Problems and Purpose

The Gata-Malcata region, spanning the Serra de Malcata in Portugal and the Sierra de Gata in Spain, represents a cross-border territory marked by shared ecological features, socio-economic fragility, and exposure to severe environmental risks, such as wildfires. This cross-border region is characterized by shared landscapes, potentials, and challenges. ‘Both areas are rural, sparsely populated, and grapple with fragile economies. Both territories are highly vulnerable to forest fires and water scarcity and seek to respond to the need for landscape planning and management to prevent forest fires and implement innovations regarding water management systems and the prevention of scarcity scenarios [1].' Both goals are also linked with the valorisation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, making it an ideal site for testing innovative, cooperative approaches to ecological resilience and participatory governance.

This participatory initiative was initiated in response to two interconnected problems. Firstly, the region faces escalating threats from climate change, such as wildfires, water scarcity, droughts, and biodiversity loss, which increasingly affect the safety and livelihood of local populations [2]. In both territories, a collective awareness of environmental risks prevails, impacting the daily lives of the local population [3]. These risks not only endanger ecosystems but also worsen the region’s existing economic challenges by further weakening agricultural activity and accelerating rural depopulation.

Secondly, despite the environmental and socio-cultural continuity between the Portuguese and Spanish sides of the region, efforts to manage these shared challenges have been obstructed by fragmented governance. Although the area sits within the European Union, the order still imposes ‘invisible, yet solid, barriers’ that limit cross-border cooperation. Differences in institutional arrangements, regulatory frameworks, and local governance structures have historically made it difficult to harmonise responses to climate-related threats or to scale successful local practices across the broader region [4].

The purpose of this participatory innovation is to create a framework for joint action: what the project describes as a cross-border space designed to address fire mitigation and encourage land-use transformations [5]. It aims to bring together landowners, civil society groups, researchers and government representatives in a collaborative process in order to co-create strategies for wildfire prevention, sustainable development, and climate adaptation. Importantly, it shifts from a reactive, suppression-based model of wildfire management to one based on prevention, local input, and participatory land-use planning.

The initiative builds on the foundations of earlier efforts: the Mosaico project in Sierra de Gata, which began as a wildfire prevention and landscape restoration strategy, and the Integrated Landscape Management Area (AIGP) in Malcata, under Portuguese law and funded through a 20-year national plan. These projects represent pioneering examples of community-led action on either side of the border. However, until now, now process had sought to connect them into a unified cross-border governance model.

With support from the PHOENIX project, the current effort establishes a platform for presenting proposals and initiatives dedicated to combating or mitigating fires and addressing water scarcity, while also exploring alternative energy sources and promoting long-term, shared environmental planning[6]. The goal is not only to scale up what works locally, but also to institutionalise cooperation across administrative boundaries through a durable, participatory governance structure. As stated in the project’s vision, this includes the construction of a collaborative institution to facilitate cooperation between the two regions and promote participatory initiatives[7].

In summary, this participatory innovation aims to transform the Gata-Malcata ecoregion into a model of integrated, citizen-led environmental governance. By leveraging shared ecological concerns and uniting previously separate efforts, it aspires to build resilient landscapes and resilient communities – across borders and beyond institutional fragmentation.

Background History and Context

The Gata-Malcata region, straddling the border between the Sierra de Gata in Spain and the Serra de Malcata in Portugal, is an ecologically connected but administratively fragmented area. It faces long-standing challenges including rural depopulation, economic fragility, and growing vulnerability to climate-induced risks like wildfires and drought. Historically, both Spain and Portugal relied on suppression-based wildfire strategies. These reactive approaches have been increasingly questioned for creating flammable, homogenous landscapes and failing to address the structural causes of fire risk.

In the past decade, both countries began to experiment with more preventative, participatory grounded models. When the Mosaico project launched and it mobilised landowners and producers to develop productive land uses that act as natural firebreaks, supported by technical and scientific input from organisations.

These two initiatives marked important precedents for local engagement and landscape redesign, but they evolved in parallel, without formal cross-border coordination. The PHOENIX project was the first to explicitly connect these efforts in a transboundary participatory government process. The project selected Gata-Malcata as a pilot region precisely because of its ecological unity, institutional fragmentation, and history of failed cross-border collaboration.

