Problems and Purpose

The Hungarian city of Szeged faces various challenges stemming from its geographical features, notably being intersected by two rivers. The impact of climate change, characterised by increased droughts and water scarcity, has further intensified urban heat island issues, particularly in the city centre and publicly used green urban areas. Projections indicate that Szeged and its surrounding Hungarian region will remain particularly vulnerable to drought, desertification, low rainfall, and rising temperatures, especially during the summer months.

Complicating matters, the vulnerability of water resources in the region is heightened due to the interconnectedness with the Tisza River, which depends on the cooperation of neighbouring countries. The protection of urban green areas is crucial for combating climate change. Although the city of Szeged is relatively compact, the outskirts, mainly garden city-like annexed settlements, expand the city’s territory.

These agriculture-based local communities lack a connection to the city’s central heating system, which is fuelled by geothermal energy, and have limited access to the gas pipe system. Consequently, fossil fuels and, in some cases, waste are burned to heat households, resulting in air pollution and the degradation of air quality for the city. Given these challenges, the primary objective of this project is to stimulate public discourse on the associated risks, facilitating a transparent discussion of the issues.

The overarching goal of the process at Szeged is the establishment of a Citizen Assembly, enabling ordinary citizens to collaboratively determine the most suitable courses of action and work collectively to formulate recommendations in three areas: transportation, urban green areas and urban heat islands, and the relationship between energy and waste. The whole Szeged program was a part of the PHOENIX Horizon 2020 project, where similar co-creation methodologies and experiments related to the Green Deal were managed in seven different countries. The project at the city also aimed to establish a public campaign process based on the ideas provided by the participants of the Citizen Assembly.

Background History and Context

In Hungary it is a nationwide issue that the country lacks extensive traditions and experiences in terms of participatory decision-making processes, therefore the demands of the residents are less powerful, and it is an unusual, sometimes unknown method for them. Szeged is led by an opposition administration in contrast to the national government of Hungary, and the city is open and receptive to new ideas and initiatives. While the Southern Great Plain is not the most economically developed region in the country, the city of Szeged is an important economical, and social hub in the country. Recent years the city has suffered a lot because of the effects of climate change, the lack of precipitation, heatwaves which lasts for weeks, or other the extreme weather conditions have become the part of the citizens everyday life. However, Szeged has a unique opportunity to deal with these issues, the geothermal and solar potential of the region or the NGO’s activity in the region are all promising for the future.

As it was mentioned, even there are a lot of positive ongoing processes, there were no citizen assemblies which collected all the related problems.

Regarding demographic trends Szeged’s population is decreasing similarly to the county and national level. According to the national census 2022 there had been 158.797 people living in the city which puts it in 3rd place in national rankings.

Looking at age it can be stated that the decrease between 2011 and 2022 in the number of children (0-14) was less then 1%, although there had been a 4% decrease among the members of active society. The rate of elderly people had growing constantly. Looking at these number it can be said that Szeged has an ageing society.

The city was mainly populated by Hungarians (87%) in 2022. However, there were also some other nationalities such as Romani people, Germans, Serbians and Romanians etc. It is also important to speak about the foreign students at city, it is said that their number at the university is around 10 thousand. From the point of education, the city has a better value that the national data, the range of people with primary and tertiary education degree are both higher than the national average. Because of the university, the number of people owning a tertiary education degree had increased and was significantly higher. This information does not show it directly, but the university has much wider influence on the city than being on of the biggest employer. It also enhances the economy and the real estate market across the students who come here, their estimated number are about 20 thousand. The city’s central role in providing health services is also remarkable.

Unemployment rates had sharply gone up during the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, then a significant positive change was only detectable after 2012 which trend continued afterwards. Among the unemployed, people with primary education degree at maximum are especially vulnerable. the rate of older people being unemployed was higher in the end of the years 2010’s. The latter had been constantly increasing since the Great Depression in 2008, which is a risk factor for the city’s society.

