The evolutionary circular and human centered city: Towards an ecological and humanistic “re-generation” of the current city governance

1 Introduction

We are in a critical moment of the history of our civilization. This is clearly reflected in the latest documents of the European Commission. Here there is a clear perception that we have to face enormous challenges. We are in a time in which we have to make more and more complex choices [1]. The stake today is the humanization of life conditions for us and for the future generations.

Our time is characterized by extraordinary and accelerated processes of change. Some of them are modifying even the evolutionary dynamic of the natural ecosystems, as Crutzen already underlined at the beginnings of this century [2]. We say that we are all connected through digital tools in the “communication society”. But we are discovering that we are more and more socially fragmented and also dis-connected from the nature patterns of life. Many imbalances are growing [3].

The changes lead to move more and more toward a dis-connection with the bio-ecological ecosystems, altering the evolutionary nature dynamics. New uncertainties, new turbulence and conflicts are adding: for example, between a few rich elite and an increasing number of poor, between nature and the economic production by man, between the current generation and the future generations.

The pandemic due to COVID-19 is highlighting not only the limited resilience that characterizes the overall organizational structure of our society (starting with that of the economically wealthiest areas). More generally, it has shown the weak resilience of the globalized economic development model and that we are destroying through hard technologies the evolutionary dynamics of our Hearth. The reason is due to our reductive world-view, to our culture. Our way of life is disconnecting all of us from the networks of nature life. Nature has been interpreted as a resource (or a machine) to be used and not as a living dynamic organism that sustains our life and all our activities, that should be effectively conserved.

Climate change, because of its irreversible effects from a certain threshold, increases our difficulty in dealing in our choices, with the conflicts/contradictions above mentioned. Climate change should be interpreted as the greatest threat of this century [4].

It is a process that makes the Earth increasingly uninhabitable: it makes the relationship between the Earth’s ecosystem and humanity increasingly insidious and difficult. The health of the ecosystem is no longer guaranteed, and the health and well-being of humanity in this and future generations is at risk. We are more and more dis-connecting from the future generations.

Climate change and growing pollution are due to our economic system. The existing economy has been defined as devouring natural resources, socially divisive and hostile from an environmental point of view [5].

Due to pollution and climate change, caused by a certain way of producing economic wealth, the double challenge of the social growing poverty/inequality and of the ecological crisis evokes a key issue of justice: justice between the subjects of this generation and justice between this and future generations, who may have living conditions far below those we enjoy today. Many questions arise.

Which desirable futures can we imagine? Which choices are necessary? Which knowledge to be produced, considering the systemic nature of all problems we have to face? Which economic, social, cultural environmental, institutional initiatives regarding our economy and society in our cities, to reduce the growing pressure on the natural ecosystem and growing social inequalities?

Here we are interested to the role of cities. Cities are the major responsible of the climate change and pollution impacts. National/regional economic wealth is produced in cities, where is concentrated the maximum level of energy consumption. Cities are the responsible of the reduction of biodiversity, with all negative consequences on human activities and wellbeing.

In our cities, greenery and natural resources have become the last vestige of nature, which has been replaced by artifice. Green areas have been eroded by concrete, asphalt and bricks. Open spaces, parks and gardens have given way under the pressure of interests linked to the real estate economy and have become a factor in the production of car parks, housing, shopping centres, service centres, etc. The ratio of green areas referred to built-up areas has been progressively reduced. We have increasingly expelled nature from our cities. The ecological crisis of our cities stems from the progressive degradation of natural ecosystem services. Urban waterways have been covered over; street trees have been cut down; biodiversity has been inexorably depleted; green areas have been covered with concrete and bricks. The result has been the loss of the provision of many ecosystem services, of the health of the natural urban ecosystem, its progressive inability to sequester CO², to filter particulate matter, to reduce the effects of air pollution and soil and water contamination on human health. In the same time, tangible and intangible poverty is growing in cities.

Here we are interested to a key urban issue: which new governance? Which governance, in particular, to transform a decay site (often characterized by cultural/landscape values) into a living “place”? Into a development pole?

Which new governance models for re-connecting our cities, our built environment, our transportation system, industrial, agricultural, service systems with the patterns of organic life of nature? For stimulating and engaging local actors towards creativity-led transformations, congruent with Heart systems of life? Which governance approaches for reshaping current economy development strategy of cities towards an integration of the ecological paradigm with the humanistic paradigm attentive also to reduce social inequalities and poverty?