According to project coordinator, Giovanni Allegretti, the region’s long-standing mistrust of external actors is rooted in both historical tensions between Spain and Portugal and past experiences with extractive, short-term projects, made trust-building the first and most essential step. Participation, in this context, could only happen once trust had been established, not the other way round. Local researchers and community members who had spent years building social relationships in the region played a critical role in enabling this process [8].

The PHOENIX team introduced the Territorial Commission of Co-Design (TCCD), a participatory mechanism designed to foster inclusive dialogue, identify local priorities, and support joint landscape planning across national lines. This process drew on federative actors from both countries but also sought to include marginalised land users and informal innovators often overlooked by traditional institutions. PHOENIX explicitly aimed to move beyond isolated, time-limited projects by laying the groundwork for a lasting, community-driven governance structure. Through tools like bilingual documentation, shared agenda-setting and informal gatherings, the project has built a collaborative space that could outlive its initial funding and serve as a model for similar fragile border regions.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Gata-Malcata participatory process was initiated as a part of the PHOENIX Project, a Research and Innovation project supported by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 funding. The Gata-Malcata pilot is the only rural, cross-border case among 11 pilots. It is personally coordinated by Dr. Giovanni Allegretti, PHOENIX’s overall project coordinator, who chose to lead this pilot due to its political sensitivity and lack of pre-existing local organisational infrastructure.

Two University of Coimbra institutions led the implementation: the Centre for Social Studies (CES) and the Centre for Functional Ecology (CFE). These institutions designed and managed the participatory process, with scientific support, facilitation, and logistical planning.

On-the-ground facilitation was carried out by Anabela Paula, a local researcher who had lived and worked in the region for over a decade. Her embedded presence was crucial in overcoming local mistrust toward external actors – an issue Dr. Allegretti emphasised as central to enabling participation in this marginalised region.

This project received €30,000 in direct funding, plus in-kind contributions through staff salaries. Support also came from regional government bodies: the CCDR Centro (Portugal) and the Government of Extremadura (Spain), both of which helped facilitate coordination across the border and contributed non-financial resources such as venues and transportation.

No staff were formally hired or trained as facilitators, instead, facilitation was carried out by local researchers and organisers who acted as bridging figures between institutions and the community.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The Gata-Malcata pilot of the PHOENIX project followed a selective, invitation-based recruitment strategy aimed at involving a diverse group of citizens, landowners, producers, NGOs, and informal actors from both sides of the Spanish-Portuguese border. Rather than opening the process to the general public, organizers deliberately focused on individuals with local legitimacy or those offering underrepresented perspectives on land-use transformation. As project coordinator Giovanni Allegretti explained, widespread regional mistrust toward external initiatives meant that openness could not be the starting point: trust had to come first. Initial participants were identified through actor mapping and snowball sampling, beginning with “federative actors” already engaged in landscape governance or cross-border collaboration. These early invitees then referred others, particularly small producers and isolated or younger land users often excluded from traditional structures. The team deliberately avoided formal sampling and instead relied on personal invitations, and dozens of pre-meetings to secure participation and commitment [9]. Experts and technical contributors from universities and NGOs were also involved, though not as decision-makers. To reduce barriers to participation, organizers covered meals, transport, and childcare during in-person events—support that was especially important for younger participants and those with caregiving responsibilities. Many participants were motivated by a desire to help protect their territory and livelihoods, and saw this as a rare opportunity to join a process with long-term potential, rather than another short-lived intervention. However, the exact number of participants and their demographic breakdowns (e.g. gender, age, socioeconomic status) are not available in the documents reviewed.