The city can be considered as a regional and educational centre, as 22% of employees come from different settlements according to 2011 census data. The main sending areas are in the 20 km long zone, especially in the western side of the city, such cities like Sándorfalva, Domaszék, Algyő, Szatymaz.

According to these information’s, the city of Szeged is one of the biggest regional centres in Hungary, which is highly exposed to the upcoming extreme weather conditions of the future. Since the new decade has begun, the summer period is getting warmer, the average temperature of the city was 14.4 degrees Celsius in 2024, significantly higher than the average of 11.5 degrees Celsius for the period 1981-2010. Because of climate change and the previously mentioned socio-economic role of the city, both aspects generate the need to use a participatory process to identify the main issues of the future.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

As it was previously mentioned, the process in Szeged was the part of the Phoenix Horizon 2020 project, where a consortium of 15 partners from the different macro-regions of the EU and associated countries worked together in different 11 projects. Main goal of the project was to study, enrich, and test participatory and deliberative practices to improve the European Green Deal pathway and build a better, greener future for all. The PHOENIX Horizon 2020 project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101037328.

In case of Szeged, the partner institution was the Department of Human geography, which is an interdisciplinary research unit of the University of Szeged. The focus of the work in the department is centred in social and economic changes in East-Central Europe, especially in Hungary. Researchers are dealing with the development of urban areas and regional aspects of social and economic changes.

As a member of the Phoenix project, the tools and the techniques during the process was supported by the consortium partners. It means that there were specialized tools developed by the consortium members especially to this project. Partners such as OneSource Consultoria Informática Lda. from Portugal is specialized in the areas of data communications, security, networking and systems management. They were responsible for the technical (voting platform, webpage etc.)) background of the program.

Beyond the university, the Szeged Municipality also participated in the project. On their previous projects in the city, they have been trying to implement some kind of participatory methodologies, so when the opportunity came up, they gladly joined the process. From the beginning of the first meeting, there were at least one representative from the city hall. At some point politicians and experts are participated in the project meetings. Their contribution was also to ensure the location of the first citizen assembly of Szeged, which took place in their cultural institution.

Enrawell Consulting Ltd. also contributed during the Citizen Assembly. Their work was to help and facilitate the event from planning and setting up the scene, and also to create output results from the project. They provided experienced and well-trained experts who helped the discussions during the events.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

First of all, a Territorial Commission of Co-design[MM1] [SA2] was established to analyse and select the biggest challenges related to climate change of the city. This commission is a local platform, operating on a specific territory where the community members, such as municipality members, experts on different scientific fields and the ordinary citizens can meet on regular basis. The role of this body to get decision making closer to the people, feel engaged in planning processes. The creation of this commission was based on the methodology of the Phoenix project, on the idea that the identification of the most relevant issues need a complex and representative group of people. The meetings were promoted to the public through social media channels, which were shared by the partner organization and related social media pages and individuals. Additionally, interview partners who helped to settle a scientific background in the pre-phase of the project received multiple emails inviting them to participate in the process. There were three meetings in this stage of the project, where 15 people participated. The membership of the Territorial Commission consisted of citizens, practitioners (urban planners), a local utility provider representative and a decision maker. The age and the gender were fairly balanced during the meetings.

After the meetings, the planning of the first Citizen Assembly for Szeged started. For the recruitment, we used a stratified random sample. First of all, we analysed the city from the point of demography. Then we selected the adult (18+) population and identified the range of the different age groups in the whole population. These groups were the following:

1. 19-30
2. 31-40
3. 41-50
4. 51-62
5. 63+

Our goal was to create a representative sample which consist of 50 people. We took into consideration the acceptance of answering (we calculated with 4%), and the gender balance as well. After this, we selected territories inside the city according to their ZIP codes. We calculated the possible number of inhabitants of each part of the city, we estimated the population of each district based on the number addresses in the area. Then we used a random generator to select which inhabitants in the marked ZIP territory. More than 1040 households were involved in the first round and expanded to university citizens and active residents in the second round, utilising the power of social media. 36 people Were selected amongst who responded to the letter, which was sent out previously to their addresses, the remaining 14 people of the Assembly applied for the event. To advertise the event, we use the same tools as in the Territorial Commission meeting section (Social media, partners, etc). All in all, the social diversity of the Assembly was fair enough, the underrepresented groups were the younger generations and the foreigners in the city.

