





































 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 
 
ISSN 2184-6995 
 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 
International License. 

 

  

 

 
 
Far-sighted communities: Design meets future studies to boost visioning 
and participatory foresight 
 
Elena Enrica Giunta, Maria Chiara Cattaneo, Rocco Scolozzi 
 
 
Published online: April 2021. 

 
To cite this article:  
Giunta, E., Cattaneo, M. C., & Scolozzi, R. (2021). Far-sighted communities: Design meets future studies  
to boost visioning and participatory foresight. Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, 
Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 16-28. 
 
  



 

17 

Far-sighted communities: Design meets future studies to boost visioning 
and participatory foresight 
 
Elena Enrica Giuntaa, Maria Chiara Cattaneob, Rocco Scolozzic 

 
aDesign department, Politecnico di Milano, Italy; Società Economica Valtellinese (SEV) Scientific Board. 

elena.giunta@polimi.it 
bCRANEC, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy; SEV Scientific Board. MariaChiara.Cattaneo2@unicatt.it 
cDepartment of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Italy. rocco.scolozzi@unitn.it 

 

Abstract 
The increasing uncertainties of all contemporary communities require future literacy, and strengthening 

the participatory dimension of foresight practice is part of the solution. The “Montagna 4.0 FutureAlps'” 

project involved high school students, teachers, businesses and stakeholders of Valtellina, Northern Italy,  

in local laboratories of participatory foresight through a codesign approach. This article briefly reports the 

project framework and the visioning exercises undertaken to build meaningful images of the future (2040). 

Such images should be able to question and broaden the current development visions of the Alpine Valley 

and inspire a collective design of its development trajectories by raising the community’s awareness of 

current and future changes. The activities took place over six workshops with three meetings each from 

September to December 2020, involving students (“@Scuola”), local stakeholders (“community lab”) and 

the general public and experts (“Open talk”). Each workshop focused on a specific topic, such as the 

mountain of tomorrow, sustainable innovation, social innovation and sustainable communities, protection, 

production and promotion, sustainable mobility and events for Alpine tourism. The outputs consisted of 

uncertainty scenarios, postcards from different futures and indications to make development strategies 

future-proof, which are all elaborated on in this article. 

 

Keywords: Codesign, Design Thinking, Foresight Scenarios, Future Literacy, Envisioning, Commons, Social 

Innovation, Local Development 

 

Introduction 

All our decisions are based on some images of the future, from daily individual choices to an ambitious 

personal career project and from a local administration’s daily decisions to longer-term projects and 

programmes for the local area or the country. Design thinking naturally involves sharing images of an 

imagined future service or artefact to develop or materialise. When the object of visualisation and 

development is a larger system such as a territory or its subsystems, such as tourism, housing policies, 

mobility and accessibility, the level of complexity increases. Future studies’ paradigms and tools can help  

to untangle this complexity and integrate the design process to be more explicitly future-oriented. Being 

future(s)-oriented means considering some critical questions for the design process, leading to future(s)-

proof solutions. These questions concern the possible changes in the specific design context and the extent 

of the uncertainties that could make solutions effective today but non-functional in the future. 

 

In this article, we elaborate on an experimental codesign project that involved an entire community and 

different social groups. We present the premises and the educational vision first, followed by the case 

study and the wider context of the experimentation. In addition, we describe the stages and the 

approaches, thus representing a potential toolkit for participatory foresight. 

 

 



 

18 

Premises: The indifferent citizen and the far-sighted citizen 

The school’s mission as a social institution is to educate proactive citizens, responsible for their choices and 

their community’s qualities, providing tools and facilitating the learning of skills. The expected result of 

every effort and investment in this direction is to create open futures of personal and collective fulfilment 

with the ideal outcome of bridging personal futures, collective or even global futures (think about climate 

change as connected to choices of individuals and entire countries), overcoming the dichotomy between 

optimism and pessimism through a proactive attitude based on long-term views and critical thinking 

(Bodinet, 2016; Miller, 2015). 