Methods and Tools Used

The Gata-Malcata project was structured around a co-design methodology grounded in deliberative democratic theory, aimed at enabling inclusive, cross-border landscape governance. Rather than following a rigid format, co-design was adaptively implemented to reflect local realities, incorporating informal features like shared meals, bilingual facilitation, and flexible discussion formats. This approach was chosen because it supports knowledge exchange, inclusivity, and shared ownership, which is critical in a territory marked by fragmented governance and low levels of trust in external interventions. The method was also closely tied to PHOENIX’s broader theory of change, which sees democratic innovation as essential to environmental and institutional transformation [10]. A range of participatory tools and techniques were employed to structure engagement: actor mapping and snowball sampling to expand the network of participants; bilingual materials to support inclusivity; small-group deliberation circles to surface tensions and develop proposals; collaborative agenda-setting; and visioning exercises to explore future scenarios. Pre- and post-surveys helped measure participants’ learning and satisfaction, while in-person events, such as cross-border assemblies, further deepened trust and engagement. Expanding inclusiveness across borders and generations came with trade-offs, notably slower timelines and complexity in managing evolving group dynamics. These challenges were addressed through culturally sensitive facilitation and an emphasis on relationship-building rather than procedural uniformity. Although effective in fostering deliberation, there is no evidence in the documents reviewed of formal voting mechanisms.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The Gata-Malcata pilot unfolded as a gradual and adaptive participatory process grounded in co-design, with careful attention to the social and institutional fragmentation of this cross-border region. The approach was intentionally flexible, evolving through stages of actor mapping and early relationship-building. Organizers and local facilitator Anabela Paula coordinated a series of online and in-person meetings, ensuring equal participation through bilingual facilitation. In-person workshops were crucial, as they featured multilingual small-group deliberation and a focus on surfacing community concerns and shared priorities. Participation was highly dialogic and inclusive, especially after initial trust was built, with informal land users and youth producers contributing local knowledge on fire risk, land use, and governance challenges. Participants co-created agendas and engaged in visioning exercises, while regional supporters provided logistical help but remained neutral on content. Topics addressed included fire prevention through landscape transformation, barriers to cross-border cooperation, biodiversity, water scarcity, rural abandonment, and governance fragmentation [11]. Feedback was gathered through direct discussion, written input, and pre/post-surveys, with tensions — such as differing views on traditional versus innovative land uses — openly addressed in structured small-group settings [12]. Deliberation was supported by discussion circles, bilingual materials, collaborative agendas, and visioning tools, all designed to foster inclusion and clarity. The TCCD functioned as a non-binding, deliberative forum with no formal voting or final authority; instead, it aimed to generate shared orientations and feed these into future governance and funding strategies [13]. Meeting outputs were summarized and circulated among participants and regional governments, and shared with the broader PHOENIX coordination team for integration into wider pilot comparisons.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The initiative achieved several of its intended outcomes, notably the establishment of the Territorial Commission of Co-Design (TCCD) strengthened cross-border cooperation and the mobilization of civil society actors around shared goals and challenges. These results align closely with PHOENIX’s theory of change, which frames democratic innovation and co-design as essential foundations for long-term governance and environmental transformation. While the initiative did not aim to produce binding policy outcomes at this stage, it succeeded in building a functional and trusted network of actors across both sides of the border —overcoming longstanding “invisible barriers” to collaboration [14]. This relational infrastructure laid the groundwork for the next phase of collective action: the development of a cross-border producers’ association that, once registered, will be able to apply for transnational funding and serve as a durable platform for distributing resources across both territories [15].

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Several key factors contributed to the effectiveness of the Gata-Malcata pilot. Organizers prioritized trust-building before formal engagement, a critical step in a context marked by institutional fragility and public scepticism. This was facilitated through the presence of Anabela Paula, a locally embedded facilitator whose deep community ties helped secure participation from actors who would not typically engage with institutional processes. The process’s flexible design — allowing participants to co-shape agendas and adjust meeting formats — also proved essential in maintaining inclusivity and responsiveness. However, participant feedback highlighted several areas for future improvement. There was broad consensus on the need to expand participation to include more producers and underrepresented sectors. The inclusion of specialists on issues like indigenous forest management, pest control, and water governance was also identified as a priority, particularly, as climate change intensifies the region’s vulnerability to drought and fire. Participants stressed the importance of integrating younger generations and actors focused on sustainable natural resource management and noted the value of more consistent participation from public administration representatives. Ideas for future synergies included linking tourism with forest-sector sustainability and strengthening relationships with forest-related businesses. These reflections affirm that co-design methods must be continually adapted to context, and that representational balance across sectors, age groups, and technical expertise is key to sustaining relevance and legitimacy. More broadly, the Gata-Malcata case supports findings in the democratic innovation literature that flexible, informal, and trust-centred processes are especially well-suited to post-abandonment rural areas with weak participatory infrastructures.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ON DEMOCRATIC GOODS

INCLUSIVENESS:

Fairness of selection rules and procedures:

The Gata-Malcata pilot did not rely on open calls or random selection but instead employed a targeted, snowball recruitment strategy. Initial contacts were made through “indirect trust” networks, where individuals known and respected within the community referred others rather than through formal institutional channels. This approach was intentional and relational, aiming to reach producers, informal land users, younger families, recent foreign residents, and other groups typically underrepresented in institutional decision-making. While this did not guarantee full enfranchisement of all affected interests, it deliberately extended inclusion beyond traditional stakeholders. Importantly, social institutions with deeper reach into marginalized communities were also engaged to help recruit [16]. This selection process prioritized relational legitimacy and diversity over formal representativeness, but the lack of random or stratified sampling still leaves some risk of reproducing social hierarchies or omissions.