The thesis of this paper is that we need an innovative ecological and human centered governance, and that it is possible to implement it assuming the circular economy model, starting from the valorization of the city cultural landscape/heritage.

In particular, we assume that innovative governance is grounded not only on innovative (financial, economic, administrative, etc.) tools, but also on culture for becoming really effective: to sustain/support from bottom-up the initiatives (rules, investments, plans) coming from top-down by institutions. The governance should be able to manage particular interests to be “combined together” for achieving the general city interest, promoting a “community spirit”. It generate responsibility in people behaviors, making much more effective the public efforts and investments. The circular model not only proposes a new urban tangible metabolism. It also reflects, is grounded and promotes a new culture: a culture of cooperation/collaboration/symbiosis in the space and in the time dimensions with other subjects, with Mother nature, and with future generations. The valorization of cultural heritage reinforces and promotes on its turn the culture of collective memory in a circular process in the time dimension. Thus, they both stimulate the regeneration of values of solidarity, of integration, of inclusion. These values are not already “done”, but they have to be re-generated with the same speed of their consumption by the market capitalistic economy [6], in analogy with the functioning of natural ecosystems. In nature, if an ecosystem resource is not able to be re-generate itself, it decays, it de-generates and at the end it disappears. The same phenomenon characterizes intangible/immaterial components, as values: if they are not re-generated, they de-generate and are lost [7]. Circular economy and heritage valorization/reuse contribute to re-generate values and not only tangible/material components. New local governance should be culture grounded, rooted on collective will inspiring a new world view for guiding city development in co-evolution with the natural ecosystems.

The new local governance here proposed assumes the cultural heritage as the entry point to implement the new approach of the circular economy model applied to cities (to implement the circular city): to recover, reuse, regenerate the city heritage assets as the memory itself of urban system, as the cultural roots of the city system for implementing the human scale of the city development, thus combining economic, ecological and human dimension through culture. The culture of circular model creates systemic behaviors and cooperative bonds in the space (between different subjects) and in the time (between today and yesterday; between today and tomorrow). It is not only focused to recognize existing preferences, ideas and values as “done”, but also to change them, in a cultural evolutionary perspective [8]. For facing the ecological modernization of our society, we need not only new tangible energy, but also new intangible form of energy.

This human circular centered governance is focused to transform some spaces into attractive areas, into “places”. Its general goal is to promote re-generative/self-organization capacity.

Port cities are in particular here considered. Port cities have, all over the world, the greater economic development potential because in the globalized economy the commercial exchanges are implemented through the sea- roads and not through conventional highways. But they are also the most polluted cities, and they strongly contribute to climate destabilization. Here the maximum level of energy is consumed, with all the negative impacts. Port cities have in general, and in Europe in particular, an urban landscape of high quality. But they have also today many dismissed spaces here localized, as waste areas, not used or under-used.

An innovative governance is required in particular in port cities to transform these died spaces into “heritage symbiotic circular ecosystems”, designed, planned and managed as “vital organism”: able to re-generate themselves and to sustain other not self-sustainable components. They should become able to co-evolve with other ones, adapting to the changing context and to transform the city towards a sustainable model. Here the ecological transition (and also the digital transition) towards the neo-humanistic paradigm should start. At the same time, these disused spaces transformed into smart ecosystems should be promoters of Laboratories not only in technological innovations (in the field of cultural industry etc.), but also of cultural activities, in the perspective of inclusion, complementarity, symbiosis, for regenerating mutual trust, reciprocal confidence between people and between people and institutions. Trust allows market, public institutions and also society to better work promoting systemic behaviors. The new governance Living Labs should become co-evaluative Laboratories and also cultural Laboratories of civic/civil consciences, grounded on critical thinking and hermeneutic capacity. A new way of thinking should be stimulated: a new mindset that differs from the narrow conventional one, characterized by a systemic way of thinking grounded, on the evaluation capacity to identify “satisfying solutions” between multiple goals.

The experiences of industrial symbiosis/ecological industry etc. are characterized by the capacity to produce an economic/financial profit, an environmental profit and also a social profit (as new employment). Also a new cooperative culture should be promoted in the proposed circular heritage ecosystems: a “cultural/civil profit” as a fourth profit able to support the top-down initiatives toward a circular metabolism, making new positive relationships with the territory.