[MM1]Please, briefly introduce what is/was it to the external reader.

[SA2]Small description added about TCCD

Methods and Tools Used

As it was mentioned in the purpose and problems section, the project in Szeged was a member of Phoenix Horizon 2020 project, where the members supported each other’s performance by developing tools. In case of Szeged, these methodologies were used both during the Commission meetings and the Citizen Assembly.

1. Citizens assembly: Citizens’ Assembly – Participedia.[MM1] [SA2]

The creation of a Citizens’ Assembly was crucial for the program. This body consist of local citizens, stakeholders, who deliberate about related issues to their territory. To create a representative sample about the specific area the selection is really important, to include as many citizen aspects as possible from different socio-economic background.

1. Collective Ecosystem Toolkit: by The University of Florence (https://phoenix-horizon.eu/collective-ecosystemtoolkit/)

This tool helped to deal with the issues of the green spaces. Basically it was a card game, where the participants had to select so-called green functions and ecosystem services for an underutilized public area in Szeged that they defined previously. The groups introduced their development strategy to their chosen green areas.

1. Future Scenarios Tool: Fauré, E., Arushanyan, Y., Ekener, E., Miliutenko, S., & Finnveden, G. (2017). Methods for assessing future scenarios from a sustainability perspective. European Journal of Futures Research, 5, 1-20.

Also used in the Assembly, at the debate about transportation, where the participants should thought about how the traffic system would operate in the future. The couples who discussed the scenario shared their ideas with the other team members, then they created a final plan together for the city.

1. Co-design:
2. Self-Social Mapping by the University of Florence (https://phoenix-horizon.eu/self-socialmapping/)

It was used during the Citizen Assembly, relating to localize the waste management’s problem areas. In case of Szeged, the participants mapped their ideas on their own at a real map about the city (not a digital version, because it was thought to be easier for the participants to handle a ‘real map’). Later the facilitators summarized the ideas of and helped the discussions inside the groups.

1. Platform developed by OneSource (https://kozossegigyules.eu/)

Because the transparency, a webpage was created to advertise and also recruit members for the Assembly. After the final meeting, the results were publicated on the webpage from each team at every topic. To select the final action plans, a voting platform was also created where participants could select the most sympathic strategy anonymously.

[MM1]This section would benefit from an introduction/analysis on when/how did you use the methods/tools.

[SA2]introduction and Small descriptions added about where and how the tools were used.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Three Commission events were held during the summer and fall of 2023, where the participants identified and detailed main problems of the city, selected the most critical ones (8 problems), and assign goals to the collected issues.

The primary goal of the first Commission meeting was to create a comprehensive understanding of the city's situation by identifying and detailing the main pressing problems and their related sub-problems. This goal was fully achieved. During the initial meeting, participants were divided into groups and collaborated to uncover the current issues and their sub-problems in the city.

The objective of the second meeting was to select the most critical (sub-)problems from the previously collected problem pool. In this phase, participants were organized into different groups and identified the most critical problems through brainstorming sessions conducted in two rounds. First, they narrowed down the numerous problems and identified what they considered the most important ones. Then, from among these narrowed-down problems, they chose the 8 problems for which goals would be assigned during the third meeting for the Citizen Assembly.

During the process, three main goals were set to be achieved. One of them was to foster collaboration and dialogue among residents, civilians, and representatives of the local government under Territorial Commission in a facilitated manner. The question on the first occasion was to gather the main problems of Szeged. One result of this was the creation of the first part of the applied "lotus blossom" exercise, its inner circle. So, the collection of Szeged's problems came together. The next part of this was when we started to unfold the problems.

Another result is that the Commission selected some of collected problems those for which community meetings could provide housing solutions. These were identified through a shared discourse, requiring participants to coordinate in multiple rounds.

