This project is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund

through the Interreg Alpine Space programme

Project number: 639

Project acronym: trAILs

Project title: Alpine Industrial Landscapes Transformation

DELIVERABLE D3.2.1 + D.3.2.3

Workshop report

May 6th-8th 2019, Eisenerz

Work package: T3 – Test AILs : test-design procedure (pilot-based)

Activity: T3.2 Co-design of transformation scenarios and test

with local stakeholders

Organization: Registered association Styrian Iron Route (VESTE)

Deliverable date: June 2019

Version: final

Dissemination level: Project Partners

Dissemination

target: Project Partners

Page | 2

CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 3

2 WORKSHOP PREPARATION .......................................................................................................... 4

3 WORKSHOP AGENDA & STRUCTURE ......................................................................................... 5

3.1 Day 1: Fieldwork & workshop introduction (6.5.2019) ................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Day 2: Stakeholder workshop (7.5.2019) ................................................................................................................................................. 6

3.3 Day 3: Internal workshop reflection (8.5.2019) ................................................................................................................................... 8

4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Experiences from the regional partner ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Experiences from the stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................................. 10

4.3 Next steps ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

5 Summary and conclusion .............................................................................................................. 13

Annex: Foto documentation ................................................................................................................... 13

Page | 3

D.T3.2.1

Co-design of transformation

scenarios and test with local

stakholders

A.T3.2

Co-design of transformation

scenarios and test with local

stakholders

D.T3.2.2

planning recommendation

(content-related)

O.T3.1

AILs Test-design Tool

D.T3.2.3

workshop report

(process-related)

1 INTRODUCTION

Co-design of transformation scenarios and tests with local stakeholders are the central part

of WP T3. They involve all research PPs supported by regional PPs in implementing a co-

design process in each of the pilot. Different transformation scenarios are produced and

discussed with stakeholders during a co-design workshop. Such a workshop is essential to

test the transformation potential of a pilot area, in order to define a transmissible,

disclosable and transferable tool/procedure that sets out an orientation strategy for the

future of the area.

Co-design activities within tRAILs are structured into three parts with corresponding reports:

- Co-design workshops (D.T3.2.1)

- Planning recommendations (D.T3.2.2)

- Workshop report (D.T3.2.3)

Figure 1: Diagram of the structure of A.T3.2

The co-design workshop in Eisenerz/Austria was carried out from May 6th – 8th. All trAILs

partners and regional stakeholders were involved. This report reflects the workshop

procedure/functioning.

Page | 4

2 WORKSHOP PREPARATION

The workshop agenda for the first pilot site “Eisenerz/Münichtal – Austria” was set up

together with POLIMI (see Annex).

Different “settings” for the workshop were discussed:

On-Site workshop setting in the industrial halls (“tent within a hall”)

Improvised location within walking distance to site

Seminar location in city centre

Preferred option would have been to work “on-site”, but due to scarce infrastructure in the

vacant industrial remains (which would have meant high efforts und financial resources to

provide a proper setting) it was chosen to use a location some 300 metres away from the

pilote site. The location - a mixture of event hall, restaurant & car garage - was within

walking distance of the site and provided substantial floor space for a workshop setting

(plenum + work group tables).

Major challenge in the preparation was the stakeholder involvement. About 50 stakeholders

and observers were contacted personally with the aim to involve a maximum of target

groups. Following stakeholder groups were invited:

Owners of the different sections of the pilot site

Municipality of Eisenerz (mayor, local council, heads of administrative sections –

economy/infrastructure/finances)

Representatives of other Styrian municipalities with potential tRAILs sites

Government of Styria (resorts of regional development, spatial planning)

Town planers and planers of “redesign Eisenerz”

Former workers of pilot site

Representatives of major companies in Eisenerz (Erzberg) and of Mining university

Regional development agencies

Chamber of commerce

Tourist associations

Culture associations

Authority of monument preservation

Historians

Local citizens & NGOs

Local students

Observers of tRAILs

Page | 5

3 WORKSHOP AGENDA & STRUCTURE

3.1 Day 1: Fieldwork & workshop introduction (6.5.2019)

Participants: all project partners

1. 12-13 h: Come together

2. 13-14:30: Site visit to the pilot site “Old blast furnace site Münichtal/ Eisenerz’’:

The site visit focused on specific spots including areas not seen yet (former gas plant and

power station, former swimming pool within industrial site, slag heap)

3. 14:30-19:30: Review of site dossier and preparation of the meeting with stakeholders:

The site dossier with the 5 assessment reports and the students’ works (TU Wien) were

presented and discussed by project partners. The final list of stakeholders who had

registered for day 2 (stakeholder day) was reviewed and thematic tables were organized

accordingly.