Fairness in making contributions / Equality of Voice):

The process was designed with a strong focus on ensuring participants could contribute meaningfully and comfortably. All participants reported feeling heard and taken seriously during the co-creation process [17]. Contributions were enabled through deliberate facilitation strategies, including the use of small-group discussion formats, bilingual materials, simplified infographics, and voluntary translators. Special attention was given to ergonomic and emotional accessibility: childcare was offered via local activities for children; transport and car-pooling were arranged; and organizers consciously used friendly language and avoided technical complexity to ensure no one felt overwhelmed. These measures went beyond formal equality of voice, actively enabling substantive equality by reducing cognitive, linguistic, logistical, and social barriers to participation.

Fairness in generating outputs:

Although the process was non-binding, efforts were made to ensure that all participants had equal opportunity to shape the content of outputs. Participants could contribute verbally in meetings or asynchronously through written comments on circulated documents. The hybrid format combining in-person and remote engagement helped ensure that those with scheduling, health, or care constraints could still influence the process [18]. Meeting notes and proposals were shared for collective review, reinforcing a culture of shared authorship and responsiveness.

Can the initiative overcome differential participation across social groups?

The project made explicit efforts to address demographic imbalances, including gender and generational disparities. While a gender balance was sought, female participation was more intermittent, attributed to the male-dominated local landscape of entrepreneurship and production [19]. Mixed strategies including online options helped partially mitigate these participation gaps, although they could not entirely overcome structural inequalities. Differences in institutional participation (e.g. varying municipal involvement) also reflect uneven administrative capacity, particularly between Portuguese and Spanish sides.

Conclusion:

The Gata-Malcata pilot demonstrated a deep, relational approach to inclusiveness, going beyond open access to foster real presence and voice from underrepresented communities. Through trust-based recruitment, multilingual facilitation, ergonomic supports, and flexible participation formats, the process addressed many of the structural and practical barriers to participation. While not universally representative in a formal sense, the initiative offers a strong example of context-sensitive inclusion. Persistent asymmetries (e.g. gender, institutional imbalance) reflect structural factors outside the process’s full control, but the design shows thoughtful attempts to recognize, accommodate, and reduce those inequalities where possible.

POPULAR CONTROL:

Influence over stages of decision-making:

Participants in the Gata-Malcata PHOENIX pilot had meaningful involvement in the early stages of the decision-making process, particularly in problem definition and option analysis. They helped articulate key issues such as governance fragmentation, fire risk, rural depopulation, and water resource scarcity. They also contributed to visioning exercises that explored future land-use scenarios and potential strategies for building resilience. However, they had no formal role in option selection or implementation, which limits their ability to shape final outcomes or ensure follow-through.

Agenda-setting and framing:

The process supported deliberative agenda-setting: participants were able to co-shape meeting topics and priorities, and discussions were structured to reflect concerns raised by a range of actors, including informal and previously excluded stakeholders. This indicates a high degree of influence over what was discussed and how, though it remained within the bounds of a non-binding, consultative framework.

Influence on outputs and their political weight:

The outputs of the TCCD were not binding. While the ideas and strategies developed by participants were compiled into reports and shared with public institutions and the broader PHOENIX project team, there is no evidence that these outputs carried formal decision-making weight. This leaves the process open to the common critique of deliberative participation being symbolically inclusive but lacking political leverage.

Citizen involvement in implementation:

There is no indication that participants were involved in implementing any of the proposals generated. The only partially forward-looking structure is the emerging plan to create a cross-border producers’ association, which may later take on implementation roles, such as managing funding or coordinating land-use initiatives. However, this is still in development and not yet formalized.

Capacity to share power in co-governance settings:

Participants operated within a non-binding, co-creative structure, but without formal authority or co-governance roles. Although they engaged with public administration representatives and NGOs, the absence of structured power-sharing mechanisms or delegated decision authority means that the conditions for genuine co-governance were not met in this phase of the pilot.

