DOCSLIB.ORG

WP 4 | CASE STUDY Report: Shareable's Sharing Cities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WP 4 | CASE STUDY Report: Shareable's Sharing Cities WP 4 | CASE STUDY Report: Shareable’s Sharing Cities Theme [ssh.2013.3.2-1][Social Innovation- Empowering People, changing societies] Project Full Title: “Transformative Social Innovation Theory project” Grant Agreement n. 613169 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613169 Transit – Grant agreement n. 613169 – WP 4 | CASE STUDY Report: Shareable’s Sharing Cities 1 Suggested citation: De Majo, C., Elle, M., Hagelskjær Lauridsen,E., and Zuijderwijk, L. (2016) WP4 | CASE STUDY Report: Shareable’s Sharing Cities. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169. Acknowledgements: We especially thank Nils Roemen, Tom Llewellyn, Neal Gorenflo, David de Ugarte and Maria Rodriguez and all the other people we talked to during our visits for their time, ideas and other contributions to this report. Date: 3rd of October in 2016 Authors: Claudio de Majo, Morten Elle, Erik Hagelskjær Lauridsen, Linda Zuijderwijk Lead partner: IHS Participating partners: AAU Contact person: Linda Zuijderwijk IHS E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +31104082945 Disclaimer: “The content of this publication does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the author(s).” Transit – Grant agreement n. 613169 – WP 4 | CASE STUDY Report: Shareable’s Sharing Cities 2 Table of contents 1 Introduction to Shareable’s Sharing Cities ....................................... 4 1.1 Literature review ............................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Case demarcation ............................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Overview and structure of the report ........................................................................ 8 2 Methodology ............................................................................................. 10 2.1 Researcher relations to the case ............................................................................... 10 2.2 Methods............................................................................................................................... 12 3 Transnational network(ing): Shareable’s Sharing Cities .......... 15 3.1 Emergence of Shareable – Sharing cities ............................................................... 15 3.2 TSI dynamics ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.3 Agency in (T)SI ................................................................................................................. 28 3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 32 4 Local Initiative Sharing City Nijmegen ............................................ 36 4.1 Emergence of Social innovation (SI) and SI-initiative ...................................... 36 4.2 TSI dynamics ..................................................................................................................... 45 4.3 Agency in (T)SI ................................................................................................................. 48 4.4 Summary, synthesis, conclusion ................................................................................ 53 5 Local Initiative Sharing Gijon ............................................................. 55 5.1 Emergence Sharing Gijon ............................................................................................. 55 5.2 TSI dynamics ..................................................................................................................... 66 5.3 Agency in (T)SI ................................................................................................................. 71 5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 74 6 Synthesis .................................................................................................... 77 6.1 Emergence of Social innovation (SI). ....................................................................... 77 6.2 TSI dynamics ..................................................................................................................... 78 6.3 Agency in (T)SI ................................................................................................................. 78 7 References ................................................................................................. 82 8 Annex .......................................................................................................... 83 A. Bibliography for Shareable’s Sharing Cities, Sharing City Nijmegen and Sharing Gijon 83 B. List of interviews ..................................................................................................................... 86 C. List of meetings and events attended .............................................................................. 88 Transit – Grant agreement n. 613169 – WP 4 | CASE STUDY Report: Shareable’s Sharing Cities 3 1 Introduction to Shareable’s Sharing Cities 1.1 Literature review Within ‘Shareable – Sharing Cities’, the concept of the ‘sharing economy’ or the ‘sharing transformation’, is recurring in the analyses of both the transnational network as well as the local manifestations. In other words, we suggest that these concepts are the actors’ social constructions of reality, through which they aim to understand certain practices ‘within’ the network and the local manifestation. In this literature review, we aim to present an overview of the conceptual history of the ‘sharing economy’, ‘collaborative consumption’ and commons. Collaborative consumption The concept of ‘collaborative consumption’ started to appear in literature in the late 1970s, thanks to the work of behavioural economists Felson and Spaeth in the attempt to describe the interactions of productive activities between members of communities. Felson and Spaeth’s thought