DOCSLIB.ORG

Crowdfunding Public Goods: an Experiment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crowdfunding Public Goods: an Experiment TI 2017-119/VIII Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Crowdfunding public goods: An experiment Erik Ansink1 Mark Koetse3 Jetske Bouma2,3 Dominic Hauck3 Daan van Soest4 1 VU Amsterdam; Tinbergen Institute, The Netherlands 2 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) 3 Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 4 Department of Economics and CentER, Tilburg University Tinbergen Institute is the graduate school and research institute in economics of Erasmus University Rotterdam, the University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam. Contact: [email protected] More TI discussion papers can be downloaded at http://www.tinbergen.nl Tinbergen Institute has two locations: Tinbergen Institute Amsterdam Gustav Mahlerplein 117 1082 MS Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)20 598 4580 Tinbergen Institute Rotterdam Burg. Oudlaan 50 3062 PA Rotterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)10 408 8900 Crowdfunding public goods: An experiment∗ Erik Ansink,a Mark Koetse,b Jetske Bouma,c Dominic Hauck,b Daan van Soestd December 14, 2017 Abstract We assess the impact of different crowdfunding designs on the success of crowd- funded public goods using a lab-in-the-field experiment. Our design treatments aim to increase the efficiency of crowdfunding campaigns by raising aggregate contributions and decreasing possible coordination problems that may occur when potential donors are faced with a multitude of projects seeking contributions. Amongst others, we explore the potential of seed money and the impact of the attraction effect. Using a four-day time window we implement our crowdfunding experiment using a web-based user interface with multiple threshold public goods, similar in style to conventional crowdfunding websites. We find that such alternative crowdfunding designs affect efficiency via improving coordination, and not so much via affecting total contributions. These results are confirmed in a follow-up framed field experiment with actual nature conservation projects. JEL Classification: C93, H41, L31, Q57 Keywords: Crowdfunding, lab-in-the-field experiment, threshold public goods, chari- table giving, nature conservation ∗We thank Harold Houba, Jos van Ommeren, seminar participants at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, EAERE 2017, BioEcon 2017, Netherlands Economists Day 2017, and the 2017 Workshop on Experimental Economics for the Environment in Bremen for comments, suggestions, and discussion. We thank Natuurmonumenten and Kantar TNS for excellent support and advice. We are grateful to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency for financial support. Ansink, Bouma, and Hauck gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Grant No. 841.12.002. Koetse gratefully acknowledges funding from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme Grant No. 308393. Van Soest gratefully acknowledges funding from the European Commission 7th Framework Program Grant No. 613420. aDepartment of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and Tinbergen Institute. bInstitute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. cNetherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. d Department of Economics and CentER, Tilburg University. 1 1 Introduction Crowdfunding websites are increasingly being used as a mechanism for the provision of public goods. Crowdfunding is the practice of a fund-raiser raising capital from many investors to fund a project through an on-line platform. Crowdfunding is new, with well- known platforms such as FundRazr, GoFundMe, Kickstarter, and IndieGoGo having been launched only in the late 2000s. The crowdfunding of public goods, sometimes referred to by the more encompassing term ‘civic’ crowdfunding (Davies, 2015; Stiver et al., 2015; Chovanculiak and Hudik, 2017), has found its niche on these platforms but its popularity also initiated specialized crowdfunding websites such as Citizinvestor, IOBY, JustGiving, and GlobalGiving. A large share of civic crowdfunding involves projects related to urban commons (e.g. gardens, parks, events), education, infrastructure, and environment/wildlife (Charbit and Desmoulins, 2017). Using crowdfunding as a mechanism to provide public goods may mitigate several obsta- cles that are normally associated with private public good provisioning. For instance, com- pared to alternative mechanisms, crowdfunding allows cheap matching between projects and potential donors through low search costs, low risk exposure, low demand uncertainty, and transparent monitoring of progress (Cornes and Sandler, 1996; Agrawal et al., 2014; Strausz, 2017). Yet, other obstacles remain, including cheap-riding and coordination problems. Cheap-riding occurs whenever agents contribute to the public good but try to reach an outcome where their own relative contribution is low (Isaac et al., 1989). Coordi- nation failure occurs when the multiplicity of projects offered on a crowdfunding platform causes an ‘inefficient distribution of donations across projects’ (Corazzini et al., 2015, p17), possibly leading to project failure and discouraging potential donors. As sometimes half of the projects fail (see for example Mollick, 2014, for the case of Kickstarter), there is room for improvement – raising the total contributions to public goods projects, or improving coordination on specific projects. Most crowdfunding platforms offer an all-or-nothing design, where contributions