 

These goals are made more difficult in times of great uncertainty where society and individuals are 

tempted or invited to lock themselves into a “bubble of the present”. Living in such a “bubble of the 

present” means being less and less related to the past and to the future, with increasing concern or even 

fear about an uncertain future and real or imagined risks, at the same time without meaningful references 

from the past. The condition of living in a “bubble of the present” could be associated with “short-

termism”m an attitude in which individuals primarily prefer short-term values (Marginson and McAulay, 

2008). It can also be related to an extreme philosophical interpretation called “presentism”, according  

to which “only currently existing objects are real. Computers, but not dinosaurs or Mars outposts, exist” 

(Sider, 2001). 

 

At the other extreme of living in a present bubble is “futures consciousness”, which, according to the 

futurist Anita Rubin (2002, p. 906), is an “active and action-oriented perspective on the future, present  

and past and the relations between these. [It is] an internalised form of the development of thinking [and]  

a specific effort to form a conception about the meanings and consequences of issues and our daily 

actions”. Rubin thus highlights the notions of agency, internalised future thinking and the links between the 

past, present and future. 

Inspired by these ideas, we distinguished two opposite fictitious types of citizens: the “indifferent citizen” 

and the “far-sighted citizen”. The first represents the citizen as a self-centred individual, essentially  

a consumer of services and products who is interested in satisfying their primary or induced needs soon, 

without a perspective from which to assess the consequences in the medium and long term. When not 

satisfied, their urgency easily creates frustration and apathy. In any case, the same limited horizon leads 

them to a reactive attitude towards events and in the face of undesirable changes (“surprises”) to seek 

others’ faults and responsibilities. 

The “far-sighted citizen” is interested in their own history and the history of their community or of those 

who share their time. Their horizon of perception, observation and action is broad enough that it 

necessarily intersects and interacts with that of other citizens, so they easily see their fulfilment as 

connected to that of their own community. This attention trains them to better understand changes and 

distinguish between those that are uncontrollable and those that can be influenced by their own actions 

(compared to the former they prepare to adapt; compared to the latter they prepare strategies). Through 

all this, the far-sighted citizen somehow owns their time, recognising their responsibilities. 

 

The “Montagna 4.0” project described below starts from these premises with the ambition not only to 

educate "far-sighted citizens" but also to facilitate "far-sighted communities". The design approach and the 

futures studies tools seem to ground effective synergies towards this objective. Nowadays, it is increasingly 

essential to think in a cohesive, community-based logic capable of reflecting on the changes underway as 



 

19 

well as co-constructing new opportunities. This also applies to mountain regions experiencing profound and 

increasingly rapid changes, impacting both the global and local levels. 

 

Montagna 4.0 FutureAlps framework and background 

(SEV) has operated since 1993 as a think tank to promote sustainable and quality-oriented local 

development in Valtellina, recovering fundamental values and pursuing strategic orientation for the future 

from a global perspective (Quadrio Curzio, 2008). 

 

Since 2017, through its Scientific Committee, SEV has offered a series of workshops in Bormio to strengthen 

the local community through participation and co-responsibility. Investing in people with interactive 

workshops is deemed critical, as future choices are to be made as a community. "Montagna 4.0, building 

the future together", with ten meetings for each edition, has registered broad participation, open to the 

whole community, and with the integration of different skills. By calling it "Montagna (Mountain) 4.0, 

building the future together", a legitimate question that arises is "What about Mountain 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0"?  

 

Montagna 1.0 may refer to the "subsistence" age. “2.0” concerns the Industrial Revolution’s effects, with 

the first industrial activities and factories. “3.0” relates to the intensive exploitation of natural resources 

and a strong relationship with the city. “Mountain 4.0” thus opens up new scenarios for the potential of the 

green economy, digitalisation and innovation that can unlock regions. It is a question of being aware of 

what effects change brings about and recalling the need for conscious and coherent policy choices at  

a community level. It represents a process of laying the foundations for a new awareness in the face  

of change, aiming to curb depopulation risks by showing opportunities for growth and sustainable 

development can be built together. Year after year, it has envisaged an open competition of ideas, since 

there are no top-down recipes but only bottom-up solutions. The second edition of the competition 

extended its focus to high school students so that they could explore the relationship between mountain 

identity and innovation. It was named "The mountain I would like" in a growing focus of young people  

to envision the(ir) future(s), as the future is to be seen as plural, given multiple possibilities for the futures 

to happen. 