is indebted to sociologist Hawley’s (1950) theory of “community structure” where he discussed the relations occurring between sustenance activities in relation to the environment. Hawley emphasized the role of Community as the set of relationships between local actors aimed at satisfying their daily needs (1950: 180). Every member of these communities according to Hawley occupies a niche, playing a functional role based upon symbiotic or commensalism relationships. However, as noticed by Felson & Spaeth, Hawley made no major effort trying to link his theory to socioeconomic concepts such as consumption and production, limiting his analysis to sustenance activities (1978: 614). More than a quarter century later, in 1978, drawing on Hawley’s theoretical framework, economists Felson and Spaeth (1978) coined the term “Collaborative Consumption” – a theoretical conceptualization of an alternative economic model based on collaborative production and consumption. According to Felson and Spaeth, acts of collaborative consumption are “those events in which one or more persons consume economic goods or services in the process of engaging in joint activities with one or more others” (1978: 614). In other words, different routine activities – i.e. eating and drinking together or sharing a washing machine – create the circumstances in which collaborative consumption occurs, thus “allowing people to translate personal inclinations into actions” (Felson & Spaeth 1978: 614). Consumer behaviour should not be simply analysed from an individual perspective, but should also try to reflect efforts of people in joining in different activities with each other (Felson & Spaeth 1978,: 616). However, the question is what and how the impact of ‘collaborative consumption’ can be understood in an era in which the dominant social relations point into processes and practices of ‘individualization’ (Beck& Beck - Gernsheim 2001). ‘Sharing Economy’ In the mid-2000s, with the creation of the first collaborative business structures centred on collaborative consumption and economics, especially in the digital industry (for example by PricewaterhouseCoopers) (Benkler 2002) the term ‘sharing economy’ began to appear. Benkler contributed to that with the formulation of ‘commons-based peer production’ (2002) and later of “shareable goods” (2004). It is in this context, that the concept of collaborative consumption was revived by Algar (2007) and by Bostman & Rogers (2010). Transit – Grant agreement n. 613169 – WP 4 | CASE STUDY Report: Shareable’s Sharing Cities 4 Bostman and Rogers define collaborative consumption as “an emerging socioeconomic ground shell” associated with ideas implying people coming together and practices such as sharing, bartering, lending or swapping. Collaborative Consumption enables people to access to products and services without actual ownership relations involved, thus creating forms of growth and prosperity previously unthinkable. Moreover, they insist on the multi-spatial dimension of Collaborative Consumption, as it comprises both local face-to-face practices and digital forms of association gathered under the same umbrella of peer-to-peer interactions. Finally, although the examples of collaborative consumption vary consistently according to different parameters,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transportation Technologies, Sharing Economy, and Teleactivities: Implications for Built Environment and Travel
    Transportation Research Part D 92 (2021) 102716 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part D journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd Transportation technologies, sharing economy, and teleactivities: Implications for built environment and travel Kostas Mouratidis a,*, Sebastian Peters a, Bert van Wee b a Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Landscape and Society, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Ås, Norway b Transport and Logistics Group, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: This paper reviews how teleactivities, the sharing economy, and emerging transportation tech­ Emerging mobility nologies – components of what we could call the “App City” – may influencetravel behavior and Information and communications technology the built environment. Findings suggest that teleactivities may substitute some trips but generate (ICT) others. Telework and teleconferencing may reduce total travel. Findings on the sharing economy Urban form suggest that accommodation sharing increases long-distance travel; bikesharing is conducive to Smart cities Literature review more active travel and lower car use; carsharing may reduce private car use and ownership; Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic ridesourcing (ridehailing) may increase vehicle miles traveled; while the implications of e-scooter sharing, ridesharing, and Mobility as a Service are context-dependent. Findings on emerging transportation
    [Show full text]
  • Sectoral Evolution and Shifting Service Delivery Models in the Sharing Economy
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Mahmuda, S.; Sigler, T.; Knight, E.; Corcoran, J. Article Sectoral evolution and shifting service delivery models in the sharing economy Business Research Provided in Cooperation with: VHB - Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft, German Academic Association of Business Research Suggested Citation: Mahmuda, S.; Sigler, T.; Knight, E.; Corcoran, J. (2020) : Sectoral evolution and shifting service delivery models in the sharing economy, Business Research, ISSN 2198-2627, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, pp. 663-684, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00110-4 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/233176 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If
    [Show full text]
  • Collaborative Consumption: Sharing Our Way Towards Sustainability?
    COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION: SHARING OUR WAY TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY? by SAMUEL COUTURE-BRIÈRE A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Political Science) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2014 © Samuel Couture-Brière, 2014 ABSTRACT Collaborative consumption (CC) refers to activities surrounding the sharing, swapping, or trading of goods and services within a collaborative consumption community. First, this MA thesis evaluates the factors contributing to the rapid increase of CC initiatives. These factors include technology, personal economics, environmental concerns, and social interaction. Second, the thesis explores the prospects and limits of CC in terms of sustainability. The most promising prospect is that CC seems to generate social capital and initiate a value shift away from ownership. However, institutional forces promoting growth limit this potential. The thesis concludes that CC itself is not enough to achieve sustainability, and therefore, more political solutions are needed. The paper ends with a critical discussion on the future of our growth-based economic model by suggesting that certain forms of CC could represent the roots of a “post- growth” economy. ii PREFACE This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, S. Couture-Brière. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing Cities: Catalysts for Developing New Models for Urban Space
    Sharing Cities: Catalysts for Developing New Models for Urban Space Kun Lyu A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture University of Washington 2018 Committee: Iain Robertson Jeffrey Hou Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Landscape Architecture I ©Copyright 2018 Kun Lyu II University of Washington ABSTRACT Sharing Cities: Catalysts for Developing New Models for Urban Space Kun Lyu Chair of Supervisory Committee: Iain Robertson Department of Landscape Architecture “Sharing city” is a prevalent worldwide term now in the context of the emerging sharing economy. This thesis will refine the term of “sharing economy” first and keep investigating the possible current and potential future social effects and spatial implications of sharing activities in urban space. The goal of this paper is to anticipate the major shift of urban space’ usages in the process of increasingly sharing economy growth. Landscape architects can positively help the transformation of urban space to provide higher flexible spaces so that people can image possibilities. This thesis will focus on three major questions. The first section will address the question of how sharing activities will impact urban physical fabrics. In the first part, the paper will focus on investigating a wide range of sharing activities’ current and future possible spatial implications. The second question of this thesis is that how sharing activities reshape the city of social life. The key to the second question is to find the social effects of various sharing activities. The first two questions are intertwined. Literature review and design case studies will be conducted to address them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sharing Economy: an Exploratory Study on Revenue Models of Belgian Digital Platforms and Sharing Initiatives Karijn Bonne Artevelde University of Applied Sciences
    AUTEURS The sharing economy: an exploratory study on revenue models of Belgian digital platforms and sharing initiatives Karijn Bonne Artevelde University of Applied Sciences ABSTRACT At present, all kinds of sharing initiatives are active in Belgium, and many still are being launched. Within the sharing economy, peers, consumers or private persons give each other temporary access to (otherwise unused) goods. It is called a two-sided platform economy: platform owners match con- sumers with needs and suppliers with haves. Key to success is to build and maintain a critical mass of users on the platform. Although the sharing economy seems a growing business, the question arises whether these platforms are able to evolve into valid businesses. The focus of this paper is how sharing initiatives generate revenue, especially since sharing, lending, swapping, etc. are often free of charge. Nicky Malfliet Platform owners (N=20) of (mainly) Belgian sharing initiatives were interviewed. Results of the study Artevelde University of show that the transactional or commission based model is used the most. However, there is no one- Applied Sciences size-fits-all approach to create, deliver, and capture value. Therefore, many platforms combine various revenue models for different target groups or services. Some platforms started without any earnings in mind because the founders value(d) sustainability and social issues more than financial ones. Of course, without earnings, the platform cannot expand and must eventually evolve towards extra re- venue stream and towards another model. Each model has its issues: the transaction-based model is a ”low margin, high volume model”. Another downside to the transaction model is that peers can skip and bypass the platform.