The original suggestion (according to the agenda) was to work on tables with 3 different

topics and corresponding stakeholders/regional experts:

Table 1: Social and economic regeneration (Third sector associations)

Table 2: Environmental, ecological and landscape regeneration

Table 3: Spatial and urban regeneration

In regard to the registered stakeholders and the scenarios it was decided on the spot to

change the setting and instead work on tables with 3 scenarios (see 3.2) and distribute

the stakeholders accordingly.

Page | 6

3.2 Day 2: Stakeholder workshop (7.5.2019)

Participants: all project partners + stakeholders/observers

17 Stakeholders:

Sabina Cimerman Government Of Styria (A17 Raumplanung)

Werner Altrichter owner former Pilkington/Alumelt plant

Katharina Gugerell Mining University Leoben & "research centre at Erzberg"

Arch. Werner Nussmüller city developer, "redesign Eisenerz" planner

Gunther Hasewend former head of building dep. of Styria, initiator of "redesign Eisenerz"

Rainer Rosegger sociologist; "redesign Eisenerz" planner

Christine Holzweber mayor Eisenerz

Gerhard Niederhofer historian Eisenerz

Heidi Pichler citizen Eisenerz + Eisenerzer NGO (sport)

Kornelia Lemmer citizen Eisenerz + Eisenerzer NGO (health)

Dagmar Isele NGO - culture association Innerberger Forum

Rudolf Haberl citizen Eisenerz interested in regional development

3 pupils (18 year old, from Eisenerz) School of economy Eisenerz

Günter Speer citizen neighbouring municipality; expert for regional monument preservation

Wolfgang Fischer University of Graz / observer

1. 09:15 – 10:00: Presentation of the general project, and introduction of the tRAILs team

members and the stakeholders

2. 10:00 – 11:00: Presentation of the Eisenerz video produced by the University of Verona, and of different scenarios for the reconversion of the site (students´ work of TU Wien) to stakeholders and observers

3. 11:00 – 14:30 (incl. lunch break): Thematic working groups with stakeholders, facilitators

and observers- 3 tables working on the 3 scenarios: a. Greenhouse

b. Recycling

c. Culture

Page | 7

Table 1 – „greenhouse“ Table 2 – „recycling“ Table 3 - „culture“

Andreas Voigt (moderator) Julia Forster (moderator) Julia Pechhacker (moderator)

Stefan Bindreiter (tracking) Katharina Strobl (tracking) Isabella Schuster (tracking)

Elena Solero Piergiorgio Vitillo Paolo Galuzzi

Lorenzo Migliorati Liria Veronesi Veronica Polin

Tomaz Pipan Manca Kroselj Zlatka Zastavnikovic

Udo Weilacher Marcello Modica Helena Cvenkel

Thomas Kleitz Sonia Abluton Selma Tercon

Stefan Reuter Gerfried Tiffner Kerstin Baer

Werner Nussmüller Gunther Hasewend Rainer Rosegger

Werner Altrichter Katharina Gugerell Kornelia Lemmer

Wolfgang Fischer Gerhard Niederhofer Günter Speer

Heidi Pichler Christine Holzweber Dagmar Isele

Sabina Cimermann Rudolf Haberl 3 pupils

4. 14:30 – 17:00: Plenary session - presentation of results & discussion

First strategic ideas were presented (blank maps of pilot area in which first

strategic ideas for the site transformation were identified (through post-it,

annotations, sketches, drawings… ). Thematical output: see 3.2.2

Page | 8

3.3 Day 3: Internal workshop reflection (8.5.2019)

Participants: all project partners

3.3.1 General evaluation (what worked well, what should be improved)

As this was the first workshop of the tRAILs project, the partners were happy that – although

a certain amount of improvisation had taken place and the agenda and the workshop setting

had been revised in the evening of the first day – things went smooth. The atmosphere was

good and the stakeholders seemed to be interested and engaged.

The workshop inputs were felt to have been too general, and the expected outcomes not

precisely enough defined. One essential expected output of the work package is: to produce

planning recommendations for the site development.

The coordination of the partners in the preparation of the workshop was not sufficient.