Finally, the Commission determined the biggest issues which should be deliberated during the process:

1. Knowledge Gap in Sustainable Energy and Green Transition: Addressing a lack of public awareness about the “energy transition,” the Citizen Assembly should aim to collectively propose solutions to bridge the knowledge gap regarding sustainable energy and green initiatives.
2. Urban Heat Islands and Energy Relationship: Focusing on the impact of urban heat islands caused by high building density, the Assembly should aim to propose solutions to mitigate the effects on energy consumption and alleviate long-term temperature increases in the city.
3. Heating and Waste Management Relationship: Targeting issues related to winter waste incineration and air pollution, the Assembly should seek to identify problems, survey affected areas, and collaboratively develop solutions related to waste, heating, and their interconnection.
4. Conflicts in Public Transportation in Szeged: With a surge in private car use leading to conflicts among commuters, the Assembly’s goal should be to uncover sources of conflict and propose solutions for more rational transportation planning, encouraging greener commuting options in Szeged.

However, during problem mapping by the Territorial Commission it became evident that the problem domain is broader and could be discussed more extensively. Thus, energy and waste incineration, along with habitat and heat island-related ecosystem services related to transportation and green areas, also became central topics in the citizen assembly.

The main achievement is that we had the opportunity to coordinate the topics designated by Commission at the Szeged City Hall, and the deputy mayor assisted in specifying the topics. From this point on, a close collaboration developed among local partners, Szeged University, and city hall officials.

After the Commission meetings, the organization of the Citizen Assembly (CA) began. The recruitment methodology was descripted in the 4^th chapter. In the December of 2023, people were contacted by mail, and in the end of the year, the online application also opened. The event was held between 12-13 January 2024.

The assembly, attended by over 50 participants, focused on three topics which was previously selected based on the result of the Territorial Commission meetings:

1. urban green spaces
2. transportation,
3. waste management.

Each topic was discussed in different sections; breaks were used after every 1,5-2 hours. The participants were put randomly into 4 different groups (Blue, Green, Red, Yellow). Most of the time the teams were working together, and after a certain amount of time, they had to share their results and discuss them with another group.

The four designated areas (which were selected by the participants) received conceptual plans, and innovative ideas were proposed, such as creating rain gardens, green facades, or roof gardens. The participants used the „Ecosystem Toolkit” [MM1] [SA2] adapted to the Szeged region and its specific features. The development of urban green areas was approached from four different perspectives by the four working groups, aided by a card game jointly developed at the location by the team specializing in urban development from the Department of Economic and Social Geography of the Institute of Geosciences at the University of Szeged, in collaboration with colleagues from the architectural department of the University of Florence. Within the framework of the game, participants had to select so-called green functions and ecosystem services for an underutilized public area in Szeged that they defined. Subsequently, they had to play "action cards" for these areas, representing various green investments such as small-scale rain gardens, green facades or roofs, or even compost points. A total of four areas were delineated, for which participants, with the assistance of facilitators at the tables, developed conceptual plans during the ongoing work. This resulted in the development concept for the main square of Petőf itelep, which, alongside the acquisition of green transportation tools, would enhance community functions and, through collaborative planning involving the community, would landscape the area. This is particularly important because the local air quality is sensitive and deteriorating in the immediate vicinity of Fő tér (the main square), where there is also an elementary school and a kindergarten. Innovative solutions were proposed for the renovation of Jókai utca between Árpád tér and Aradi vértanúk tere, including small-scale rain gardens, green utilization of the roof of the department store, reduction of paved surfaces, and the elimination of parking spaces. The renewal of Mars tér was also considered, considering that the transportation function cannot be completely eliminated. Instead, it should be accompanied by greening efforts, including green roofs on surrounding buildings, reducing the proportion of paved surfaces, and creating a so-called fairy garden. According to the participants' secret votes, the Boszorkány-liget project (Witch's Alley) became the most popular investment proposal, featuring the transformation of Boszorkány sziget (Witch Island) into a promenade, the creation of nature-friendly hiking trails, and the inclusion of a bio-toilet.

