DOCSLIB.ORG

URBAN SHARING in Amsterdam City Report No 1 by URBAN SHARING TEAM 2019: 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
URBAN SHARING in Amsterdam City Report No 1 by URBAN SHARING TEAM 2019: 1 URBAN SHARING URBAN in Amsterdam City report no 1 by in URBAN SHARING in Amsterdam City report no 1 by URBAN SHARING TEAM “Urban Sharing in Amsterdam” explores the landscape of the sharing economy in the city context. This research is a result of a Mobile Research Lab conducted by 7 researchers from Lund university in 2019. Specific focus is on three sectors: sharing of space, mobility and physical goods. For each sector, we discuss the drivers and barriers to the sharing economy, the associated sustainability impacts, the potential impacts on incumbent sectors, and the institutional context of sharing. Then, attention is turned to the role of the city council in engaging with the sharing TEAM SHARING URBAN economy and specific governance mechanisms employed by the city council are described. Since the sharing economy is not sustainable by default, urban sharing organisations, city governments and incumbents all have important roles to play in ensuring that the sharing economy positively impacts cities and their citizens. In the face of negative perceptions and possible impacts of the sharing economy, we may need to be more deliberate in thinking in terms of scaling the sharing economy to the size, needs, and capacities of cities. 2019: 1 Insights contained within this report may support the City of Amsterdam and other Sharing Cities, as well as urban sharing organisations and third-party actors in Amsterdam and beyond in their strategic work with the sharing economy for sustainability. URBAN City report no 1 SHARING www.urbansharing.org tweeter: #urbansharing 953202 Principal investigator: City report no 1 [email protected] in AMSTERDAM URBAN SHARING TEAM 789178 ISBN 978-91-7895-320-2 9 URBAN SHARING IN AMSTERDAM City report no 1 URBAN SHARING TEAM: Oksana Mont, Andrius Plepys, Yuliya Voytenko Palgan, Jagdeep Singh, Steven Curtis, Lucie Zvolska and Ana Maria Arbelaez Velez. 2019 1 Cover design: Lucie Zvolska Cover photo: Yuliya Voytenko Palgan Copyright: URBAN SHARING TEAM ISBN: 978-91-7895-320-2 (print) ISBN: 978-91-7895-321-9 (pdf) Printed in Sweden by Media-Tryck, Lund University Lund 2019 2 3 Table of contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 2 City context ........................................................................................ 5 2.1 Governance structure .............................................................................. 5 2.1.1 City governance structure ......................................................... 5 2.1.2 City regulatory policies for sharing ............................................ 5 2.2 Geography and demographics ................................................................ 6 2.2.1 Topography and urban sprawl .................................................. 6 2.2.2 Socio-demographics.................................................................. 6 2.2.3 Tourism in the city ..................................................................... 7 2.3 Economy .................................................................................................. 7 2.3.1 Economic vibrancy .................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Jobs ........................................................................................... 8 2.3.3 Income ....................................................................................... 8 2.4 Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 9 2.4.1 Technology readiness ............................................................... 9 2.4.2 Mobility infrastructure ................................................................ 9 2.4.3 Accommodation....................................................................... 10 2.5 Innovation and sustainability ................................................................. 11 2.6 Socio-cultural conditions ....................................................................... 12 3 Urban sharing in Amsterdam ......................................................... 15 3.1 The landscape of urban sharing in the city ............................................ 15 3.2 Public perception of urban sharing ........................................................ 17 4 Space sharing in Amsterdam ......................................................... 21 4.1 Drivers and barriers to space sharing ................................................... 21 4.2 Sustainability impacts of space sharing ................................................ 24 4.2.1 Social ....................................................................................... 24 4.2.2 Economic ................................................................................. 25 4.2.3 Environmental ......................................................................... 25 4.3 Impacts of space sharing on incumbent systems .................................. 26 4.4 Regulatory context and institutional systems for space sharing ............ 26 4 5 Mobility sharing in Amsterdam ...................................................... 29 5.1 Drivers and barriers to mobility sharing ................................................. 32 5.2 Sustainability impacts of mobility sharing .............................................. 32 5.2.1 Social ....................................................................................... 32 5.2.2 Economic ................................................................................. 33 5.2.3 Environmental ......................................................................... 