Many just worked on their topic, but forgot about the general outcome and a general

assessment. Therefore the interdisciplinary approach suffered. Looking back, the time

schedule between the site visit and the workshop had been too tight, the results of the WP2

(assessments) should have been put together long before the workshop and shared among

PPs and stakeholders. Sufficient internal communication on workshop issues was missing as

well. Different contributions/roles were not clearly enough defined.

Despite the difficulties in convincing stakeholders to participate, 15 stakeholders were felt to

be a good number. The involvement of young people (students) was felt positive, the

partners should keep an eye on that in the next workshops.

Mixed teams on the scenario tables were useful - questions from different sectors arose and

we could answer them due to our interdisciplinary team on the table.

It would have improved the quality of the workshop if the stakeholders had got more

information before the workshop (e.g. the dossiers were on the table, but due to the lack of

time they were hardly used). It is essential to plan a follow-up with them and keep them

updated with project. At the workshop itself the setting of “bilingual” tables was not

completely satisfying and made it difficult to keep up a fruitful dialogue between

stakeholders and international partners due to language problems (translation was carried

out, but slowed the process a lot).

Page | 9

3.3.2 Recommendations

Identify the key actors long before the workshop, and ensure their participation. An official

invitation (letter) to the stakeholders would help, as this time it had probably been a little bit

too informal.

Identify a process manager within the municipality/community with whom to keep in touch

for the project follow-up.

More public engagement is needed with regards to project activities/meetings in the

region/town – e.g. through media (involve local newspapers, preliminary press release). A

press conference before the workshop could help to prepare the ground.

Communication with people outside the project team is essential and should be planned in

detail. To ease it, PPs should know the stakeholders (who, what) well enough in advance

before meeting them in the workshop.

It is important to prepare the ground for the stakeholders long before the workshop and

provide them with “easy-to-understand” information. A preliminary presentation /

discussion / brainstorming with the stakeholders as an intermediate step could help to

improve the planning recommendations. This could take place either on the first site visit or

as an additional meeting between the site visit (T2) and the planning workshop (T3). First

scenarios /students projects as well as assessments could already be presented to the

stakeholders before the workshop.

Clarifications on results expected by the stakeholders should be done in advance, to avoid

misunderstandings at the workshop day. Always keep in mind the main aim of trAILs

workshop (AILs Test-design Tool): we have to identify a process, not a project, and we have

to grant a transmissible, disclosable and transferable tool/procedure that sets out an

orientation strategy for the future of areas.

The general setting should be flexible and depend on the number and sort of stakeholders:

Maybe only one big table or plenum is enough instead of 3 or 4 smaller ones.

A better »workshop strategy« for the forthcoming workshops should be provided, though a

little flexibility in the workshop setting should be kept.

Simple but to keep in mind: Organisational improvement. Coordinate better within the

partnership who brings which materials. Provide a handout of the programme, tRAILs

promotion material (writing pads, pens, folders etc.) and list of stakeholders per table for the

moderation

Page | 10

4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

4.1 Experiences from the regional partner

When addressing the stakeholders beforehand, we raised some expectations in regard to

producing a concrete project proposal for the site. We were anxious that even fewer would

attend if that wouldn´t be the aim of the workshop.

Despite that it turned out to be quite a task to get a substantial stakeholder group together.

Spending a whole day in a workshop (and that on a work day) is not possible or not

desirable for most of the stakeholders. Site owners and municipalities are mainly interested

in concrete results – if they don´t get a feeling that such results could arise out of a project

they are mostly not willing to invest much time. In the case of the city of Eisenerz loads of

studies have been carried out in the past 20 years – and most of them haven´t been turned

into reality. Local stakeholders seem to be somehow tired to work on a further study,

therefor it was a reasonable result to motivate 17 to engage themselves in the tRAILs

process.

4.2 Experiences from the stakeholders

Feedback was gathered from the stakeholders by asking them to answer the

following seven questions. The following overview gives a summary of all

answers; individual answers from the stakeholders are available in detail in

German.

1. Have you already dealt with industrial brownfields in your professional environment?

What do you associate with the topic of industrial brownfields?

As the stakeholders were experts as well as non-experts, the experience with industrial

brownfields differed. Rainer Rosegger for example has worked with brownfields in Leoben

(Austria) - Probuskyhalle, Thessaloniki (Greece) - LABattoire, Oberweißbach (Germany) –

NARVA; Wolfgang Fischer (University Graz) is an academic expert on brownfields and

recycling of buildings and also Katharina Gugerell (University Leoben) has worked with the

conversion of military, industrial and rail-related brownfields. The associations with

industrial brownfields were mainly the same by all workshop participants: abandoned, not-

used former industrial sites; sometimes with contaminated soil or building materials; with

conversion potentials mainly in urban context.