    [Show full text]
  • ©2015 Luke Drake ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    ©2015 Luke Drake ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE DYNAMICS OF AN EXPANDING COMMUNITY ECONOMY: COMMUNITY GARDEN NETWORKS AND CLUSTERS IN NEW JERSEY By LUKE DRAKE A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Geography Written under the direction of Kevin St. Martin And approved by _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey January, 2015 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The dynamics of an expanding community economy: Community garden networks and clusters in New Jersey By LUKE DRAKE Dissertation Director: Kevin St. Martin This dissertation examines the role of networks in producing community gardens. It does so by tracing the flows of knowledge, labor, and materials within individual garden sites, between gardens, and between gardens, institutions and other community groups. Given the attention it has gained for themes of sustainability, local food production, and community building, it is important to understand the network dynamics through which community gardens are started, grow, and change. To this end, my study has three research questions: Which places foster community gardens? How do internal dynamics govern community garden maintenance? Lastly, how do dynamics between community gardens affect the work of garden sites? This study centers on the case of community gardening in New Jersey, but it also uses national surveys in order to ground the case study materials in a broader context. The research methods began with a survey of 445 community gardening organizations in the U.S. and Canada, followed by discourse analysis of archival documents on community gardening in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Energy System and the Sharing Economy: Interfaces and Overlaps and What to Learn from Them
    Article The Energy System and the Sharing Economy: Interfaces and Overlaps and what to Learn from them Frederik Plewnia 1,2,* 1 Faculty of Business and Economics, Chair of Sustainable Management and Environmental Accounting, Technische Universität (TU) Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany 2 Boysen TU Dresden Research Training Group, Technische Universität (TU) Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-351-463-34313 Received: 13 December 2018; Accepted: 19 January 2019; Published: 22 January 2019 Abstract: The dissemination of decentralized renewable energy generation, storage and smart metering devices has led to the need for new business models and coordination mechanisms in the energy sector. At the same time, the emerging sharing economy focuses on using digital platforms to coordinate value creation on a decentralized level. While sharing concepts have already been applied to specific energy technologies and microgrids, a more general understanding of what the sharing economy means in the context of the energy sector is still missing. This paper aims to bring these two topics together and to analyze their interfaces and overlaps. For this purpose, this paper draws from existent scientific publications, reports, blog posts, and websites as well as company workshops to discuss which activities and characteristics of the sharing economy might be applicable to the energy sector. Results show that there are significant overlaps in characteristics of the sharing economy and of the transitioning energy system. Furthermore, a broad range of business models within the energy system were found to be based on sharing resources. The findings of this study open up a range of new research and business opportunities at the interface of the sharing economy and the transitioning energy system.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97, U.S
    United States Department of Agriculture Local Food Systems Economic Research Service Concepts, Impacts, and Issues Economic Research Report Steve Martinez, Michael Hand, Michelle Da Pra, Susan Pollack, Number 97 Katherine Ralston, Travis Smith, Stephen Vogel, Shellye Clark, May 2010 Luanne Lohr, Sarah Low, and Constance Newman da.gov .us rs .e w Visit Our Website To Learn More! w w www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ FoodMarketingSystem/ Recommended citation format for this publication: Martinez, Steve, et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 2010. Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA. Cover photo credit: Shutterstock. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington,
    [Show full text]
  • The Sharing Solution
    1st edition The Sharing Solution How to Save Money, Simplify Your Life & Build Community By Attorneys Janelle Orsi & Emily Doskow e N O LSt orOy Dear friends, Since 1971, Nolo has worked hard to help Americans get a fair shake from the legal system. How? By producing books, software, forms and a website that translate legal jargon into plain English, off er clear instructions for routine tasks and break down complex systems into easy-to-understand components. All of our publications are relentlessly researched and tested by a dedicated group of in-house legal editors. And when we come out with a new edition, you’ll know that it’s been thoroughly updated. ere’s a reason why Nolo is not only the nation’s oldest, but also the most respected provider of legal information. Our mission, refl ected in everything we publish, is to give consumers and small businesses the best information available. We’re proud that tens of millions of Americans have looked to Nolo to help them solve their problems and achieve their goals. Ralph Warner, Nolo co-founder N O LYou r LegOal Companion OUR MISSION Make the law as simple as “In Nolo you can trust.” —THE NEW YORK TIMES possible, saving you time, money and headaches. Whether you have a simple question or a complex problem, turn to us at: NOLO.COM ALWAYS UP TO DATE Your all-in-one legal resource Sign up for NOLO’S Need quick information about wills, patents, LEGAL UPDATER adoptions, starting a business—or anything else Old law is bad law.
