Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Papers

No. 2 (2025)

Participatory science and local actor engagement: A territorial perspective on the Quintuple Helix Model from the case of the Ombrone river basin

  • Cristina Capineri
  • Giacomo-Maria Salerno
  • Venere Stefania Sannia
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rgioa2-2025oa20570
Submitted
luglio 3, 2025
Published
2025-07-21

Abstract

With the aim of developing knowledge production models that foster reciprocal learning between science and society, this article presents a theoretical and methodological proposal for applying the Quintuple Helix Model to the process of identifying and engaging both local and supra-local actors in citizen science projects. Specifically, it draws on the experience of the CS4RIVERS project, which focuses on monitoring, preserving, and restoring the biodiversity of the Ombrone River basin in the provinces of Siena and Grosseto (Italy). In this context, the Quintuple Helix Model is employed to map and analyse the network of involved actors, with the goal of reconstructing a relational system capable of generating place-based knowledge. This approach highlights the multiscalar, multi-level (in terms of the actors involved), and multi-sectoral (in terms of policy interventions) dimensions of the process, aimed at identifying territorial governance strategies that can effectively support sustainability transitions.

References

  1. Annan K. (2007). How to engage stakeholders and mainstream biodiversity. In: Hesselink F., Goldstein W., van Kempen P.P., Garnett T., Dela J., a cura di, Communication, education and public awareness (CEPA): a toolkit for national focal points and NBSAP coordinators. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and IUCN. Montreal: Canada, 155-225.
  2. Ballard H.L., Robinson L.D., Young A.N., Pauly G.B., Higgins L.M., Johnson R.F., Tweddle J.C. (2017). Contributions to conservation outcomes by natural history museum-led citizen science: Examining evidence and next steps. Biological Conservation, 208: 87-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.040.
  3. Bignante E., Celata F., Vanolo A., a cura di (2022). Geografie dello sviluppo. Una prospettiva critica e globale. Torino: UTET.
  4. Berque A. (2000). Écoumène. Introduction à l’ étude des milieux humains. Paris: Belin.
  5. Boelens R., Hoogesteger J., Swyngedouw E., Vos J., Wester P. (2016). Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective, Water International, 41(1): 1-14. DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2016.1134898.
  6. Bonn A., Hecker S., Bowser A., Makuch Z., Vogel J., Haklay M. (2018). Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science. In: Hecker S. et al., op. cit., 465-484.
  7. Bonney R., Cooper C.B., Dickinson J., Kelling S., Phillips T.B., Rosenberg K.V., Shirk J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11): 977-984. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9.
  8. Bonney R., Cooper C.B., Dickinson J., Phillips T.B., Rosenberg K.V., Shirk J. (2014a). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343: 1436-1437. DOI: 10.1126/science.1251554.
  9. Bonney R., Shirk J., Phillips T.B. (2015). Citizen science. In Gunstone R., a cura di, Encyclopedia of science education. Dordrecht: Springer, 152-154.
  10. Bonney R., Phillips T.B., Ballard H.L., Enck J.W. (2016). Can Citizen Science Enhance Public Understanding of Science? Public Understanding of Science, 25: 2-16. DOI: 10.1177/0963662515607406.
  11. Bracken L.J., Bulkeley H.A., Whitman G. (2014). Transdisciplinary research: understanding the stakeholder perspective. Journal Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7): 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2014.921596.
  12. Bradley R., Jawahir I.S. (2019). Designing and redesigning products, processes, and systems for a helical economy. Procedia Manufacturing, 33: 168-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.04.021.
  13. Brundtland G.H., Khalid M. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Capineri C. (2023). Public geography e citizen science: pratiche di partecipazione per la ricerca-azione. Annali del Dipartimento di Metodi e Modelli per l’Economia, il Territorio e la Finanza, pp. 2-18. DOI: 10.13133/2611-6634/1538.
  15. Capineri C. (2016). The nature of volunteered geographic information. In European handbook of crowdsourced geographic information (Vol. 1, pp. 15-33). Ubiquity Press.
  16. Carayannis E.G., Campbell D. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management. 46 (3/4). DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374.
  17. Carayannis E.G., Campbell D. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation, and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1): 41-69. DOI: 10.4018/jsesd.2010010105.