In the above perspective, the European Green Deal Strategy [9] and the New European Bauhaus [10] with their specific goals are strongly here assumed. New governance moves towards the implementation of their goals: sustainability, inclusion and beauty in the ecological transition.

This proposal is grounded on the multidimensional benefits (economic, environmental, social) examined in many port cities circular regeneration [11, 12] and on the outcomes of two European Horizon 2020 researches: CLIC (http://www.www.clicproject.eu, about the proposal of new governance, new financial tools and new business models in heritage circular regeneration) and Be.Cultour [13], stressing the role of culture dimension.

2 The circular and human centered governance

3 The “regenerative economy” as the “new circular economy”

More and more it is recognized that the traditional way to produce wealth does not work, because it produces more and more environmental decay and social poverty, with increasing human costs. It is more and more criticized (and defined as “broken”) [39].

Today the search of a new economy is increasingly required. The names are many. For example, a “sustainable capitalism” [40] is often evoked, to ensure economic/financial flows but also to regenerate the natural ecosystems and to improve the quality of life of all people.

Reimagining capitalism is becoming an imperative. A more inclusive and sustainable vision of capitalism, that works for every person and the planet, is going to proposed. Our current system of creating and distributing value is “broken”. “We need to be able to factor into our decision making the consequences of our actions not only for financial and physical capital, but also for human, social and natural capital” [40]. There is a growing perception that a firm should be productive for itself, but also for society and for the natural environment [29, 41].

Considering the growing social inequalities and environmental degradation as a failure of the design itself of the conventional economy, a new “regenerative economy” is evoked. It should substitute the existing “degenerative economy” [42]. This regenerative economy is able to regenerate the enterprise, but also to reduce ecological and social poverty. It is grounded on the circular economy model, that mimics the economy of nature.

Efforts are multiplying to assess the environmental impacts in the medium-long term, so that they can be operationally integrated into decision-making processes, including also the biodiversity impacts on human wellbeing, and on the human health. Many companies are already experimenting the inclusion of these impacts (on environment, on society) in their planning and managing choices.

In this ecological and humanistic new economy, the new entrepreneurship capacity, more and more evoked, should be oriented considering it as linked to the future of nature and to the future of the community/society.

Many enterprises are introducing new business models for contributing to a “thriving world” [42]. The idea is to become more and more regenerative, reconnecting the production processes to the nature cycles and to the social system. The ecological conversion of existing economy means also new attention to the rights and needs of the human beings of future generations: to the human dimension enlarged to long term horizon.

4 A particular aspect of the human development: The value of the “beauty”

The historical centers of cities/districts/sites are particular areas characterized by the human scale. Historic districts “contain” an extraordinary equilibrium: this is their secret and the attractiveness of their beauty. Human life needs this particular balance, that contrasts the general disorder of industrial city and of peripheral metropolitan quartiers.

Ancient districts show how the particular subjective interests of individuals and the common good/general interests (the public spaces intended for social relations) have been creatively combined in a specific relationship between private (residential/commercial) spaces and public spaces.

Spaces become “places”, as central “poles” in the human centered city strategy: the human scale of the city is implemented through a multi-polar production of “places”, as spaces in which a particular set of values/meanings are concentrated, recognized and managed.

The beauty of built ancient landscape, of squares, palaces, public and private buildings, parks, streets is the characteristic of the European city. The “square” (for example the Italian piazza) is the expression unique of the European “relational space”: the expression of the balance between public and private interests, between single human person and the community. Here the implementation of human rights in a relational dimension have been realized. The historic “square” is the place of mixed functions: commercial (the market), civil (the Public palace), cultural (the library, the school, the University), productive (creative industries, innovative and artistic productions), religious (the Cathedral). Its attractive capacity is enhanced by the co-existence of conflictual opposites: ancient/new, man-made/natural capital, material/spiritual, etc. The square becomes thus the ideal space where urban regeneration can begin, for re-building the sense and meaning of “being together” in a community.

The challenge today is to transform many existing historic not used (or under-used) urban areas and cultural landscapes into sites of living ecosystem of social integration and entrepreneurship: embracing the new circular economy development paradigm to make historic assets and historic squares as the entry point to implementing the “human scale” of urban development. The Beauty of these places becomes generative of positive economic impacts, of economic development. This beauty generates an attractive “force field” that enhances productivity and thus stimulates new jobs. But also, it “opens” to richer relationships with others and with ecosystems, towards less conflictual and more cooperative attitudes contributing to inclusion, reducing fragmentation, atomization, fostering cross-sector collaboration and enhancing skills and capacities of local community actors. And beauty contributes to the perception of the well-being /health [50], and also to become more available to reciprocal cooperation.