 

Building on "Montagna 4.0", "Montagna 4.0 FUTUReALPS" represents an example of how community self-

training and participation methods can be experimented, beyond the mere consultative dimension. This 

leads to new dimensions of taking care of the community that grows itself through forms of awareness-

raising in order to contribute and actively operate in the co-definition of their development scenarios. 

Therefore, the adopted approach from the start aimed to focus on the local identity’s fundamental values, 

a precious starting point to confront challenges and build opportunities, in order not to be overwhelmed  

by change.  

 

"Montagna 4.0" involved university professors and representatives of the Alps as witnesses of specific 

practices on topical issues with a mix combining an academic-scientific approach with practical examples 

and ideas. The main topics discussed included circular economy and sustainability, business innovation, 

tourism models, destination management for the enhancement of local assets and effects on tourism, 

biodiversity and Alpine development, identity and values, social change and welfare, climate change, 

finance, resources, Alpine culture and communities and mobility. The workshops represented a valuable 

tool for community growth, highlighting that an innovation culture is critical for local development.  

For this reason, proceeding with the experimentation has been fundamental by making “Montagna 4.0” – 

labelled FUTUReALPS—move around in the various Valtellina districts and through a network with other 

alpine areas. 



 

20 

 

The process was structured into six workshops taking place throughout the area, with mornings explicitly 

dedicated to schools, afternoons to community labs and evenings for the whole community with 

discussions aimed at enlarging the vision of the whole Alpine area. The keywords of FUTUReALPS have 

become community, innovation, territory, sustainability and tourism. 

 

The opening in Bormio focused on the future of mountains, choices to be made and strategies, with 

particular attention to the future of tourism looking at the demand side. Subsequently, the focus shifted  

to companies and the area in which they are based, considering the potential of digitalisation, corporate 

responsibility and the creation of shared value. Furthermore, FUTUReALPS focused on what strengthens 

and disrupts communities and helps them be more aware of their resources. 

 

Another central theme has been environmental protection, production and promotion and scenarios for 

the appropriate enhancement of tangible and intangible heritage. The following workshop focused on 

mobility and how critical it is to network today for tomorrow’s mobility and the close relationship between 

mobility and tourism. Here, too, the operators confronted the students’ visions of the theme of sustainable, 

shared and smart mobility. In the "Montagna 4.0 FUTUReALPS" final workshop, students and then 

stakeholders concentrated on the future perspectives of tourism and events in the Alps and how 

communities could be proactively involved. There was also reference to the Winter Olympics of 2026,  

a unique opportunity for the valley and an extraordinary tool within a longer-term (2040) plan. 

 

“Montagna 4.0 FUTUReALPS” developed according to both a horizontal and a vertical dimension: horizontal 

as moving both in space throughout the territory and in time since looking at 2040, a journey often 

described as taking place through space and time. The vertical aspect entailed each day’s structure with 

three consequential moments feeding one another, morning postcards from the future labs with students, 

intergenerational afternoon community labs and evening open talks looking at the Alpine dimension. 

 

A design toolkit for participatory foresight 

The FUTURe ALPS process embraces a codesign approach and tools to nurture participation and answer  

the specific need to include significant non-expert viewpoints, especially concerning the young generation. 

We can take the example of the most common and acknowledged design creative processes, the Double 

Diamond conceptualised by the Design Council (2014), arguing that all the steps of the divergent and 

convergent phases could be developed collaboratively. Considering this sequence of phases as a linear 

process, we can create a two-pole axis that summarises the subject matter behind the design. The topic-

driven activities refer to the problem/situation that must be investigated (first diamond); the concept-

driven activities refer to an orientation defined through the problem-solving brief (second diamond).  

The FUTUReALPS process mainly goes through the first topic-driven phase. 

 

With its expertise in facilitating and activating communities, how could design support such participation  

in developing future imagined scenarios? In Massive Codesign, as Meroni et al. (2018) said, a crucial issue  

is how to conduct the practice of “joint inquiry and imagination” of codesign. It is described as a process «in 

which diverse people jointly explore and define a problem and collectively develop and evaluate solutions. 