Conclusion:

The Gata-Malcata pilot enabled partial popular control, especially in the early deliberative stages of the process. Participants influenced how problems were framed and what options were explored, and their contributions were documented and shared. However, they had no formal role in decision-making, output selection, or implementation, and the outputs remain non-binding. While the process fostered deliberation and inclusion, it stopped short of empowering citizens with substantive control or enabling co-governance with public authorities. As such, it reflects a consultative model of participation valuable for agenda-setting and relationship-building but limited in advancing the deeper forms of popular control envisioned in Smith’s framework.

CONSIDERED JUDGEMENT:

Acquiring technical knowledge:

The design of the pilot placed a strong emphasis on gradual, peer-informed knowledge-building. Rather than relying on formal expert presentations alone, the process prioritized collective knowledge construction, emphasizing mutual exchange and peer-to-peer learning between participants [20]. Organizers deliberately adopted a humble and iterative approach, framing the process as one of shared learning and progressive enrichment, rather than pre-structured delivery of content. Complex issues such as fire resilience, water management, and cross-border governance were deliberately unpacked and widened over time, helping participants better understand and address them [21]. While there is no mention of structured technical briefings, the organic and deliberative learning model clearly fostered situated, practical knowledge-building.

Appreciating other perspectives:

Participants engaged in small-group deliberation circles, designed to surface tensions and encourage exchange across generational, geographic, and professional divides [22]. Visioning exercises allowed participants to share their aspirations for the future of the territory, exposing differences in priorities (e.g. between traditional vs. innovative land-use models) and fostering dialogue around disagreement.

Developing an “enlarged mentality”:

The pilot created a structure for participants to reflect on both personal stakes and collective outcomes, particularly through scenario-building and visioning tools. The format helped participants distance themselves from immediate or private interests, placing their contributions within the broader context of environmental and governance challenges shared across the border region. Importantly, this was not merely discursive; it involved emotional and logistical inclusion efforts like child-friendly environments and informal formats that helped participants feel safe enough to engage more generously and empathetically.

Institutional support for reflective preference formation:

The institutional setup marked by openness, non-hierarchy, and facilitative leadership was designed to nurture reflective learning over time. By intentionally expanding the thematic scope of discussions gradually and adapting formats to participants’ feedback, organizers supported a preference-transformative environment. The process was not one-off but iterative, with asynchronous and in-person formats that enabled sustained reflection and evolution of views [23].

Conclusion:

The Gata-Malcata PHOENIX pilot strongly supported considered judgment by cultivating a participatory environment where participants could learn, reflect, and revise their views through dialogue and co-creation. The process emphasized collective meaning-making and iterative deepening of complexity, moving beyond raw preferences or static interests. While technical knowledge provision was informal and peer-based rather than expert-led, the quality of deliberation, responsiveness to participant feedback, and focus on shared learning demonstrate a robust capacity to support reflective, open-ended judgment, in line with Smith’s democratic ideal.

TRANSPARENCY

Internal Transparency (for participants):

The Gata-Malcata pilot demonstrated strong internal transparency. Participants had a clear understanding of the nature of the process, its non-binding status, who was organizing it, and how their contributions would be used. This understanding was reinforced through systematic documentation and communication. After every TCCD meeting, bilingual minutes (in Portuguese and Spanish) were circulated to all members, typically within 2–3 days, allowing even those who could not attend to stay engaged and informed [24]. Participants were given a full week to review and comment on proceedings before they were finalized. This iterative sharing process helped ensure clarity, inclusiveness, and trust in how input was recorded and represented.

External Transparency:

While internal transparency was robust, external publicity was more limited. The proceedings and outputs were minimally shared for example, in the PHOENIX website. There is no evidence of broader public dissemination through press releases, public reports, or external communication strategies. As a result, public scrutiny of the process by non-participants was minimal. However, given the highly localized and relational nature of the pilot, and the fact that the participants themselves were those most affected by the issues under discussion, the need for wide public visibility may have been less pressing in this specific context.

Conclusion:

The Gata-Malcata pilot ensured high internal transparency, allowing participants to clearly understand the process and track how their input was recorded, shared, and incorporated. Meeting documentation was consistent, bilingual, and open for participant review, fostering trust and credibility. While external transparency was limited, this appears to reflect the project’s local focus and embedded, trust-based approach. Nonetheless, from a broader democratic perspective, expanding public visibility in future iterations could strengthen the legitimacy and broader accountability of such participatory processes.