The New European Bauhaus invites to recognize the important role of beauty/aesthetics of the urban landscape (http://www.europa.eu/new-european-bauhaus/index_en). The above means that the current evaluation processes should be integrated considering not only economic, social, environmental impacts, but also emotional and visual impacts [51].

5 The interpretation of the economy through the lens of biology: The circular economy as a co-evolutionary economy

There are more than one hundred of interpretation of the circular economy [52]. Circular centered and human centered governance interprets the circular economy model as a wise model between the economy of nature and the economy of man: between economy and ecology.

It is characterized by an effective metabolism, made perfect during millennia, that allows to recycle every by-product avoiding any waste [42].

It is a model inspired by nature wisdom, imitating nature organizational structure, characterized by closure of loops; reduction of their scale/dimensions and speed of loops and slowing of loop processes are other linked characteristics, together with minimization/elimination of waste; self-organization/self-reproduction/self-regenerative capacity [53, 54].

More in particular, the interpretation of circular economy that sees the economy through the lens of the biology has some specific characteristics:

It is the economy grounded on ecology and ecological values. It suggests the approach to sustainability as self-sustainability. Its pillar is represented by the recycling circles that guarantee the re-generative capacity, mimicking all nature processes.

The notions of entropy, complexity, irreversibility, symbiosis are introduced together with strong attention to the role of energy.

The concept of complementarity becomes essential. It expresses the relationship of mutual benefits between different components: the presence of an element leads to an increase in value for the benefit of other components, due to the specific interdependencies. It is not enough to reduce, repair, recycle for the implementation of the circular economy. The essential aspect of the circular economy is the successful search of the systemic complementarities: between different functions/activities/subjects on the basis of reciprocal exchanges of benefits. Thus, in the circular economy approach, single elements should be transformed into “components of a system”. To a greater heterogeneity of the different components corresponds higher probability to identify complementarity relationships. This characteristic to re-generate relationships is one of the key aspects of the circular economy, as a re-generative economy.

In this perspective, each subject receives, and in turn offers, a range of resources/services in a process of systemic reciprocity, for the benefit of all in a win-win perspective.

The overall effect of these complementarities is the vitality of the whole system, in which production and consumption are increased by symbiotic relationships, also through digital technologies and facilitated by geographical proximity.

Here we want to stress the interpretation of this model as a model attentive to promote human capital and social capital. These forms of intangible capital are important because the waste are interpreted in general only in terms of natural or man-made resources. The city often is not only characterized by a great amount of waste or discarded elements, but also by the amount of discarded people: unemployed, marginal /poor people etc. Innovative human centered governance should be focused to avoid also this under use/waste of the human capital: of the human beings capacity, intelligence, creativity, self-organization and self-entrepreneurship.

6 The implementation of the circular economy in the space: The new governance towards the “circular city”

7 The general conditions for the success of transforming spaces into “places”

The new governance should promote a “connective tangible and intangible infrastructure” for re-connecting the built environment with the nature evolutionary pattern of life and also the built asset linked with the today and future community, without ignoring the need to re-generate also the cultural/civic mindset (that is needed today to promote the consensus to all public initiatives).

Circular territorial ecosystems in port cities, as Hubs of integrated regenerations and symbiosis, are here considered as the entrance points to implement the circular city/territory model. They have a strong transformative potential towards the circular sustainable city organization.

Which principles in collaborative, co-evolutionary, co-creative governance are required for transforming successfully the “dead” sites in port areas into “living adaptive eco-systems”, to be managed as living organism?

These general principles (coming from the outcomes of the Horizon research CLIC and the collection of a database of good practices) can be summarized into: the re-generative capacity, the symbiotic capacity, the generative capacity (Fig. 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 1

The three principles for organizing systemic complementarities in the symbiotic heritage circular ecosystems.

Figure 2 underlines the ecosystem organization of the symbiotic/circular city ecosystem prototype, with externalities and the relevance of symbiotic processes in the comprehensive context. It suggests that for the reuse of the heritage assets localized in port areas, the functions should be chosen so that some of them can sustain themselves and also can support some other activities. For example, in the reuse of a dismissed industrial site, some residential and commercial functions are justified for supporting social, cultural, educational, research, civic ones (not able to self-sustain themselves) coherent with the intrinsic value of the asset.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 2

The circular territorial cluster flow of values.