The transportation topic employed a future-oriented approach, asking participants to identify major issues and envision a positive future for Szeged ten years from now. The construction of a third bridge emerged as a significant development, with different groups proposing various approaches. In the case of transportation, the applied method was the „Future Scenarios Tool”. Participants were asked to identify the main problems and create a positive vision for Szeged, as it would exist ten years from now, eliminating these issues. The four teams took different approaches. The Blue team, true to its name, emphasized the Tisza River's connecting role and aimed for its better utilization. However, there were groups like the Yellow or Red team, suggesting territorial traffic restrictions or car-free zones in certain areas of the city under the "Quiet Downtown" program. The Green team proposed the establishment of a new and free P+R system along with a city traffic reporting application.

The final stage focused on waste management, with participants agreeing that while there are manageable local issues, the city is overall clean and organized. Therefore, unique solutions for identified problematic areas on the map and related public awareness campaigns were developed with the help of “Self-Social Mapping tools”. Among the proposals, there was an emphasis on a campaign targeting burning waste, and its simple messages could be countered with artistic creations, such as comics. With the help of children, participants would reinforce recycling culture through art competitions. For instance, schoolchildren participating in the competition could design their own pictograms, and after manufacturing them, the selected pictograms would be placed on selective waste containers at their schools. The issue of dog excrement is an acute problem, but it rather brought moments of humor than frustration to the citizens of the community assembly. Alongside several innovative and almost provocative campaign elements, agreement was reached on increasing the authority of public space supervision and placing more waste containers.

The event utilised an online platform developed by the consortium partner OneSource for secret voting, ensuring equal opportunities with one vote per person for each topic. In the end of the Assembly, there was a voting to summarize the decisions which were during the to days, and a final recommendation was created to the City Hall.

[MM1]Please, include/align this with the 'Methods and Tools Used' section.

[SA2]now the introduced tools at the methods and tools s are in the same order as they are introduced here and more introduced.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Guaranteeing the participants that their presence and work are taken seriously, the deputy mayor for urban development, Sándor Nagy inform that they will take the results into consideration in the upcoming development strategies.

After the Assembly, it was noted that different participatory processes started in the city. One event was about an apartment buildings community in the city centre, who wanted to re-create the function of its area around the building. The street which is located front of their community building, now are dominated by cars and there is a huge lack of walking and green areas. The people who came with the idea were civil participants on the CA, the methods of the Phoenix projects was recommenced by the local partner. Their assembly was held on the 30^th of May 2024, where they started to analyse their problem by social mapping.

As another spillover effect, there was a competition called The Green Hackathon in Szeged, held on June 21, 2024. Organized by the Municipality of Szeged and as part of the GreenScape CE project, the event brought together citizens and local residents to brainstorm and innovate on some of today’s most pressing environmental challenges. Nearly 50 people (47) participated in the program like the Citizen Assembly. Groups were smaller (3-6) and it was a bit more competitive planning process than the Assembly, where the main exercise was cooperation between the groups and the people within. Mentors with technical, economical and ecological background were there to give instructions to the participants about their ideas and also answer to their questions.

Topics included rainwater retention, biodiversity enhancement, urban heat island management, and public engagement. All in all, the aim of this event related directly to one of the topics (green infrastructure) which was previously discussed at the citizen assembly.

In the summer of 2024, the City Hall prepared the Green action plan of Szeged, in the 12^th February 2025, they have introduced it to the participants from Green Hackathon competition and the Citizen Assembly members as well, after the presentation, there were a small discussion about the program points and about greening the stations and the stops of the public transportation system in the city.

