on sustainable development by disseminating an improved ecological culture. They possess a desire to be able to build structured collaboration with political decision makers in order to be constantly involved in both the planning processes and the construction of a vision based on the sustainable development of their territory.

In the process of ecological transition, decarbonization is a high priority (according to 84%). With reference to it, researchers had to explain in depth the socioeconomic implications of this transition, in order to clarify that decarbonization has three dimensions, in a mutual balance: environmental, social, and economic. In this sense, it is essential to open tables of discussion and debate with civil society organizations; the generation of consensus depends on this [58].

At the same time, actions aimed at minimizing the environmental and health impacts that are perceived as dangerous risks, such as the strengthening of monitoring networks, the reclamation and redevelopment of industrial sites, and an increased capacity for environmental planning and governance, are also considered priorities.

Territorial investigation outcomes and the actions that should be prioritized, as suggested by the participants, were delivered as the basis of discussion to the stakeholders to obtain an alignment of visions through a public focus group. This was composed of stakeholders from different backgrounds and different levels; they brought their own considerations and expertise, providing a co-constructed proposal that was open to implementation and a broader purpose and which represented a variety of visions. This led to the implementation of the guidelines of an action plan for a just ecological transition in the Basilicata region, as reported in

Table 3. The action plan for a just ecological transition in the Basilicata region: the output of the B-EPGm.

The Action Plan for a Just Ecological Transition in the Basilicata Region
Environmental education actions for the formation of environmental consciousness (increase environmental awareness, sustainable lifestyles)
Implementation of a decarbonization pathway Actions to support the ecological transition with holistic approaches that consider the socioeconomic—health—environmental impacts of RES plants (role of CERs) and the exploitation of hydrocarbons Scenario of industrial conversion of the oil sector with a depleted reservoir Strengthening of the resilience of electricity infrastructures
Implementation of strategic planning tools for a more effective territorial governance
Reclamation actions (SNI), environmental restoration, and enhancement of protected areas
Strategies for the rational use of resources (water, energy) and sustainable production and consumption models Installation of circular economy systems Upgrading waste management
Actions to strengthen enlarged Environmental Participatory Governance Restore the trust between citizens and their institutions Information, training, and synergy Bureaucratic streamlining

.

As highlighted in Table 3, environmental education—facilitating the formation of an environmental consciousness—is a top priority in the action plan of the B-EPGm. This requires a cultural challenge that implies a change in the mentality on which the ecological transition has to be based. Then, a regional decarbonization process, through a bottom–up pathway, should be implemented in order to deliver long-term emissions reductions and sustainable development, in collaboration with local communities (e.g., role of RECs), businesses, and other social key actors. This is particularly significant for a region like Basilicata, with an important local production of hydrocarbons; the exploitation of these will lead to a diminishment of the resource, with a consequent need for industrial reconversion with its socioeconomic impacts. The transition from localized to distributed energy (from traditional thermoelectric to a mix of RES plants) requires the strengthening of the resilience of electricity infrastructures to strengthen local energy network; its optimal distribution and use are important. The ecological transition of the Basilicata region must also make use of strategic planning tools for more effective territorial governance.

The planning of a territory no longer ends, as happened in the past, with the drafting of static, technical, and purely regulatory documents, but rather in long-term and strategic planning. We must envision a form of decision making that is aimed at processes which address and formulate strategies that ensure the sustainable future of these territories.

Reclamation actions (SNI), environmental restoration, and enhancement of protected areas also assume a relevant role in the ecological transition. In particular, the theme of reclamation in the era of ecological transition takes on a symbolic character because it aims to remove the negative effects of the past to provide impulses for rebirth, for the return of entire areas to the community in complete safety. Understandings of the processes that guide the reclamation of environmental matrices necessitate knowledge and scientific study of the complex microworlds that make up our ecosystems [59].

The conversion towards a more sustainable model must also foresee strategies for the rational use of resources and sustainable production and consumption by reducing waste of natural resources; such an approach involves the sharing, reusing, repairing, and recycling of existing materials and products for as long as possible. This will involve the installation of circular economy systems and the upgrading of waste management systems.

In addition to the strictly educational and more technical aspects, actions that are intended to strengthen the enlarged Environmental Participatory Governance approach were identified as priorities. In fact, considering the significant and proactive experience lived through the application of the B-EPGm, participants have recognized the value of the implemented networks and participatory processes. Supporting a just ecological transition is essential if we are to reduce the distance between citizens and institutional representatives; it is important to recognize trust as the foundation of their relationships. Information, training, and synergy are the crucial aspects to focus on [60], together with the necessity of reducing excessive bureaucratic burdens.

The final outcome of this work is the action plan, a document that reflects the needs of the Basilicata region; these needs must be met to make the ecological transition a real process. The essential condition to make it effective and efficient is to keep the enlarged participatory governance alive.

6. Conclusions

This work addresses the need for supporting planning and decision-making processes in the governance of complex socioenvironmental systems. Such governance urgently needs innovative and efficient participatory processes that should be implemented in the real world as soon as possible. The complexity targeted by these efforts makes them long and difficult to apply and manage, with outcomes that are often unrecognized in any decisions outside the model effort itself.

To be fully effective in supporting participatory planning, a lot of effort remains to be faced. Promoting knowledge integration and learning among participants, and integrating organizations within governance systems comprise the initial stages of the mentioned process. Hence, a key aspect is the building of structures within and between research institutions and practices and the connection with the surrounding governance system.

The implementation of the B-EPGm follows this direction. The experience carried out in the Basilicata region has highlighted how complicated and difficult it can be to engage social partners in dialogue and to facilitate discussions on such a complex theme as the environment.

Despite these difficulties and the limits we encountered due to the lack of dedicated funds, there was positive feedback from end-users regarding the transparency and rigor of the adopted scientific approach. It is noteworthy that all involved actors, including politicians, requested that such participatory approaches become structured and systematic, thus giving full meaning to the created enlarged governance.

The proposed B-EPGm is both theory- and field-based; it was created with the aim of designing an effective enlarged governance model. The most significant theoretical contribution of the B-EPGm can be identified in the scientific rigor with which the various methodological steps of the model were designed (including the relative procedures and tools that were implemented and operatively tested through real-world participatory engagement).

By involving the main players, this model has demonstrated its validity in supporting the construction of bottom–up design ecological transition paths at a regional scale.

The replicability at different geographical scales and the exportability of this model to any environmental issues means that the model comprises a valid contribution to the scientific community. This is instrumental in obtaining real-world experiences and feedback to further improve the innovation of processes in environmental governance.

This kind of innovative and participatory governance model is therefore essential in dealing efficiently with challenges in ecological transition at the local level.

They can promote meaningful knowledge sharing, collaboration, and mutual learning between stakeholders.

The implemented methodology, which may in the future be extended to other stakeholders and to other spatial scales, is well suited for supporting medium- and long-term programming actions that are based on the identification of real-world and local needs.

The impact of these experiences is broader than what could be reached at a mere legislative level. Public engagement is a way to reframe public opinion about environmental issues and help people to change their mentality. Effective social and environmental innovation requires systems thinking when addressing complex challenges such as environmental ones. Through these Environmental Participatory Governance models, communities—adequately informed and made fully aware—can be supported in becoming protagonists in the change towards a just ecological transition.