  18. Carayannis E.G., Barth T.D., Campbell D. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of innovation and entrepreneurship, 1: 1-12. DOI: 10.1186/2192-5372-1-2.
  19. Carayannis E.G., Formica P. (2006). Intellectual venture capitalists: an emerging breed of knowledge entrepreneurs. Industry and Higher Education, 20(3): 151-156.
  20. Castells M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Chesbrough H.W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
  22. Clausen L.P.W., Hansen O.F.H., Oturai N.B., Syberg K., Hansen S.F. (2020). Stakeholder analysis with regard to a recent European restriction proposal on microplastics. PloSone, 15(6), e0235062. DOI: /10.1371/journal.pone.0235062.
  23. Cohn J.P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3): 192-197. DOI: 10.1641/B580303.
  24. Cooper C.B., Dickinson J., Phillips T., Bonney R. (2007). Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12(2): 11 [consultato settembre 2024 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art1].
  25. Crain R., Cooper C., Dickinson J.L. (2014). Citizen science: A tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annual Revue of Environmental Resources, 39(1): 641-665. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-030713-154609.
  26. Cuppen E. (2012). Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Science, 45(1): 23-46. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-011-9141-7.
  27. Dematteis G. (2001). Per una geografia della territorialità attiva e dei valori territoriali. In: Bonora P., a cura di, SLoTQuaderno 1. Bologna: Baskerville, 11-30.
  28. Dematteis G., Governa F. (2005). Il territorio nello sviluppo locale: il contributo del modello SloT. In: Dematteis G., Governa F., a cura di, Territorialità, sviluppo locale, sostenibilità. Il modello SloT. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 15-38.
  29. Dickinson J.L., Zuckerberg B., Bonter D.N. (2012a). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 44: 149-172. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636.
  30. Dickinson J.L., Shirk J., Bonter D.N., Bonney R., Crain R.L., Martin J., Phillips T., Purcell K. (2012b). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6): 291-297. DOI: 10.1890/110236.
  31. Donati L., Stefani G., Bellandi M. (2023). The evolutionary emergence of quintuple helix coalitions: A case study of place-based sustainability transition. Triple Helix, 10(1): 125-155. DOI: 10.1163/21971927-12340010.
  32. ECSA (European Citizen Science Association) (2015). Ten Principles of Citizen Science [consultato agosto 2024 https://eu-citizen.science/resource/88].
  33. Eitzel M., Cappadonna J., Santos-Lang C., Duerr R., West S.E., Virapongse A., Jiang Q. (2017). Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. In: Vohland K. et al., op. cit., 1-20.
  34. Elegbede I.O., Goldin J., Obalola M., Matti-Sanni R.O., Olaleye-Haroun O.S., Akindele O.T. (2023). Stakeholder Governance and Citizen Science. In: Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3104-3111.
  35. Ferguson D.L., Fernández R.E. (2015). The Role of the University in the Innovation Ecosystem, and Implications for Science Cities and Science Parks: A Human Resource Development Approach. World Technopolis Review, 4(3): 132-143. DOI: 10.7165/wtr2015.4.3.132.
  36. Fischer F. (2020). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press.
  37. Fraisl D., Campbell J., See L., Wehn U., Wardlaw J., Gold M., Fritz S. (2020). Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science, 15: 1735-1751. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-020-00833-7.
  38. Fraisl D., See L., Campbell, J., Danielsen F., Andrianandrasana H.T. (2023). The contributions of citizen science to the United Nations sustainable development goals and other international agreements and frameworks. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 8(1): 1-6. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.643.
  39. Franzoni C., Sauermann H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43(1): 1-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005.
  40. Freeman R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Göbel C., Martin V.Y., Ramirez-Andreotta M. (2017). Stakeholder Analysis: International Citizen Science Stakeholder Analysis on Data Interoperability. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars [consultato agosto 2024]. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26124.92802.
  42. Governa F. (1997). Il milieu urbano. L’ identità territoriale nei processi di sviluppo. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  43. Governa F., Salone C. (2002). Describing The Governance. Bollettino della Società geografica italiana, 12(7): 29-50.
  44. Haklay M. (2012). Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation. In: Sui D., Elwood S., Goodchild M., a cura di, Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge. Springer: Dordrecht, 105-122.
  45. Haklay M. (2018). Participatory citizen science. In Hecker S. et al., op. cit., 52-62.