EFFICIENCY:

Civic costs for citizens:

Organizers made a clear effort to minimize the civic costs of participation. Transportation, meals, and childcare were covered, and meetings were flexibly scheduled to accommodate participants’ work and family obligations [25]. These measures were especially valuable in a rural context with limited infrastructure and time-poor residents. However, while participation was broadly accessible, some participants noted that time constraints limited the depth of discussion, and there was a desire for more in-person meetings and space for detailed dialogue in future phases [26]. This indicates that while the structure lowered logistical burdens, the time allocated for deliberation may not have fully matched participants’ expectations for meaningful engagement and collective decision-making.

Administrative costs for public authorities:

Considering the budget, the project achieved notable outcomes: the establishment of the TCCD, stronger cross-border collaboration, and momentum toward a transboundary producers [27].’ Most administrative responsibilities were shouldered by academic partners, with some logistical and venue support from local governments. The documents do not provide detailed financial breakdowns or assessments of the administrative burden for public institutions, but overall, the initiative appears to have been resource-efficient given the outputs it produced. However, participants and organizers alike noted that the process is still in its early stages, and a full evaluation of its efficiency and impact can only be completed at the project’s conclusion.

Comparing costs and benefits with alternative decision-making patterns:

Although no direct comparison was made to more centralized models, it is likely that those approaches would not have generated the trust, relational capital, and cross-border alignment that this deliberative process fostered. Given the low starting levels of institutional coordination and civic trust in the region, the participatory process provided benefits that would be hard to replicate through standard administrative procedures, particularly in terms of building shared vision and establishing inclusive networks.

Conclusion:

The Gata-Malcata pilot demonstrated a generally high level of process efficiency, particularly considering the limited financial and administrative resources invested. Civic costs were kept low, and relational gains were high. However, the desire for deeper and more sustained deliberation among participants indicates that the balance between breadth and depth may need adjustment in future phases. While the process is still evolving, early indicators suggest that the participatory model is a cost-effective way to build governance capacity and cross-border collaboration in a fragmented rural context. A full assessment of long-term efficiency will depend on how the process matures and whether it delivers on its ambitions for shared action and institutional impact.

TRANSFERABILITY:

Scale (local to global adaptability):

The Gata-Malcata pilot demonstrates a participatory model with potential for transfer across scales, but only with careful adaptation. The process was explicitly designed for a rural, cross-border, low-trust context, where success depended on embedded facilitators, relational trust-building, and flexible formats. According to project coordinator Giovanni Allegretti, while core principles such as slow, trust-based engagement and cross-border knowledge exchange, are desirable and replicable, the process must be recalibrated to each context. Missteps, especially early in the process, could quickly erode trust and cause the collapse of participation: “If we do an action that generates mistrust, we can lose all our actors in a few days [28]”. This underscores that scaling requires contextual sensitivity, not replication by formula.

Political system adaptability:

Although the pilot operated in the EU context within Portuguese and Spanish democratic systems, it was designed to navigate fragmented governance and low civic engagement, suggesting it could be applicable in other democratic but institutionally fragile settings. However, while the model shows potential, its adaptability to other political systems remains untested.

Issue-type adaptability:

The process dealt with multi-dimensional, complex issues including climate change, biodiversity, fire mitigation, and cross-border governance, indicating that the model is not limited to simple or localized problems. The capacity to facilitate deliberation around such technically and socially complex topics (e.g. land ownership, fire risk, water management) suggests a strong foundation for transfer to other environmental or territorial challenges.

Insights from policy transfer literature

The initiative is best described as emulatable rather than copyable. Allegretti emphasized that “these are elements that can be reproduced, but… they have to be readapted [29]”. The project team has invited stakeholders from other regions to observe and potentially draw inspiration from the pilot.

Conclusion:

The Gata-Malcata pilot embodies a context-sensitive model of democratic innovation that is transferable through adaptation rather than replication. Its emphasis on trust-building, cross-border dialogue, and flexible co-design make it well-suited for complex, environmentally rooted issues in other fragmented or rural contexts. However, its success relies heavily on cultural sensitivity, embedded facilitation, and responsiveness to local dynamics, all of which may be difficult to reproduce without deep local knowledge. While there is enthusiasm for broader applicability, no concrete transfer has yet occurred, and further comparative insights are expected from ongoing PHOENIX pilot evaluations.