As a result of the Phoenix project, many ideas during the process were implemented into the of the city. Here are the followings:

1. Creation of “Witch's Alley” hiking trail on Witch Island,
2. Enhancing community functions and ecosystem services on the main square of Petőfitelep, one of of the residental areas at the city.
3. Rehabilitaiton of the bank of Tisza River, extend the green areas instead of covered parking spaces
4. Supportation of green ideas by the inhabitants of the city (communication, competition, use of applications etc.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The group dynamics within Commission were satisfactory, allowing every participant, whether representing the professional, political, or civic sectors, to voice and express their opinions. Certain useful methodological lessons were learned from the operation of the Commission meetings.

The consortium partners have decided to use Graham Smith’s analytical framework, which consists of four democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement and transparency. They are designed to allow for qualitative comparison of different types of democratic innovations, hence especially useful to draw conclusions from the project’s initiatives.

Generally, the whole process contributed to the four democratic goods and on the 6 challenges related to them.

The four democratic goods:

Inclusion:

The possibility to be heard and listened by others were given during the whole participatory process. Both in the Territorial Commission and the Citizen Assembly phase was possible to join everyone, and the recruitment method also aimed to guarantee the inclusivity. Professional facilitators were responsible that everyone’s opinions must be heard and listened, of course some voices where higher, but chance was ensured for everyone.

Empowerment or Popular Control:

At Szeged Commission platform, all the participants were given many possibilities to participate in decision-making. In the Assembly, the final recommendation to the City Hall was decided by an online voting system by OneSource, smartphones were required for this phase, but the organizers also prepared with tablets and instructions for the people with low digital knowledge.

Considered Judgment/quality of deliberation:

To maintain the high quality of deliberation, it was important to share scientific or any different kind of opinions by experts to the related topics. Because of that, presentations were held before every session on the assembly, to inform people about the recent methods and solutions relating to the issues. The role of the facilitators was important in this aspect as well, they had to encourage people who were not as loud as other to also share their opinions. It is likely that some stronger voices can take a lead and navigate the deliberation, so it is important to give chance everyone.

Transparency:

Without transparency, people can feel betrayed or confused that their work does not matter at all. During the whole process, there was an intensive communication about the locations of the meetings, the topics what were discussed during the sessions, and the results as well. After the Assembly ended, in there were interviews and TV reports throughout the local media’s different platforms (newspapers, television, social media etc.) Intensive communications are required to maintain the interest of the participants, so the key finding of the process were collected and published for them (send out by email and made it visible on the webpage of the event).

Reflections on the six challenges:

In the initial stages of the PHOENIX Horizon 2020 project, the consortium partners collected and summarized the six most important challenges regarding the success of the EGD related participatory initiatives.

Setting adequate time-frame horizons for the policy/topic at stake:

Time frame of the policies should relate to longer periods, that can only guarantee a safe environment for the policies to achieve results. In the case of Szeged, climate change issues are something which needs to be dealt with as soon as possible so there is an urgent need to act. Now there is no physical result inside the city, but the Green Action Plan of the City Hall includes points from the CA which is a next step in a long progress.

Improving the understandability and tractability of complex issues and their interrelated relations:

Informing people is a key aspect of this point: while they are there to discuss a certain issue, details must be given by experts which happened during the Territoral Commission and CA. It can add some extra time to the whole process, but important to make the related problems more complex for the citizens. Transparent communication, presentations were essential to answer this challenge.

Optimising synergies among stakeholders in transcalar and interscalar perspective:

Because the Szeged project happened on local authority level, Optimising synergies were easier than on national or regional level. Here people can directly contact their politicians and representators. The recruitment method guaranteed that people should work with people from different backgrounds, the problems and the needs of the inhabitants with different ZIP codes (for instance: the outskirts and in the city centre) are different, so to select and choose the proper solutions needs a new perspective. However, the issues of climate change have effects outside the city border as well, so the implementation of the surrounding settlements in the process can be a next step.

Favouring behavioural changes of actors to increase their active partnership:

To reach active partnership in a participatory process, it is important to find and looking for people who has lack of interest or does not believe in change. Because of that people were contacted by mail to show and encourage them a chance to participate. With this step, contacting people who possibly did not participate in the process, there is a high chance to enhance behavioural changes. One key point here is who responsible for the process, which organization can manage it from the first to the final step. As a positive result, it has been visible in the past 2 years that the City Hall committed to implement this kind of participatory process in their project. It is true that they were trying similar methods in the past, but they were opened to continue this process as well.