It is a process in which participants can express and share their experiences, to discuss and negotiate their 

roles and interests, and to jointly bring about positive change» (Steen, 2013, pp. 27–28). 

 

In each workshop, specific labs dedicated to students helped them think creatively about future scenarios 

by looking at the most uncertain factors and their impact. Each student (of about 150, from 6 schools) was 



 

21 

invited to make personal reflections, to discuss in small groups of peers from the same class and face to 

face, to interact with working groups from other schools (connected online) and finally to produce 

postcards from the future. Alongside this, the community labs triggered intergenerational dialogue 

between students and stakeholders through a backcasting approach, moving from possible futures twenty 

years from now to roadmaps to undertake today. Scientific studies and experiences from all over the Alps 

were presented in the evenings, with best practices shared.  

 

This structure allowed us to foster participation and make co-creation accessible. There is not full 

consensus about the definitions and reciprocal boundaries of the terms participation, collaboration, 

codesign, co-creation and co-production. This is perhaps because some academics include “use” itself  

as one of the last phases of the design process, thus calling all the activities “co-design” (for example,  

pre-design, discover, design, make, distribute and use are the phases according to Sanders and Stappers, 

2012). At the same time, other scholars distinguish design activities, which happen at project time, from 

consumption moments, which happen at use time (project/use time distinction can be found in Ehn, 2008). 

The term co-creation will be used as a hypernym of both codesign and co-production, as Freire and 

Sangiorgi (2010) do. What co-design does is simulate use before actual use happens by involving potential 

final users as sources of ideas and experiences. 

 

Of course, during the FUTUReALPS format, we can just practise co-design, reflecting on co-production only 

thanks to other colleagues’ examples (the contents evening talks). We could see how other Alpine 

communities look at their possible futures by adopting similar or different tools. Besides, the shared aim  

is to strengthen local communities to extend and consolidate their networks of relationships through  

a continuous learning process, thus reshaping futures in times of pandemics. Designers and tutors played 

the facilitators’ role, encouraging interactions amongst participants and raising awareness of the process. 

They also facilitated participants’ interaction, critical thinking, self-criticism and their capacity to think out 

of the box and beyond their own comfort zone. 

 

Specifically, looking at the guidance approach, we can argue that it ranges between two positions, "active 

listening" (Sclavi, 2003) and thought-provoking, reflecting a difference in purpose and situation. A scenario 

workshop facilitator does not tell people what to do or think, nor do they forecast anything, but they “draw 

out (e-ducare) the concerns of others” through leading questions and exploring the uncertainties relevant 

for the strategic issue. The facilitator then needs to know quite a lot about the subject under discussion to 

ask those questions that lead in the most productive direction (Ogilvy, 2002).  

 

A thought-provoking style, on the other hand, leads the participants’ thoughts towards some critical 

aspects or opportunities of a given topic or concept. This guidance is likely to lead the participants on the 

thought process and speculative journeys aiming to generate reactions and, in general, responsiveness to  

a set of expected plausible scenarios. This is undertaken to anticipate and possibly manage the 

consequences. This position is, normally, congenial and familiar for a designer whose role in a debate or 

creative session is generally considered a contribution of ideas and input to be shared with the participants 

(Manzini, 2015; Meroni et al., 2018). In a thought-provoking approach, we can recognise the basis of what 

psychologists, as well as other practitioners, call “strategic conversations” (Nardone & Salvini, 2004; 

Ratcliffe, 2002). 



 

22 

 
Image 1: The collaborative design framework (Meroni et al., 2018). 

 
By polarising these two guidance styles, we can create an axis that visualises diverse ways to facilitate  

and run co-design activities. On one side, there is (designerly) facilitation, which mainly draws and builds on 

active listening techniques. On the other side there is (designerly) steering, which mainly adopts a thought-

provoking posture of designers as experts in envisioning the future. The second axis focuses on the above-

mentioned duality between topic- and concept-driven issues. The two created axes generate a framework 

of four alternative intentions of (designerly) facilitation, which can be used within a comprehensive design 

process, the collaborative design framework (see image 1). Within this theoretical framework, the 

FUTUReALPS process focused on the left side of the axis. 