  46. Hecker S., Haklay M., Bowser A., Makuch Z., Vogel J., Bonn A. (2018). Innovation in open science, society and policy-setting the agenda for citizen science. In Hecker et al., a cura di, op. cit., 1-23.
  47. Hecker S., Haklay M., Bowser A., Makuch Z., Vogel J., Bonn A., a cura di (2018).
  48. Citizen Science. Innovation in open science, science and policy. London: UCL Press. DOI: 10.14324/111.9781787352339.
  49. Hargreaves T., Haxeltine A., Longhurst N., Seyfang G. (2011). Sustainability transitions from the bottom-up: Civil society, the multi-level perspective and practice theory Working Paper - Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, 1. www.econstor.eu/obitstream/10419/48796/1/662352246.pdf.
  50. Iaione F.C., De Nictolis E. (2016). La quintupla elica come approccio alla governance dell’innovazione sociale. In: Montanari F., Mizzau L., a cura di, I luoghi dell’ innovazione aperta. Modelli di sviluppo territoriale e inclusione sociale. Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini, 75-89.
  51. Irwin A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, Environment and Society. London: Routledge.
  52. Irwin A. (2018). No PhDs needed: How citizen science is transforming research. Nature, 562(7726): 480-482. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-07106-5.
  53. Jessop B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155): 29-45. DOI: 10.1111/issj.12186.
  54. Lew Y.K., Khan Z., Cozzio S. (2018). Gravitating toward the quadruple helix: international connections for the enhancement of a regional innovation system in Northeast Italy. R&D Management, 48(1): 44-59. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12227.
  55. Leventon J., Fleskens L., Claringbould H. (2016). An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research. Sustainability Science, 11: 763-775. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-016-0385-1.
  56. Levy P. (1994). Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Mass.
  57. Lingua V., Caruso E. (2022). Futures Literacy as a reading key for strategic spatial planning: A community learning process for defining shared futures in the Ombrone River Agreement. Futures, 140, 102935. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2022.102935.
  58. Magnaghi A. (2020). Il principio territoriale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
  59. McKinley D.C., Miller-Rushin A.J., Ballard H.L., Bonney R., Brown H., Soukup, M.A. (2017). Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biological conservation, 208: 15-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015.
  60. Nascimento S., Rubio Iglesias J.M., Owen R., Schade S., Shanley L. (2018). Citizen science for policy formulation and implementation. In: Hecker S. et al., a cura di, op. cit., 219-240.
  61. Newman G., Wiggins A., Crall A., Graham E., Newman S., Crowston K. (2012). The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6): 298-304. DOI: 10.1890/110294.
  62. Nguyen H.T., Marques P., Benneworth P. (2022). Living labs: Challenging and changing the smart city power relations? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, 121866. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121866.
  63. Paleco C., García P.S., Salas Seoane N., Kaufmann J., Argyri P. (2021). Inclusiveness and diversity in citizen science. In: Vohland K. et al., op. cit., 261-282. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_14.
  64. Passarelli M., Ricotta F., Cariola A. (2019). Il trasferimento tecnologico e la strategia di specializzazione intelligente. Economia e società regionale, 2, 116-146. DOI: 10.3280/ES2019-002011.
  65. Passarelli M., Cariola A., Vecellio P. (2018). Beyond multidirectional technology transfer: the case of a ‘proof-of-concept network’. Industry and Higher Education, 32(5): 312-325. DOI: 10.1177/095042221879053.
  66. Phillips T.B., Ballard H.L., Lewenstein B.V., Bonney R. (2019). Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving beyond data collection. Science education, 103(3): 665-690. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21501.
  67. Pisano C., Lingua V. (2019). The Ombrone river contract. A regional design practice for empowering river communities and envisioning basin futures. Smart city. Urban planning for a sustainable future, 502-512. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2021.2005870.
  68. Provenzano V., Arnone M., Seminara M.R. (2016). Innovation in the rural areas and the linkage with the Quintuple Helix Model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223: 442-447. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.269.
  69. Provenzano V., Seminara M.R., Arnone M. (2020a), Sustainable Development and Transition Management: A New Approach for European Peripheral Areas. In: Bevilacqua C., Calabrò F., Della Spina L., a cura di, NMP – New Metropolitan Perspectives. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 177. Cheltenham: Springer Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-52869-0_4.