The diagram distinguishes between different multidimensional impacts, characterized by feedback loops, reciprocal integrations, systemic interdependences which can transform vicious processes into virtuous ones, starting from a specific threshold.

The re-generative capacity is interpreted (in ecology and in ecological economy) as the auto-poietic capacity [47, 68]; It reflects the capacity to maintain the organizational structure of a living system during the time: its identity and profile (characterized by a circular metabolism), with continuous activities of making adjustments because of degradation/decay and re-making processes [69].

The available tangible and intangible energy is a key element and condition for this auto-poietic capacity.

The ideal tangible circular energy system is grounded on the use of renewable energies, because the system could behavior as a circular one. Other indicator is the capacity to self-sustain in the financial/economic dimension.

The symbiotic capacity expresses the interdependence relationships with all elements of the dynamic external context, that require continuous evolutive adaptations. It guarantees integration and thus the durability of the re-use during the (long) time. It is linked to the material and immaterial relations between the physical asset and the context: it guarantees the dynamic contextualization of a site to its surrounding spaces, as in the natural eco-systems, where relationships are source of life/survival. Thus, the re-use of these particular (heritage) assets in-forms, shapes, re-shapes its surrounding environment (which is in its turn re-shaped and deformed).

The re-generative and symbiotic capacity also generates the capacity to produce multiple tangible and intangible impacts: the generative capacity.

Generative capacity is the multidimensional utility which an eco-system “offers” to its context (as instrumental values), multiplying its relationships. Positive tangible externalities are, for example, reduction in emission of greenhouse gas, in coherence with the priority of this goal recognized by European Union. Also, the soil consumption is avoided, while the production of waste material is reduced etc.

This circular model of reused territorial heritage asset is able to produce external effects that partially impact on the context and partially are able, in turn (in a circular perspective), to “come back” (from the context) to the cultural heritage ecosystem. Some of them are economic impacts on the context that, in turn, become input again for cultural circular heritage ecosystem. These economic values, in fact, can be “re-used” to support the activities included in the space/place.

Symbiotic/circular territorial ecosystem is able to produce also social impacts/values. They are referred, in particular, to the production of jobs (in energy and digital technologies, in social welfare, in education, entertainment, innovative start-ups etc). The circular ecosystem improves wellbeing and quality of life of the community that, in turn, become inputs for a better productivity.

Cultural circular heritage ecosystem produces also environmental values, in particular in terms of avoided costs (reduction of energy consumption, waste reduction, reduced climate change impacts etc.). It produces benefits such as land-saving use due to building reuse (rather than demolished) and the reduction in CO₂ emissions thanks to restoration of a physical asset rather than reconstructing it. Thereby, cultural heritage reuse can help to face the climate change challenge, for example, “through the protection and revitalization of the huge embedded energy in the historic building stock” [70]. This environmental value of cultural heritage can be interpreted as economic value: as avoided costs. But new governance requires also the promotion of new shared mindset. On its turn, this new mindset stimulates the localization of new circular hubs, characterized by new tangible and intangible metabolism with the city/territory. Cultural values produced through territorial circular ecosystems are linked to the capacity to generate and regenerate relationships and the sense of community. Part of these relationships impacts on the context and part of them become input for activities in cultural heritage ecosystem.

We stress here the cultural value of existing heritage because of its potential as a “connective infrastructure” [71]: that is as an infrastructure “keeping society more cohesive” (now highly fragmented especially in big cities), creating and regenerating bonds and relationships. Regenerating cultural heritage contributes to regenerating the “connective infrastructure”, which in turn feeds the productivity of the activities within cultural heritage. Thus, a new community is promoted. But more in general it is promoted a co-evolutionary process with nature dynamic, infrastructure nature as the most important city infrastructure.

The innovative governance should reinforce this circular connective infrastructure to become able to re-connect not only people to their places, but also the places themselves and the people to nature: to the natural ecosystem from which we have been progressively dis-connected, with the result not of promoting the flourishing of life but exactly the opposite. The multidimensional benefits coming from the circular organization are key elements to be evaluated (from top-down and from bottom-up). The capacity to integrate the assessment of instrumental values with the assessment of intrinsic values is required [56], if we want that the innovative governance can sustain the creativity of all involved stakeholder under the pressure of evolutionary forces [72].