Promoting a more deliberative dialogue to face conflictual visions and expectations for the EGD

As the European Green Deal was promoted by the EU, take it and discuss the effects of it before European citizens is absolutely a more deliberative method. With the Citizen Assembly, the methods and possibilities which were given by experts and EU stakeholders can face with the opinions of the inhabitants. The expectations and the realities can meet on regular basis.

Increasing mutual trust relationships among different partners:

Trust is inevitable during the participation process. To achieve it, it is important to guarantee that the key findings are taken into consideration after the CA. The presence of the City Hall in the process ensured it, and the official statement Green Action Plan is essential to prove the worthiness of the whole participation process.

The selected citizens of Szeged generally found the event useful and interesting, expressing optimism that their efforts are not in vain. Researchers from the University of Szeged shared their experiences with the consortium's 14 other partner institutions and published the results of the first Szeged Community Assembly as well as the observed group dynamics and their changes in high-ranking journals. The project team will provide ongoing information on how the results will be utilized. The participants were encouraged to join the Szeged Territorial Planning Platform created by the project, where they can represent their interests during presentations.

Tangram developed for the pilot and relation among it and the process implemented (PHOENIX integrative section)

Following the challenges Szeged faces we proposes a tangram intended to publicly debate the problems of the region. This tool was developed by all the consortium partners relating to their own project. Tangram is Originating from the Chinese tradition, it is a puzzle made of seven geometric shapes, called ‘tans’, which can be arranged together to suggest an amazing variety of forms. The objective is to encourage a public debate on the risks, so that it is possible to publicly address the problems. Based on a shared diagnosis of the situation, it is easier to propose participatory processes aimed at thinking about solutions and alternatives to the problems that have been raised. Given the diffuse knowledge of environmental risks among the population, we proposed to empower the members of the Territorial Commission, as a space in which the different stakeholders of the region are.

The Tangram had three distinct phases. The first is the public debate that can be carried out through different tools. The objective is to plan a general diagnosis of the region. We propose tools expressly dedicated to the young population, others expressly designed to facilitate non-oral expression that favours the involvement of a more diverse public, as well as digital tools and face-to-face workshops more aimed at groups and stakeholders present in the territory.

The second phase had to do with the role of the Commission. All diagnoses reach this working group, where they are systematized. A brief report can be made on the different problems detected in the region and a prioritization of the most urgent or most necessary problems to be addressed can be made. The selection of a topic through prioritization would lead to the organization of a mini-public.

The third phase was dedicated to the organization of the mini-public. A sample would have to be selected by lot among the inhabitants of Szeged. The Commission, which acts as coordinator, selects the different experts who can provide detailed information on the problem, as well as different solutions for the future. Participants will evaluate the information and discuss the alternatives in order to prioritize actions that can be taken for the future. This last phase ends with a digital vote on the proposals prioritized by the Citizen Assembly.

The result of the vote returned to the Territoral Commission. There, the members of this body can design different indicators on which a follow-up and evaluation of the application of the measures can be carried out in the future. Similarly, the Commission may propose another topic for debate to the Citizen Assembly or may decide to open a debate with the public on the next topic to be discussed.

Territorial Commission of Co-Design impact on the pilot process (PHOENIX integrative section)