  70. Provenzano V., Seminara, M.R. (2020b). Gli scenari di sviluppo nelle aree interne e rurali. In: Storti D., Provenzano V., Arzeni A., Ascani M., Rota F., a cura di, Sostenibilità e Innovazione delle filiere agricole nelle aree interne. Scenari, politiche e strategie, 60. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 15-26.
  71. Rodrigues-Ferreira A., Afonso H., Mello J.A., Amaral R. (2023). Creative economy and the quintuple helix innovation model: a critical factors study in the context of regional development. Creativity Studies, 16(1): 158-177. DOI: 10.3846/cs.2023.15709.
  72. Rombai L. (2009). La geografia fluviale. Ambiente, paesaggio, territorio. In: Resti G., a cura di, Ombrone un fiume tra due terre. Pisa: Pacini Editore, 159-173.
  73. Sanna V.S., Di Grazia F., Capineri C., Polvani A. (2024). Citizen Science for Transition to Sustainability and SDG Monitoring in an Italian River Basin. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 13(1): 1-30. DOI: 10.4018/IJEPR.366585.
  74. Salmon R.A., Rammell S., Emeny M.T., Hartley S. (2021). Citizens, scientists and enablers: a tripartite model for citizen science projects. Diversity, 13(7): 309. DOI: 10.3390/d13070309.
  75. Seyfang G., Smith A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4): 584-603. DOI: 10.1080/09644010701419121.
  76. Seyfang G., Smith A., Longhurst N. (2010). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: A new research agenda. Economic sociology: the European electronic newsletter. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), Cologne, 12(1), 68-72. www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/155963/1/vol12-no01-a9.pdf.
  77. Silvertown J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in ecology & evolution, 24(9): 467-471. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017.
  78. Schade S., Pelacho M., van Noordwijk T., Vohland K., Hecker S., Manzoni M. (2021). Citizen science and policy. In: Vohland K. et al., a cura di, op. cit., 351-371.
  79. Skarlatidou A. (2019). The Value of Stakeholder Mapping to Enhance Co-Creation in Citizen Science Initiatives. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1): 10. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.226.
  80. Skarlatidou A., Haklay M. (2021). Citizen science impact pathways for a positive contribution to public participation in science. Journal of Science Communication, 20(06). DOI: 10.22323/2.20060202.
  81. Skarzauskiene A., Mačiulienė M. (2021). Citizen science addressing challenges of sustainability. Sustainability, 13(24), 13980. DOI: 10.3390/su132413980.
  82. Swyngedouw E. (2007). Impossible “Sustainability” and the Post-Political Condition. In: Gibbs D., Krueger R., a cura di, The Sustainable Development Paradox. New York: Guilford Press, 13-40.
  83. Swyngedouw E. (2009). The political economy and political ecology of the hydrosocial cycle. Journal of contemporary water research & education, 142(1): 56-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2009.00054.x.
  84. Tiago P. (2016). Social Context of Citizen Science Projects. In: Ceccaroni L., Jaume P., a cura di, Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 168-191.
  85. Tiago P., Gouveia M.J., Capinha C., Santos-Reis M., Pereira H.M. (2017). The influence of motivational factors on the frequency of participation in citizen science activities. Nature Conservation, 18: 61-78. DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.18.13429.
  86. Vallance P., Tewdwr-Jones M., Kempton L. (2020). Building collaborative platforms for urban innovation: Newcastle City Futures as a quadruple helix intermediary. European Urban and Regional Studies, 27(4): 325-341. DOI: 10.1177/0969776420905630.
  87. Vohland K., Land-Zandstra A., Ceccaroni L., Lemmens R., Perelló J., Ponti M., Samson R., Wagenknecht K., a cura di (2021). The Science of Citizen Science. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4.
  88. Vogler D., Macey S., Sigouin A. (2017). Stakeholder analysis in environmental and conservation planning. Lessons in conservation, 7(7): 5-16. www.amnh.org/content/download/158575/2593966/f ile/stakeholder-analysis-in-environmental-andconservation-planning.pdf.
  89. Wehn U., Gharesifard M., Ceccaroni L., Joyce H., Ajates R., Woods S., Wheatland J. (2021). Impact assessment of citizen science: state of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach, Sustainability Science, 16(5): 1683-1699. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-021-00959-2.
  90. Wiggins A., Crowston K. (2012). Goals and Tasks: Two Typologies of Citizen Science Projects. In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS-45), 3426-3435. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2012.295.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...