34 5.3 Impacts of mobility sharing on incumbent systems ............................... 35 5.4 Regulatory context and institutional systems for mobility sharing ......... 36 6 Sharing of physical goods in Amsterdam ..................................... 41 6.1 Drivers and barriers in relation to sharing of physical goods ................. 42 6.2 Sustainability impacts of sharing physical goods .................................. 44 6.2.1 Social ....................................................................................... 44 6.2.2 Economic ................................................................................. 44 6.2.3 Environmental ......................................................................... 44 6.3 Impacts of sharing physical goods on incumbent systems ................... 45 6.4 Regulatory context and institutional systems for sharing of physical goods ..................................................................................................... 45 7 The role of the city in governing urban sharing organisations ... 47 7.1 Regulating urban sharing organisations ................................................ 49 7.2 Providing for urban sharing organisations ............................................. 49 7.3 Enabling urban sharing organisations ................................................... 50 7.4 Self-governing urban sharing ................................................................ 51 7.5 Collaborating with urban sharing organisations .................................... 51 8 Concluding remarks ........................................................................ 53 9 References ....................................................................................... 55 5 6 City Urban Space Introduction Mobillity Goods Governance context sharing sharing 1 INTRODUCTION This city report is the result of a Mobile Research Lab [1] conducted in the frame of the five-year research programme Urban Sharing [2], funded by the European Research Council (2018-2023). The Mobile Research Lab involves a combination of methods, including case studies, interviews, observations, expert panels, and in-situ field work. This report presents insights gained by the team of seven researchers from the International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University, Sweden, who collectively wrote the report: Oksana Mont, Andrius Plepys, Yuliya Voytenko Palgan, Jagdeep Singh, Steven Curtis, Lucie Zvolska and Ana Maria Arbelaez Velez. 1 Case urban sharing organisations (USOs) are chosen by scouting online databases (e.g. the Sharing Cities Network, the Mesh, Shareable Network Hub, Collaborative Consumption and Sharing.org) and homepages of sharing organisations, analysis of academic and grey literature, and interviews with experts and practitioners. Purposeful and snowball sampling [3] was used for choosing case USOs, guided by several criteria: 1) USOs that have the greatest potential to reduce their environmental impact through sharing, e.g. those that share physical goods, e.g. vehicles and rides, accommodation and physical goods; 2) physical goods with high environmental, social or economic impact, e.g. consumer goods, which can potentially be reduced through different organisational models of sharing (peer-to-peer/business-to-consumer as well as for- profit/reciprocal/free); 3) sharing sectors with various types of engagement from cities and other actors (coercive, enabling, supportive, neutral and inhibiting) and different institutionalisation pathways. These three sectors vary significantly in terms of prominence in the city, in their reputation among the public and other actors, e.g. city government, and have different types of impacts, e.g. social, environmental or economic. According to our strict definition, sharing business models support temporary use of idling assets [4]. This means that peers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Municipalities Act
    Municipalities Act (Text as at 12 November 2013) Act of 14 February 1992 containing new provisions governing municipalities We, Beatrix, by the grace of God Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange- Nassau, etc., etc., etc. To all who see or hear these presents, greetings! Be it known: Whereas we consider it desirable that new provisions be laid down concerning the structure of municipalities and the composition and powers of their authorities; We, therefore, having heard the Council of State and in consultation with the States General, have approved and decreed as We hereby approve and decree: Title I. Definitions Section 1 1. In this Act the number of residents of a municipality means the number of residents according to the population figures on 1 January, as published by Statistics Netherlands. 2. The reference date for determining the number of residents, as referred to in section 8, is 1 January of the year preceding the year of a council election. At the written request of the council, Statistics Netherlands may determine the number of residents on the first day of the fourth month prior to the month of the nomination of candidates if it is likely that a number of residents specified in that section has been exceeded by the specified date. In such a case that date serves as the reference date. Section 2 In this Act residents are persons who have their actual place of residence in the municipality. AVT13/BZK110399 1 Section 3 Persons who have been registered as a resident of a municipality, with an address in its municipal personal records database, are deemed for the purposes of this Act to have their actual place of residence in that municipality, subject to proof to the contrary.