    [Show full text]
  • Garden Sharing Manual
    Garden Sharing Manual Garden Sharing Network Toronto Garden Sharing Manual October 2018 With thanks to: Garden Sharing Manual Table of Contents Land acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Why is garden sharing important? .............................................................................................................. 2 Understanding why people participate ....................................................................................................... 2 Steps in the garden sharing process ............................................................................................................ 3 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 9 A. Landholder intake B. Site assessment form C. Site assessment training outline and evaluation form D. Garden sharing agreement E. Anti-discrimination form F. Participant waiver G. Evaluation questions Garden Sharing Manual Land acknowledgement The partners of the Garden Sharing Network Toronto would like to acknowledge that the land on which we work is the historical territory of the Wendat, Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee and, most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit Indigenous peoples. The territory
    [Show full text]
  • Download Janet Reeve's Research on Hunger and Food Insecurity in New Mexico
    QUESTION #1 & #2 What is the federal definition of food insecurity? What is the federal definition of hunger? USDA FOOD SECURITY INFORMATION (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/measurement.htm What Is Food Security? “Food security for a household means access by all members at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum: The ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods. Assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (that is, without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies). ...and Food Insecurity? “Food insecurity is limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways. (Definitions are from the Life Sciences Research Office, S.A. Andersen, ed., "Core Indicators of Nutritional State for Difficult to Sample Populations," The Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 120, 1990, 1557S-1600S.) Does USDA Measure Hunger? “USDA does not have a measure of hunger or the number of hungry people. Prior to 2006, USDA described households with very low food security as "food insecure with hunger," and characterized them as households in which one or more people were hungry at times during the year because they could not afford enough food. "Hunger," in that description, referred to "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food." In 2006, USDA introduced the new description "very low food security" to replace "food insecurity with hunger," recognizing more explicitly that although hunger is related to food insecurity, it is a different phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations for a Food Action Plan Urban Agriculture Task Force Report to the Arlington County Board
    6/11/2013 ARLINGTON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COUNTY FOOD ACTION PLAN Recommendations for a Food Action Plan Urban Agriculture Task Force Report to the Arlington County Board Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 5 ARLINGTON COUNTY BOARD ‐ CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE ................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 8 RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES ................................................................................................................................ 8 INTRODUCTION: WHY A FOOD ACTION PLAN? ................................................................................................ 9 URBAN AGRICULTURE TASK FORCE METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 12 SECTION A: GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT ‐ REGULATORY STRUCTURES AND RESPONSIBILITY ............................................................................................................................................ 14 ADVISORY COMMISSION TO THE COUNTY BOARD ........................................................................................ 14 RECOMMENDATION A.1: PERMANENT COUNTY ADVISORY COMMISSION ..................................................... 14 REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]