 

The student groups could start by using a first tool, the “strategic scenarios” matrix (Image 2), as a coherent 

representation of possible futures and plausible conditions relevant to strategies to build together. The 

workshop did not propose pre-established solutions. It was designed in an exploratory way with a set of 

variables and factors of change (STEEP: Social, Technological, Environmental, Economic, Political factors)  

to select. In practice, the students were asked to identify the most uncertain and most impactful factors 

relevant to the workshop theme. The steps have been as follows: 

• analysing the factors of change, 

• reflecting on those that could have the most significant impact on the dimension of possible 

uncertainty and 

• ordering them and placing the two most uncertain and relevant on the axes of the scenarios matrix, 

in the combination of their plausible extreme 2040 conditions. 

 

To make an impact and uncertainty more understandable, those pillars were described as the legs of  

a coffee table. If the leg of the table is removed and everything collapses, then the impact is high. The 

uncertainty is instead linked to the probability that one of the legs supporting the table could collapse.  

So, the least impacting factors are those that, even if failing, the business continues as if nothing had 

happened. These are not of particular interest to us. On the contrary, we are interested in the ones that 



 

23 

would put everything into play if failing. As for uncertainty, it is about understanding what might happen 

with a focus on the most unlikely events. 

 

 
Image 2: An example of the strategic scenarios matrix, by students. 

 
Each quadrant of the strategic scenarios matrix was briefly described as a future world. Then, students 

were invited to engage with exercises of visioning one of these futures, assuming a specific viewpoint. We 

assigned a personas profile to each group to help students reflect on the liveability of these “worlds” and 

wrote about the potential lives of the inhabitants of Valtellina 2040. Community organiser, mountain guide 

4.0, Alpine blogger/influencer, sabbatical climber were just a few selections of the 70+ personas we used  

in the FUTUReALPS process. As belonging to students’ different future worlds, these characters became 

70+ senders of as many postcards from the future.  

 

The results of the six workshops were various and articulated: here we report an extract of the results  

of the first one (25th September 2020) focusing on tourism. In that event, 93 students participated in the 

morning session, divided into 14 working groups. In their opinion, the most relevant and impactful 

uncertainties for local development are summarised in the following table. 

  



 

24 

Uncertainty factors 2040 plausible extremes 

Climate Increasing damage from climate 

change 

Limited damage in prepared 

communities 

Connections and transport The furthest areas are the most 

isolated 

All the areas of Valtellina are well 

connected 

Computer skills 

at the community level 

Spread from the tobacconist to 

the mayor 

Few can benefit from digital 

innovation for their own economic 

activity 

Relations between 

innovation and tradition 

Synergies Conflicts and competition 

Pandemic The next is “managed” and not 

problematic 

Other waves will surprise us 

unprepared 

 
Table 1. Sample of uncertainty factors identified by the students. 
 
The operators in the community lab, stimulated by the “postcards from the future” have identified some 

“intermediate goals” necessary to prepare the favourable conditions for the desirable 2040 scenarios, 

excerpted here: 

• In 2030, tailor-made training for public administrators is periodically organised to work on long-

term strategies; 

• In 2030, positive outcomes of the 2026 Winter Olympics remain on the territory, enhancing  

local identity. 

 

This codesign tool could be considered within the topic-driven/steering quadrant. This area of the 

collaborative design framework is about imagining and considering options beyond the world as it is. The 

collaboration aims at stimulating participants’ capacity to envision options beyond the usual way of doing 

things, thus challenging behaviours and conventions. The objective of the material used was to challenge 

and provoke the participants with unusual viewpoints, mind mapping or other creative practices, helping  

to steer imagination towards a “wow effect”. Functional or fictional role-playing activities help make all 

participants actively contribute to giving voice to weaker people, stepping into the others’ shoes, 

representing all viewpoints and leveraging expertise. 

 

Each postcard, with its brief storytelling, has led to a challenge for 2040. Topic by topic, during the six 

workshops in the community labs, local representatives moved from these challenges to reflect on and 

develop a collective roadmap. Referring, once more, to the collaborative design framework, we underline 

that the community labs with citizens belong to the quadrant topic-driven/facilitating. This area is about 

discovering and exploring options. Collaboration is aimed at taking into account the needs and experiences 

of relevant stakeholders and users in order to capture their knowledge and/or engage them in the process 

(of visioning). Materials used in this context could be a series of tools to extract the experience, knowledge, 

desires and needs of users and stakeholders or to investigate the project and frame its fundamental 

assumptions. In the FUTUReALPS process, a specific radar scheme was the tool we chose for selection and 

decision making. 