    [Show full text]
  • Bewelcome.Org
    Bewelcome.org – a non-profit democratic hospex service set up for growth. Rustam Tagiew Alumni of TU Bergakademie Freiberg [email protected] Abstract—This paper presents an extensive data-based anal- the difference between the terms user, which is basically a ysis of the non-profit democratic hospitality exchange service profile owner, and member – not every website user had a bewelcome.org. We hereby pursuit the goal of determining the real-life interaction with other members in order to be called factors influencing its growth. It also provides general insights a member. Members are a subset of users. on internet-based hospitality exchange services. The other investi- Hospex services always started as non-profit, donation gated services are hospitalityclub.org and couchsurfing.org. Com- and volunteer-driven organizations, since making profit on munities using the three services are interconnected – comparing their data provides additional information. gratuitous hospitality is considered unethical in modern culture. Nevertheless, business on gratuitous hospitality is common at least in mediation of au-pairs to host families [9, I. INTRODUCTION eg.]. Unfortunately, we can not access the data from CS – the The rite of gratuitous hospitality provided by local biggest hospex service. CS became a for-profit corporation in residents to strangers is common among almost all known 2011 and shut down the access of public science to its data. human cultures, especially traditional ones. We can cite Scientists possessing pre-incorporation CS data are prohibited melmastia of Pashtun [1, p. 14], terranga of Wolof [2, p. to share it with third parties. HC never allowed access of 17] and hospitality of Eskimo [3] as examples of traditional public science to its data.
    [Show full text]
  • Sofa, So Good Couchsurfing Ist Nicht Mehr Nur Etwas Für Nomaden Aus Dem Netz
    FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE SONNTAGSZEITUNG, 19. APRIL 2015, NR. 16 REISE V3 Sofa, so good Couchsurfing ist nicht mehr nur etwas für Nomaden aus dem Netz. Aber je größer die Gemeinschaft wird, desto schwieriger die Frage: Wem gehört sie eigentlich? Gegenstand der Diskussion: Findet auf dieser Couch kultureller Austausch statt? Oder ist sie nur ein kostenloser Schlafplatz? Fotos Göring enn es eng wird, lich gehört. Offiziell ist die Ant- der Plattform nicht: Er verglich beantwortete Fragen von Mitglie- weltweit. Andamanen, Feuerland, noch weitaus mehr Anhänger fin- sen auch, wo das Geld für ihre Ide- muss man eben zu- wort einfach: der Couchsurfing In- das junge Unternehmen mit der dern. Über 2500 Couchsurfer will Kamtschatka – es gibt tatsächlich den wird, und unterstützen andere en herkommen soll: aus der Com- sammenrücken. 50 ternational Inc. Das war aber nicht Datenkrake Facebook und nannte er in zehn Jahren in seiner Woh- kaum ein Fleckchen auf der Welt, Non-Profit-Projekte. Ein paar der munity, nicht von Investoren. „Die Menschen sitzen im immer so. Eine Firma ist die die neuen Geschäftsbedingungen nung nur wenige Kilometer von auf dem man nicht mit Couchsur- Gruppe haben schon bei Couchsur- Welt braucht dringend ein Sozia- KreuzbergerW Café „Mano“, kein Wohnbörse erst seit 2011, vorher „inakzeptabel und unzulässig“. Die der Golden Gate Bridge beher- fing Urlaub machen könnte. fing mitprogrammiert, dann beim les Netzwerk, das nicht auf Daten Platz ist mehr frei, an der Bar steht war sie sieben Jahre eine gemein- Community wehrte sich; auf Face- bergt haben – aber er hat keine Die Frage bleibt, ob viele Mit- Nachfolgeprojekt „BeWelcome“.