8 Planning and managing the symbiotic/circular territorial ecosystem through the landscape evolutionary approach: The co-evolutionary evaluation process

Landscape is an effective entry point for implementing the “circular symbiotic heritage cluster”. In particular, the 2011 Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) proposed by UNESCO [75] recognizes this unifying/holistic perspective. The issue of climate change is “incorporated” into the preamble and some paragraphs of HUL.

The HUL approach integrates different activities and actions in the “management of change” (§24): in the adaptation between “old and new”, between conservation and transformation (§12, 17, 19, 22, 25). Choices between conservation and transformation are to be done, combining in a satisfactory compromise solution [76] the logic of change and the logic of permanence. This means the capacity to distinguish the accessory and the essential elements. The evaluation capacity is repeated in many paragraphs (§10, 23, 24) as a key process in selecting and combining the creativity (and the beauty) of ancient generations and the creativity (and the beauty) produced by current generation: in the adaptation processes and in “integrating natural and cultural heritage” (§19).

Specific evaluations are required in this landscape planning perspective [67]. They require effective DMSS (Decision Making Support Systems), linked to the different scale of the choices and to multiple dimensions.

Multicriteria evaluation approaches are useful to help in the above adaptation evolutionary trajectories [3, 72].

Indeed, over time, evaluations are taking on a central role in Policy Labs as a tool to help identify solutions that deserve to be funded because they improve people’s lives.

From this dynamic approach in the perspective of the circular economy should follow coherent evaluation processes. This dynamic approach in turn leads to an approach in which criteria, weights and alternatives proposed by many different actors change in an evolutionary dynamic.

The Fig. 3 shows that in a first step only few items are quantitative (assessed in a cardinal scale). Some other items are assessed on an interval scale; many other items are only qualitative, using ordinal scale. The above means that it is necessary to use in the first step the ordinal scale, introducing only some quantitative information about costs etc. During the evaluation process, some other items can be converted into interval and cardinal scale. Qualitative multicriteria evaluation approaches are particularly useful during the first steps [55, 56]. These bottom-up evaluations are grounded on existing local knowledge. Top-down evaluation are grounded on rigorous evidence-based knowledge.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 3

Dynamic evaluation process. Source: Zeleny [64] and adaptation.

It is not possible to use only a cost-benefit approach because it is not possible to reduce evaluation into a unique scale. Approaches grounded on MAUT (Multi Attribute Utility Theory) are necessary. Some evaluation methods as AHP, ELECTRE, REGIME, EVAMIX, NAIADE, CIE [55] allow to compare alternatives, in their capacity to fit into specific contexts, deducing a priority between alternatives and producing new ones. These tools allow to identify areas of competitive advantages, to make pilot experiments, etc. in a continuous learning process. Projects themselves evolve in the time and feedbacks are necessary to design new adaptive changes and mutations. New complementarities, new symbioses, new co-evolutionary relationships and thus new project solutions can be identified through evaluations.

The evaluation in the perspective of the circular economy has implications on the evaluation processes first of all because it recalls the centrality of specific environmental/ecological indicators, (for example related to savings in energy consumption, natural resources, able of sequestering CO2 reduction of climate-altering impacts) in addition to the economic ones that are generally introduced, that are useful to understand the change and its intensity in relation to the status quo [65]. The evaluation, in this context of circular economy, necessarily requires a long-term approach; it requires to consider costs and benefits not only economic-financial. The evaluation of externalities (positive, negative, direct, indirect, induced, in the short, medium and long term) becomes central. Of course, the reference scale (building, neighborhood, city, territory) determines different needs for data/ indicators [65]. The evaluation consistent with the human centered approach requires in turn to consider the availability also of other specific types of data and indicators. It requires assessments of the different impacts in term of variation in wellbeing as perceived by the various subjects/social groups: in terms of change of their perceived quality of life. It is important to understand not only the intensity of impacts, but also their distribution between people and between areas.

The transition towards a human centered approach in governance requires, in particular, new evaluation composite metrics, to test prototypes and to compare reciprocal and circular net benefits coming from them. Economic approach can offer the notion of Total Economic Value. But this is an approach based on the Willingness To Pay (WTP) that is not opened to participation of people (and, in particular, of poor people and of future generations). It recognizes only instrumental values and not also intrinsic values. Also intrinsic values should be integrated in the participated evaluation process, with another kind of metric, through a constructivist and not positivistic approach, able to reflect cultural, emotional, aesthetic impacts.