 



 

25 

 
Image 3: Overview of the codesign toolkit for participatory foresight. 

 

As the final step of each workshop, the evening open talk broadened both community vision and 

understanding to an Alpine framework with expert and academic contributions, thus acknowledging the 

ongoing process and bringing in social innovation practices from elsewhere. The added value of this final 

step consisted of both involving the general public as well as sharing participatory results with experts’ 

views and perspectives. 

 

Conclusions 

The experiment is meant to continue with developments in different sectors (local communities and  

local schools) and geographies, also producing intangible results. These are about learning in terms  

of reframing the visions for local development and understanding the coming changes, not yet in terms  

of different decisions. 

 

In terms of overall impact, it may be underlined that such a participatory process has been experimental  

in the area with such a considerable number of students and high schools involved. Teachers from the 

schools involved acknowledged that students really committed themselves, in such a particular and for 

many of them also complex moment due to the pandemic. It was meaningful to see that many groups  

of young people from the valley dared to think of a future that adults too often are afraid to envision and 

towards which they often look more disenchanted than hopeful. 

 

Intergenerational dialogue represented a tool to be structured more thoroughly after this experimentation, 

with a call to ensure that what youngsters do not know depends on how adults communicate to effectively 

intercept them. Among the stakeholders, after the six workshops, it was mentioned that a community of 

intentions was created, with strong conviction that everyone shares the intent to proceed with planning  

in an open and glocal perspective; with a critical vision of how to design what awaits us by 2040, not linked 

to habits or “it has always been like that” but trustful and inclusive of everyone's interests. 

 

Among the facilitating elements within the experimentation of “Montagna 4.0 FUTURe ALPS”  

lie the following: 



 

26 

1. The school has shown a formidable resilience in welcoming and actively participating in the process 

by strengthening the school’s presence in the community, with enthusiasm on the part of the 

students involved, even in a time of great stress for schools. 

2. The dimension of listening and focusing on young people as actors with a vision that interests the 

community about the future remains fundamental and has received interest to continue shortly  

to make it more structural in the area. 

3. Looking at the stakeholders, the backcasting laboratories’ effectiveness is closely related to the 

extent the actors involved are willing to play the game, thus being open to thinking about future 

scenarios ten or twenty years from now. This requires openness and willingness to question 

consolidated paradigms of local economic development and management. 

 

We can take co-design as a paradigm of orientation, using its tools to "navigate" in a structured way: 

promoting ideas and visions on the one hand and enabling synthesis on the other. This endowment 

facilitates to “go beyond the present” as skills we focus on: the primary capability of forward-thinking 

communities. Their competence of future consciousness is substantiated in five key dimensions: temporal 

perspective, systemic perception in systems, attitudes behind each action, values and concern for others 

and openness to alternatives. Community-centred design, mixed with a futures studies mindset, therefore 

nurtured our experience to boost Alpine far-sighted communities. 

 

Community-centred design requires that facilitators develop two areas of competence: the ability to learn 

about the community and its habitat and the power of creatively collaborating with non-designers. Civic 

engagement also helps to foster stronger relationships and trust across a local system, strengthening  

a society’s ability to work together to achieve shared goals for the future. We refer to this collaborative 

design approach as community-centred design (Meroni & Manzini, 2014), which can prompt or feed the 

service design mindset (Meroni & Selloni, 2018) that is increasingly characteristic of today's creative 

communities (Meroni, 2007). Additionally, participatory practices allow Alpine territories to go beyond 

rhetorical or generic objectives of liveability and competitiveness and develop futures with a deeper 

awareness of local assets. The project revealed timely insights with the possible futures to draw specific 

actions to shape preferable outcomes. As the global pandemics challenged traditional paradigms, any 

change appeared to be possible, moving beyond centre-periphery in a polycentric approach calling for 

collective action to open up exciting futures to build. 