    [Show full text]
  • Amsterdam Train Tickets from Airport to City
    Amsterdam Train Tickets From Airport To City Undazzling Adam coapts her maskalonges so thermometrically that Louie crate very antithetically. Wallace corner superciliously as lee Kareem reawakens her catfish tout perishably. Vick manent her Maghreb blasted, meteorological and heteromerous. For the city has licensed a db bahncard or exchange abd refund the city from amsterdam airport train to Leiden is from city council and train ticket will work? Leiden map is a vibrant university city located southwest of Schiphol Airport. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol AMS is by perhaps the largest airport in the. Besides all of that, release can have a store experience in Amsterdam with four card after I surely recommend it if you do not donate to use trains because past a short time trip. Discover art you proper open the ticket access during at Brussels Airport and all Dutch stations by using your queue ticket. To way right will constrain the date window. Keep your tickets to the signs to withdraw your first use the pilot realized that you have to leave home with all gvb operated services. From airport train tickets at brussels is to amsterdam are you use of our dedicated amsterdam to complete it again as airports. Thank you with advance off your help. The ticket from brussels to visit attractions and how far is available one of. Situated near the airport this hotel is 05 mi 0 km from Rijksmuseum Amsterdam Schiphol. Eindhoven Airport is located not hesitate from Amsterdam and is prominent second. Barack obama can also able to centraal and a wide range of seats of a taxi rank, or fill in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id! There are trains from city centre? Travelling on a balance with whatever age law is i possible action a personal public transport chip card.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining Coalition Types: an Analysis of Government Formation at the Dutch Local Level
    Master’s Thesis Research Master Political Science & Public Administration Student: Jascha Wieldraaijer Student number: S0632724 Supervisor: Prof. dr. Andeweg Second reader: Prof. dr. Koole Woordenaantal: 8257 Explaining Coalition Types: an analysis of government formation at the Dutch local level 1 2 ABSTRACT: In the last 50 years, several theories have been developed to explain the occurrence of several governmental coalition compositions. These theories have been extensively tested in cross-country comparisons, which often suffer from the difficulties of a limited number of cases and a large number of varying institutional factors. This study tries to bypass these difficulties by studying a large number of governments formed at the Dutch local level. Two expectations from existing coalition literature are tested: one concerning the influence of the value political parties place on being in government, the other concerning the insecurity political parties experience in assessing the preferences of potential coalition partners. Several institutional and situational developments at the Dutch local level have created variation which allow these expectations to be tested empirically. Support is found concerning expectations on insecurity of preferences of coalition partners, whereas support concerning the value political parties place on governmental participation is mixed. 3 4 A large number of diverging theories on the formation of government coalitions have been formed over the past 50 years. These theories have often been put to the test, mostly by studying Western parliamentary systems. However, these theories can also be used to explain coalitions on lower levels of government, such as regional governments (Stefuriuc 2013) or municipalities (Bäck 2003; Denters 1985; Steunenberg 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Helsinki, Stockholm, Amsterdam
    HELSINKI, STOCKHOLM, AMSTERDAM How to stimulate housing production? An exchange of experience This report is part of the collaboration of the cities of Helisnki, Stockholm and Amsterdam and written by mr Cor de Jong, by the development corporation, city of Amsterdam. [email protected] Copyright of this research lay with the Development Corporation Amsterdam. This research can be used in other publications with mentioning the name of its owner: The Development Corporation Amsterdam. 