The above evaluation tools can be used also to produce not only the heritage conservation/development assets, localized in port areas, but also to localize in the city/territorial system new “places” as development poles. And also to promote a new culture, essential to improve the human centered and ecological paradigm. The goal is not only to conserve sites and stones but also to valorize the culture that is reflected and incorporated into the sites and stones, and to stimulate a critical systemic thinking. Creativity is the fundamental ingredient for implementing the circular symbiotic heritage ecosystems. It is not related to the reuse architectural project, but it is especially related to the management project: it is the creativity of the entrepreneur/manager. The entrepreneur decides to take on a certain investment and to run the relative risks by creating a new organization, through new solutions that transform the cultural resource into a complex of complementary systemic relations. This takes place by adapting the cultural manmade capital, elaborating a new order, a new organization, also through subsequent experimentation and thus “learning” from successes and possible failures, in the search for ever more performing solutions, through new combinations.

An interactive and systemic user-friendly decision support scorecard should be arranged and available for participant people in order to co-decide. A specific dashboard helps in monitoring. The evaluation tools available for public, private and social actors allow to test the performances of the prototypes proposed in coherence with the above general principles.

All our time problems are reflected and concentrated in the city system. Here the economic wealth is produced and consumed, and here the negative ecological and human/social impacts are more intensive. Many new neighbourhoods were born out of nothing, without social bonds, without a soul: without “places”. Many metropolitan scale economies are transforming into growing dis-economies, with growing ecological negative impacts.

A new local connective, co-creative, adaptive governance is required. It should be able to orient the city organization and development towards the circular model, to reduce the dis-economies and, more in general, to re-connect the city system to nature organic patterns of life, enabling nature and human beings to flourish.

New governance should be able to regenerate self-organization and thus the trust. Adaptive reuse of dismissed heritage assets should be proposed in a dynamic evolutionary perspective, being the regenerative capacity grounded on creativity.

Port cities seem the most suitable cities to be transformed into circular cities. They are strongly characterized by pollution and negative climate change impacts. And also by not used or underused or dismissed sites with cultural, architectural, landscape values (as the old industrial assets, etc.). The proposal here is to trigger the implementation of the circular city starting from these areas, transforming them into circular ecosystems: into productive circular heritage ecosystems, as the new development poles. They have a significant transformative potential in relation to the whole city system. The adaptive reuse of these areas can reduce material and immaterial forms of poverty, thus contributing to the human centred development and city humanization. The subsidiarity principle incorporated in the European Constitution (art. 5) is the normative ground for different forms of tools to manage a public resource as a common: for new Pacts, Agreements, Contracts able to promote communities. They should be supported by an effective new governance, through specific Local Action Plans as operational tools for innovative/regenerative governance. If we assume here that the real challenge is “inside” people, in the way of thinking that should be enriched, a more desirable future depends not only in the innovation in economic, financial, institutional, technological fields, but also on redefining the system of priorities that guides choices and behaviors. It is necessary to build and spread a new “culture” in Local Action Plans, characterized by a long-term horizon, by the recognition of intrinsic and not only instrumental values, by critical knowledge and evaluation capacity as the foundation of the culture of coevolution. The “horizon of the city” and in particular of the “circular city” promotes the overcoming of forms of radical hyper-individualism, which transforms legitimate rights into particularistic selfishness. The new governance should focus on culture as the generative place of choices, of concrete actions and behaviors: as the space of research and critical discernment, even in a communitarian sense. It is the “place” where to cultivate the evaluation capacity to distinguish the real from the fake, the good from the bad, the just from its contrary.

New qualitative and quantitative evaluation evolutionary tools should be identified for implementing the proposals able to manage qualitative/intangibles and quantitative/tangible values in selecting between permanence and transformation/change in the public arenas: in identifying in Local Action Plans new balanced solutions.

This evaluative capacity is important in order to build (and preserve over time) a “desirable city” for this and for future generations, moving towards productions of connectiveness, availability to continuous change and co-creative capacity.

The challenge becomes to review the city governance to make the city development as much as possible congruent with the patterns of nature life. The nature shows us that a resource that is not able to re-generate itself is condemned to de-generate: self-organization/self-regeneration is the key element of the life of all systems. This is replicable also for intangible resources. If a cultural value is not regenerate it will disappear.