See Also

References

1. Paula, Anabela; Frazão, Luciana; Castro, Paola; Pulido, Fernando; Pedro, Sergio; Figueiredo, Albano; Allegretti, Giovanni (2025-12-01), "Gobernanza de paisajes transfronterizos resilientes a los incendios forestales - caso de estudio de las Sierras de Gata y Malcata", Actas del Noveno Congreso Forestal Español. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales, 1-15.
2. Martín Senande-Rivera, Damián Insua-Costa, and Gonzalo Miguez-Macho, ‘Climate Change Aggravated Wildfire Behaviour in the Iberian Peninsula in Recent Years’, Npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 8, no. 1 (15 January 2025): 19, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-025-00906-3.
3. PHOENIX, ‘Gata-Malcata’, Phoenix Horizon (blog), accessed 13 May 2025, https://phoenix-horizon.eu/gata-malcata/.
4. Giovanni Allegretti, ‘Case Study Gata Malcata Draft’, n.d.
5. Paula, Anabela; Frazão, Luciana; Castro, Paola; Pulido, Fernando; Pedro, Sergio; Figueiredo, Albano; Allegretti, Giovanni (2025-12-01), "Gobernanza de paisajes transfronterizos resilientes a los incendios forestales - caso de estudio de las Sierras de Gata y Malcata", Actas del Noveno Congreso Forestal Español. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales, 1-15. PHOENIX.
6. Paula, Anabela; Frazão, Luciana; Castro, Paola; Pulido, Fernando; Pedro, Sergio; Figueiredo, Albano; Allegretti, Giovanni (2025-12-01), "Gobernanza de paisajes transfronterizos resilientes a los incendios forestales - caso de estudio de las Sierras de Gata y Malcata", Actas del Noveno Congreso Forestal Español. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales, 1-15.
7. Giovanni Allegretti, Interview: Gata-Malcata, Online Videocall, May 2025.
8. Allegretti Giovanni, ‘TCCD Evaluation Report’, n.d.
9. Giovanni Allegretti, ‘Immaginando nuove forme di governance per resistere agli incendi.’, n.d.
10. Allegretti.
11. PHOENIX, ‘Pre- and Post- Survey Proposal for Internal Co-Design’, n.d.
12. Giovanni, ‘TCCD Evaluation Report’.
13. Allegretti, Interview: Gata-Malcata.
14. Giovanni, ‘TCCD Evaluation Report’.
15. ‘Gata Malcata - Form for D4.1_GA_AP’, n.d.
16. Giovanni, ‘TCCD Evaluation Report’.
17. ‘Gata Malcata - Form for D4.1_GA_AP’.
18. ‘Gata Malcata - Form for D4.1_GA_AP’.
19. ‘Gata Malcata - Form for D4.1_GA_AP’.
20. ‘Gata Malcata - Form for D4.1_GA_AP’.
21. Giovanni, ‘TCCD Evaluation Report’.
22. ‘Gata Malcata - Form for D4.1_GA_AP’.
23. ‘Gata Malcata - Form for D4.1_GA_AP’.
24. Allegretti, Interview: Gata-Malcata.
25. Giovanni, ‘TCCD Evaluation Report’.
26. Giovanni.
27. Allegretti, Interview: Gata-Malcata.
28. Allegretti.

Bibliography:

Allegretti, Giovanni. ‘Case Study Gata Malcata Draft’, n.d.

Allegretti. ‘Immaginando nuove forme di governance per resistere agli incendi.’, n.d.

Allegretti. Interview: Gata-Malcata. Online Videocall, May 2025.

‘Gata Malcata - Form for D4.1_GA_AP’, n.d.

Giovanni, Allegretti. ‘TCCD Evaluation Report’, n.d.

PHOENIX. ‘Crossborder Gata-Malcata’, n.d.

PHOENIX. ‘Gata-Malcata’. Phoenix Horizon (blog). Accessed 13 May 2025. https://phoenix-horizon.eu/gata-malcata/.

PHOENIX. ‘Pre- and Post- Survey Proposal for Internal Co-Design’, n.d.

Senande-Rivera, Martín, Damián Insua-Costa, and Gonzalo Miguez-Macho. ‘Climate Change Aggravated Wildfire Behaviour in the Iberian Peninsula in Recent Years’. Npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 8, no. 1 (15 January 2025): 19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-025-00906-3.

External Links

Notes