1 European cities learn from each other: Helsinki, Amsterdam and Stockholm exchange experiences in order to stimulate housing production. Background Housing production has been a hot topic in a number of European countries for some time. In the Neth- erlands, the concern about achieving the objectives at both national and local levels has led to policy initiatives and to adjustment of the available instruments. Research shows that housing production in various European cities is at the least an area of attention and sometimes also a source of concern. In a joint project, the European cities Helsinki, Amsterdam and Stockholm exchanged knowledge and experience. The aim: can we learn something from each other in the area of promoting housing production? This article examines the interim results of the co- operative efforts. It first offers a brief description of how the exchange came about and what form it took in practice. The exchange in practice This exchange project came about more or less by accident. Representatives of the municipalities of Stockholm and Amsterdam who were attending an international conference in the autumn of 2003 hap- pened to start talking about what was going on in their city.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Ahmed Marcouch Does Not Deserve the “World Mayor Prize”
    Why Ahmed Marcouch does not deserve the “World Mayor Prize” The Board of Mayor and Aldermen in Arnhem under the leadership of Mayor Ahmed Marcouch is also known as “the cover up Board of Arnhem” and is becoming increasingly entangled in its own falsehoods and contradictions. In the argument below we have explained why the board members of the Arnhems Peil Foundation think that mayor Marcouch does not deserve a chance to win the “World Mayor Prize”. The Arnhem Administrative Culture File In the municipality of Arnhem in 2017, two Municipal Executive breaks occurred in one term of office and four aldermen resigned. This points to a negative administrative culture that is damaging the city and its administration and eroding confidence in politics. The city council has therefore asked for an investigation in a unanimously adopted motion. The Dutch School for Public Administration (NSOB) conducted this research and presented it on 24 August 2017. In the research led by Paul Frissen came the urgent message to Marcouch to guard political decency standards. Frissen thought that Marcouch should steer the debate in a better direction and finished his advice by saying: " If you tell citizens to adhere to norms and values, living up to your own message would be a good idea." However, after two weeks of reflection, Marcouch and his Board of Aldermen wrote to the city council in a letter announcing 'further research' to 'verify' the ‘conclusions and findings’ in Frissen's report. According to researcher Paul Frissen the mayor and aldermen should have embraced the report, apologized and, together with the city council, acted on the recommendations in the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Monopolies in American Cities
    Political Monopolies in American Cities The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers Jessica Trounstine University of Chicago Press, Forthcoming DRAFT Sample Chapters: Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 5 Introduction In many ways, Chicago, Illinois and San Jose, California are extremely different places. Politically they represent the stark distinctions between machine and reform governments examined by generations of urban scholars. Throughout the 20th century, Chicago pulsed with life. Sordid links among a series of infamous political bosses and notorious crime lords ensured that the city never went dry, reelection came easy, and men like Al Capone became fabulously rich. Chicago housed millions of immigrants in an economy of factories and slaughter houses. The very model of a political machine, Chicago’s hierarchically organized political parties were characterized by corruption, patronage armies, and decades of single party rule established by bosses and maintained by working-class constituencies. Meanwhile, on the other edge of the nation, San Jose made its way into the world as a sleepy, agricultural community with a single square block downtown. Its most famous residents have been innovators of technology, not politicians or gangsters. In recent years San Jose has consistently been ranked among the safest and wealthiest big cities in America. Typically, reform governments, like San Jose’s, have been defined only by their ideals and institutional structures: serving the good of the whole through efficient administration, dispassionate and removed from the gritty details of politics. Upper-class, middle-class, and business constituencies have been the strongest supporters of reformed systems. In this way, bosses and reformers have been placed in opposition to each other as representations of wholly different political worlds.