In conclusion, the circular ecological and human centered governance is a governance linked not only to the choices of promoting new development strategies to de-carbonize our economy/cities. But also to regenerate cultural values. We have certainly to know all metabolic tangible flows. We have to consider, at the same time, also intangible flows and the metabolism of intangible components/values. We have to promote a richer culture of cooperation and not only of competition (as the nature show us). The new governance is required to enlarge the current reductive worldview that is determining the growing dis-connection with the nature evolutionary system of life. And also the social fragmentation. This is the real meaning and goals of the New Green Deal and of the NEB. If the new governance is not able to re-generate also values as inclusion, solidarity, responsibility, capacity to take care of others and of nature, of beauty, etc. no ecological transition or no Next Generation Plan will be implemented in an effective way. New governance should assume that the challenge of our time is to re-connect our cities to nature, being recognized as the most important city infrastructure: for satisfying the activities and needs of this generation (also of marginal social groups) and of future generations and also to reduce social dis-connection.

Our existing built assets, our infrastructure, industrial plants, agricultural organizations etc. have to be all re-shaped in this perspective if we really want to construct a desirable future, avoiding a systemic collapse.

The outcome of this systemic approach is not only the integration between multiple heterogeneous components: it is the conservation and valorisation also of the beauty of the landscape, that reflects the harmony of the whole systems [3, 77].

Circular symbiotic heritage ecosystems have been here proposed as the entry point for becoming new entrepreneurship and also new cultural Laboratories.

The circular economy model is here proposed not only for the many economic, ecological, social benefits but also as bearer of a new culture: a cooperative/inclusive culture. It is “reinforced” reusing the cultural heritage (that stresses the inclusive values in the time dimension and not only in the space dimension).

Thus, the circular human centered governance has to recognize a particular attention to the cultural dimension, as a key dimension for implementing sustainability. Cultural dimension is not only interpreted as the material cultural heritage valorization, but also in terms of change the current worldview, mindset, way of life.

The circular symbiotic ecosystems are here proposed as an example of initiatives of the new governance grounded on a “culture-led strategy”: to regenerate not only physical scene but also the link between man and man, between man and nature/ecosystems: to re-think behaviors, lifestyles and choices. A “relational rationality” is structurally promoted by the circular economy model, because it is attentive to interdependencies, feedback, connections for cooperation, synergies, symbioses substituting the traditional linear economic rationality.

The circular economy/city model stimulates and offers a new way of thinking, a new culture. It remembers us that every natural system is characterized by a dynamic evolution grounded on its memory. Memory generates adaptation, evolution, future. This is also in human systems, for generating future and hope, combining permanence with transformation. A society is resilient if it recognizes the role of the past, of its memory: if it is characterized by the culture of the memory besides the culture of critical thinking. Every culture shapes relationships: it makes connections, it is a connective infrastructure (that links/bonds each subject with the others and with nature) in the social space. But also in the time. It links today with yesterday through memory/history. It is necessary for making a desirable future for our cities to avoid the leveling on the “hic et nunc”, in the time we live characterized by the amnesia of the memory: to make resistance to our current condition as Adorno and Marcuse [78, 79], already recognized many years ago. We need to integrate in a circular systemic way of thinking past, present and future. Memory can re-generate sense of belonging, care, community, self-awareness introducing the formative energy to face the future: to make resistance to the amnesia of memory of our time.

A possible entry point in the above direction to re-generate the bonds with the past is the recovery/reuse of our cultural heritage interpreted in the circular model. It offers the spatial framework from which to re-generate also the collective/social memory.

The regeneration/re-use of cultural assets, because of its multiple cross-section dimensions, has been proposed here as the entry point for implementing the circular city governance.

But the new governance to become effective has to regenerate also trust/confidence. The words of Antonio Genovesi cannot but be remembered here: “Trust binds, unites, creates a bond in society...Trust is what is the force of cohesion and mutual attention of natural bodies...without which one cannot have any firm and durable mass, but everything becomes dust and sand that dissolves at the first shock...” [80]. Trust as the foundation of the community, confers resilience, but also it contributes to humanity: “if there is no mutual trust there can be no humanity...because each one concerns the other suspicious and the enemy” [80].

Regenerating trust, the new governance strongly contributes to regenerate communities and thus to implement the humanization of life conditions for us and for future generations.