The role of the Territorial Commission was crucial for the project, because it was the body who set the main goals which the Assemby should dealt with. It was a longer process, where people who are interested in to share their opinions on the related issues. However, because there was no random selection at his stage of the project, some social groups maybe did not participate from this pre-section of the process. Even the founded issues which were discussed by Assembly members found relevant by the participants, it is important to ensure that many different opinions left out or listened society. The assistance from the deputy mayor at specifying the topics were useful for the project. The impacts of political actors can cause manipulation on the final outcomes in any projects, but in this case no negative feedback came from the participants, questioning the relevance of the three selected final topics. Because of the length of the Commission meetings, it was guaranteed that it can analyse to most relevant questions which should be discussed during the Assembly. However, because it needed more scheduled meetings in three different months, there was a possibility that the interest will decrease, while the assembly was briefer and managed only in a month. The problem mapping by the Commission was found relevant by the assembly members; however, the number of the participants and their represented social groups could have been extended. All in all, the work of the Commission can be defined like a government, who proposes actions and acts to the so-called parliament, which was the Citizen Assembly in our case. Because of these two different roles, their operational problems are not the same. The most important thing is, that the final outcomes should not be manipulated between the proposals and the final decisions. In our case, the high agreement among the members fully ensured that.

What obstacles or challenges did you encounter in deploying the process, and how did you address or work around them?” (PHOENIX integrative section)

All in all, the initiative can be considered successful, there were challenges and difficulties needed to be overcome. First of all, the timing of the Commission meeting was not ideal, as the fact that one of it has started at 2:30 PM on a Friday meant that it fell within working hours for many participants.

Not everyone enjoyed the community planning process. There were municipal employees who informally told their colleagues that the whole thing was just a "raking of water," meaning it was entirely meaningless. It's not surprising that not everyone found joy in the community planning process. Such complex initiatives can often pose challenges and may not immediately find the support they seek. Communication gaps among participants or differences in expectations may have played a role in this experience. This can be the reason also, that the last Commission meeting was a failure

Another issue is that the participants delegated by the city were not actually connected to the project, and they didn't really know what they were delegated for. They likely lacked enthusiasm and interest, probably because they couldn't see the big picture.

The discussion at the meetings was dominated by politicians and municipal representatives. However, it's important to note that every participant had the opportunity to speak at length, and no one was left completely sidelined or without a voice. Transportation and urban development perspectives (represented by decision-makers and policymakers) were in conflict with the ecological considerations emphasized by the community and experts with a strong ecological background.

During the exchange of ideas, we also encountered differing interpretations of concepts, such as in the case of energy poverty. One participant emphasized that a certain phenomenon aptly characterized this issue, while another participant added that there are several other dimensions to it, including poor infrastructure, lack of insulation, and energy wastage.

During the process of selecting problems, there were instances where quick consensus was reached, while in others (e.g., land use: forests around the city vs. heat island; water surfaces: lack of water surfaces vs. further improvement of water quality), minor debates arose. However, these were mostly professional discussions, with experts dominating, although there were occasional contributions also from civilians. In the end, efforts were made to select problems that could be processed more effectively and efficiently during the Citizen Assembly.

The most important challenge was the involvement of youths at the process. The involve them advertisement were used on social media and online platforms as well, but they were a bit underrepresented especially in the point of the cities demographic structure.

See Also

References

Allegretti, G., Meloni, M., & Dorronsoro, B. (2022). Civic Participation as a Travelling Ideoscape: Which Direction?. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and the Global South/s (pp. 57-70). Routledge.

Fauré, E., Arushanyan, Y., Ekener, E., Miliutenko, S., & Finnveden, G. (2017). Methods for assessing future scenarios from a sustainability perspective. European Journal of Futures Research, 5, 1-20.

Fiorenza, M., Duradoni, M., Barbagallo, G., & Guazzini, A. (2023). Implicit association test (iat) toward climate change: a prisma systematic review. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 4, 100103.

Spada, P., Mellon, J., Peixoto, T., & Sjoberg, F. M. (2016). Effects of the internet on participation: Study of a public policy referendum in Brazil. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(3), 187–207.

Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative democracy and the environment. Routledge.

External Links

https://szeged.hu/cikk/a-feketesas-utca-lehetosegei-a-kozossegi-tervezes-kicsiben-ugy-nez-ki-mint-egy-furdoszoba-felujitas

https://www.interreg-central.eu/news/green-hackathon-in-szeged/

https://www.interreg-central.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/D1.5.2_ActionPlan_Szeged_final.pdf

https://kozossegigyules.eu/

Notes