Page | 11

2. Which of the presented scenarios (back to nature , reuse and recycle, greenhouse,

culture) were you interested in? Which aspects did you like, which not? Which

topics/issues have you missed?

Not surprisingly, the general view was that any active use of the site would be positive. It

mustn´t be one topic only though – a mix of the scenarios could be a good way for a

reconversion. Favourite among the Eisenerz civil society stakeholders was “back to nature”

(also in respect to the efforts on becoming a touristic destination). The local stakeholders

regarded an industrial use with caution (in regard to past experiences – the installation of

the former aluminium recycling plant caused major emissions). The greenhouse scenario

was seen as an innovative new and interesting approach; missing was a “touristic scenario”.

3. What are your own ideas for the transformation of the site?

adventure park (in context with the Alpinresort next door)

touristic or sports indoor activities

keep some halls for cultural or economic activities, and reconvert the other parts

(e.g. establish a park)

themepark “mining heritage”

“culture/sculpture” park

announcement in newspapers: e.g. halls with 10.000 sqm & 10 meters height to use

for free. Potential users must provide a usage concept; use should preserve or even

improve the buildings

start-up space

4. Which impacts arise with these new ideas for the site, the municipality and the region?

Financial resources (municipality, owner, investor), funding programmes

(Styria/Austria/EU), coordinated planning and implementation

Produce “investor brochure” and find a professional canvasser (“Akquisiteur”)

Owner should depreciate the remaining assets in the financial statement to zero

value - this would make it easier to experience with new usages

Involve local people and make an analysis of needs and demands

Keep the public informed on a possible “shrinking process”

5. Which actors or organisations do we need for these new ideas? Which timeframe can

we set?

Page | 12

Site owners, municipality, investors, media, Eisenerz civilian society, funding institutions

(gov. of Styria & Austria etc.), canvassers, other stakeholders…

6. What was your expectation?

There were no explicit expectations beforehand by most of the workshop participants, as

they had too little information on the project and intermediate results.

General expectations were: brainstorming, exchange of ideas, find new usage or even

practical and realistic solutions for the conversion of the site.

7. Did the workshop match it?

As the expectations were not very high beforehand, the feedback was in general a positive

one by all stakeholders: fruitful discussions, some creative ideas, knowledgable research

partner consortium; thankful, that an international consortium with high expertise is

working on the site

Some of the participants expected more stakeholders (too many researchers in relation to

number of stakeholders). The workshop structure with “language facilitators” on the table

was also regarded as not satisfying and made the discussions too lengthy and somehow

exhausting. Better results could have probably been achieved without language barriers.

The students of the economical high school of Eisenerz stated, that the workshop was

beyond their expectations: interesting and diversified.

The film contribution was highly praised by some participants and even regarded as a

“masterpiece”.

4.3 Next steps

In respect to the engagement of the stakeholders it is essential to keep up the

contact. All Stakeholders will be provided with the summary of co-design results

and the planning recommendations. Specific stakeholders will also receive

detailed information about thematic assessment (according to their role/their

expertise). The TU Wien students´ deliverables will be communicated as well as

soon as they are finalized. It will be discussed with the municipality if an official

presentation of the results will take place so that a larger part of the civil society

can be involved.

Page | 13

5 Summary and conclusion

The workshop was the first of 4 regional workshops within the trAILs project. In

this regard it was the “pilot test” for the forthcoming workshops. Important

experiences were gained especially in the field of stakeholder involvement and

about the structuring of the workshops. Stakeholder involvement for the co-

design workshop worked out to be a challenging task: It´s not easy to find

stakeholders who are willing to spend a full day at such a workshop, unless they

can gain a personal profit (mainly owners and municipality).

One of the most important conclusions from the feedback of the stakeholders

was that they should be involved at an earlier stage. The workshops should be

mainly used for discussion of scenarios and not so much for brainstorming. A

stakeholder meeting well before the co-design workshops is suggested. At this

stage the various co-assessments of the site should already be available. All in all

the multidisciplinary approach was regarded as positive by all stakeholders.

Annex: Foto documentation

Page | 14

Page | 15

Page | 16

Page | 17

Page | 18

Page | 19

Page | 20