    [Show full text]
  • 153469 Master Thesis Georgio
    Master thesis in MSc in Business Administration and Information Systems Georgios Lagoudakos Hand in date: 15-September-2016 Supervisor: Ioanna Constantiou Count (excl. Bibliography, Case Study Data Sources and Appendices): Pages: 78 Characters (with spaces): 181.824 The Evolution of a Sharing Economy Platform: A Case Study about CouchSurfing Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Research Philosophy ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Research Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Research Strategy................................................................................................................................................ 9 Research Choices............................................................................................................................................... 10 Time Horizon ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upton CSD Paper
    Geoffrey Upton UC Berkeley Department of Political Science Of Commercialization and Moral Law: Airbnb and the History and Theory of Hospitality “Remember that many of your guests will be far from home, so try to anticipate what they’ll want, what they’ll find confusing, and how you can offer help and guidance.” — Airbnb hospitality standards1 I. Introduction: From Berlin to San Francisco In 2015 Germany announced it would accept as many as 800,000 asylum seekers fleeing conflict in Syria and other areas of the Middle East, and that it had allocated $6.7 billion to handle the influx — a stark contrast with other nations’ more tepid response to the crisis. Britain said it would take in 20,000 Syrian refugees within five years, while France pledged to admit 24,000 asylum seekers over two years.2 Germany’s open door policy toward refugees was justified as an ethical obligation to offer hospitality to those in need, leading to German Chancellor Angela Merkel “being hailed as an angel of mercy and her country as a paragon of virtue for flinging open the doors to a massive influx of refugees.”3 Merkel’s open door policy has not been universally well-received; in fact it is partially blamed for electoral setbacks suffered by her Christian Democratic Union party in early 2016 elections in three German states. Nonetheless, Merkel vowed to press on with her open door policy.4 1 https://www.airbnb.com/hospitality. 2 Henry Chu, “Germany's open-door policy in migrant crisis casts nation in a new light,” The Los Angeles Times, Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 2018
    The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 2018 Index Chapter 1 Fundamental rights 5 Chapter 2 Government 9 Chapter 3 The States General 13 Chapter 4 Council of State, Court of Audit, National Ombudsman and permanent advisory bodies 17 Chapter 5 Legislation and administration 19 Chapter 6 The administration of justice 24 Chapter 7 Provinces, municipalities, Caribbean public bodies, water authorities and other public bodies 26 Chapter 8 Revision of the Constitution 29 Additional articles 30 Articles of the 1972 and 1983 text of the Constitution which are to remain in force for the time being 32 4 | The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 2018 Chapter 1 Fundamental rights Article 1 All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted. Article 2 1. Dutch nationality shall be regulated by Act of Parliament. 2. The admission and expulsion of aliens shall be regulated by Act of Parliament. 3. Extradition may take place only pursuant to a treaty. Further regulations concerning extradition shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. 4. Everyone shall have the right to leave the country, except in the cases laid down by Act of Parliament. Article 3 All Dutch nationals shall be equally eligible for appointment to public service. Article 4 Every Dutch national shall have an equal right to elect the members of the general representative bodies and to stand for election as a member of those bodies, subject to the limitations and exceptions prescribed by Act of Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Groningen (NL) – Oldenburg (D)
    Disclaimer: This presentation has been produced in the context of a seminar/conference organized with the assistance of the European Union. It reflects the views only of the author, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. The contents of this presentation are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union or the European Union Academic Programme Hong Kong. Groningen (NL) – Oldenburg (D) Twin City Portrait: Urban Innovation Partnership in the European Union Prof. Dr. Gerd Schwandner January 29, 2015 168 km, 1:42 h 133 km, 1:21 h 50 km, 0:37 h 109 km, 1:09 h 168 km, 1:44 h 159 km, 1:35 h City of Groningen a short portrait Very brief History The oldest document referring to Groningen's existence dates from 1040 Groningen was the regional power of the northern Netherlands, a semi-independent city-state and member of the German Hanseatic League In the 13th century, Groningen was an important trade center The most influential period of the city was the end of the 15th century The city´s de facto independence ended in 1594 when joining the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands In 1672 the city was attacked by the bishop of Münster, Bernhard von Galen But every year, the city of Groningen celebrates its victory as a local holiday (with music and fireworks) on August 28. as „Gronings Onzet“ Groningen is the major city of the Northern Netherlands with a population of 196,000, the seventh largest city in the Netherlands.
    [Show full text]