 
References 

Bodinet, J. C. (2016). Pedagogies of the futures: Shifting the educational paradigms. European Journal  
of Futures Research, 4(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-016-0106-0 
 
Cattaneo, M. C. (2019) Montagna 4.0: un futuro da costruire insieme; il percorso continua [Montagna  
4.0: A future to be built together; the path continues]. Curated by Collana Socioeconomica  
Società Economica. 
 
Cattaneo, M. C. (2018). Montagna 4.0: un futuro da costruire insieme; una storia da raccontare [Montagna 
4.0: A future to be built together; a story to share]. Curated by Collana Socioeconomica Società  
Economica Valtellinese. 
 
Ehn, P. (2008, October). Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference 
on Participatory Design 2008 (pp. 92-101). Indiana University. 
 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-016-0106-0


 

27 

Freire, K., & Sangiorgi, D. (2010, December). Service design and healthcare innovation: From consumption 
to coproduction and co-creation. In 2nd Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation, 
Linköping, Sweden. Vol. 5, p. 2011. 
 
Giunta, E. (2019). DESIGN & COMUNITÀ. Co-costruire le relazioni tra comunità e istituzioni, per lo sviluppo 
del territorio. (DESIGN&COMMUNITY. Codesing new relations between people and institutions for local 
development) in Cattaneo, M. C, curated by. Montagna 4.0: un futuro da costruire insieme; il percorso 
continua (pp. 107-112). Collana Socioeconomica Società Economica. 
 
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs. An introduction to design for social innovation.  
MIT Press. 
 
Marginson, D., & McAulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical 
analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.657 
 
Meroni, A., & Manzini, E. (2014). Catalyzing social resources for sustainable changes. Social innovation  
and community centred design. In Product-Service System Design for Sustainability (pp. 362–379). 
Greenleaf Publishing Limited. 
 
Meroni, A. (2007). Creative communities: People inventing sustainable ways of living. POLI.design. 
 
Meroni, A., Selloni, D., & Rossi, M. (2018). Massive codesign. A proposal for a collaborative design 
framework. FrancoAngeli. 
 
Meroni, A., & Selloni, D. (2018). Design for social innovators. In Design roots. Culturally significant designs, 
products and practices. Bloomsbury. 
 
Miller, R. (2015). Learning, the future, and complexity. An essay on the emergence of futures literacy. 
European Journal of Education, 50(4), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12157 
 
Nardone, G., & Salvini, A. (2004). Il dialogo strategico. Comunicare persuadendo: tecniche evolute per  
il cambiamento [The strategic dialogue. Communicating by persuading: Advanced techniques for change]. 
Ponte alle grazie. 
 
Ogilvy, J. (2002), Creating better futures: Scenario planning as a tool for a better tomorrow. Oxford 
University Press. 
 
Poli, R. (2015). The implicit future orientation of the capability approach. Futures, 71(Supplement C),  
105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.03.002 
 
Quadrio Curzio, A. (2008). Merzoni, G, curated by. Lo Statuto Comunitario per la “Valtellina”. Un progetto 
della sussidiarietà [The Community Statute for the “Valtellina”. A subsidiarity project]. Franco Angeli. 
 
Ratcliffe, J. (2002). Scenario planning: Strategic interviews and conversations. Foresight, 4(1), 19–30. 
 
Rubin, A. (2002). Tulevaisuudentutkimuksen käsitteitä [Concepts of futures research]. In M. Kamppinen,  
O. Kuusi, & S. Söderlund (Eds.). Tulevaisuudentutkimus: perusteet ja sovelluksia [Futures research: 
Foundations and applications]. (pp. 889–908). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. 
 
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design,  
4(1), 5-18. 
 
Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial design toolbox: Generative research for the front end  
of design. BIS. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12157
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.03.002


 

28 

 
Sclavi, M. (2003). Arte di ascoltare e mondi possibili. Come si esce dalle cornici di cui siamo parte [The art  
of listening and possible world. How to think out of the box we belong to]. Paravia Bruno Mondadori. 
 
Sider, T. (2001). Four‐dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press, 2001, p. 11. 
 
Steen, M. (2013). Codesign as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design Issues, 29(2), 29-40. 