are effectuated only if a pre-specified threshold is met. This design thus mimics a threshold public goods game with full refund – a design which is known to boost donations in such games (Cadsby and Maynes, 1999). Yet, by itself this design does not solve cheap-riding and coordination problems, which potentially have more impact on crowdfunding success. Both cheap-riding and coordination problems could be further mitigated by signaling focal projects, for instance by promoting such projects more prominently on the crowdfunding platform. Signaling has been demonstrated to facilitate success in coordination games (Schelling, 1960; Mehta et al., 1994). In crowdfunding, signals used by fund-raisers include 2 short time windows and high thresholds while signals used by the platforms include all kinds of website design options such as the selection of featured projects (Mollick, 2014; Belleflamme et al., 2015; Devaraj and Patel, 2016).1 Identification of the impact of such signals in practice is inevitably muddled by endogeneity problems. In this paper we rigorously test the impact of various crowdfunding designs, and specifically the use of focal projects, on project success. We do so using a lab-in-the-field experiment to control for possible endogeneity problems. We investigate two mechanisms that aim to raise total contributions and/or facilitate coordination by signaling focal projects. The first is the provision of seed money (also known as ‘challenge gifts’: List and Lucking- Reiley, 2002; Rondeau and List, 2008). The second mechanism is adding a seemingly irrelevant project that serves as a decoy in order to exploit the so-called attraction effect (cf. Ariely and Wallsten, 1995). From the crowdfunding platform and fund-raisers’ perspective, our contribution is that we analyze whether the number of successful projects can be increased through the mitigation of cheap-riding and coordination failure, and if so, how.2 Our lab-in-the-field experiment aims to extend the insights obtained by earlier crowd- funding experiments in the laboratory in two respects (Wash and Solomon, 2014; Corazzini et al., 2015; Solomon et al., 2015). First, our lab-in-the-field experiment took place over a period of four days (Thursday mornings to Sunday evenings), with subjects being able to log in to the internet-based user interface of the game using any device at any moment from any location, to make contribution decisions for one or more projects. This set-up is very different from the typical lab experiment on crowdfunding, where a session lasts for about one hour, and where multiple rounds are being played in an environment without distractions. This lab setting may cause subjects to be more sensitive to (subtle) differences in project characteristics than they would otherwise be when making their decisions in case of an actual crowdfunding event. Second, running a lab-in-the-field experiment allowed us to use a representative sample of the relevant population as opposed to WEIRD students.3 A follow-up framed field experiment with actual nature conservation projects, described in Section 5, brings us even closer to the field. Some of our results, reported in Section 4, confirm earlier findings, such as coordination 1Other aspects that affect crowdfunding success but are not under control of the fund-raiser include the number of potential donors, social norms, the characteristics of early funders, and herding (cf. Bøg et al., 2012; Crosetto and Regner, 2014; Belleflamme et al., 2015). Note that there exist modest differences in donor behavior between for-profit and non-profit crowdfunding campaigns (Pitschner and Pitschner-Finn, 2014). 2Our methodology does not allow us, however, to assess the impact of our crowdfunding designs on sub- stitution to and away from contributions to other projects, charities, and investments on other crowdfunding platforms or using alternative fund-raising mechanisms. 3White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; see Henrich et al. (2010). 3 difficulties in general. Our analysis of the impact of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Civic Crowdfunding Research: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Agenda
    Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs Civic crowdfunding research: challenges, opportunities, and future agenda Journal Item How to cite: Stiver, Alexandra; Barroca, Leonor; Minocha, Shailey; Richards, Mike and Roberts, Dave (2015). Civic crowdfunding research: challenges, opportunities, and future agenda. New Media & Society, 17(2) pp. 249–271. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2014 The Authors Version: Proof Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/1461444814558914 Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk New Media & Society http://nms.sagepub.com/ Civic crowdfunding research: Challenges, opportunities, and future agenda Alexandra Stiver, Leonor Barroca, Shailey Minocha, Mike Richards and Dave Roberts New Media Society published online 24 November 2014 DOI: 10.1177/1461444814558914 The online version of this article can be found at: http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/21/1461444814558914 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for New Media & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav >> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 24, 2014 What is This? Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by guest on November 25, 2014 NMS0010.1177/1461444814558914new media & societyStiver et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Provocations for Civic Crowdfunding1 Rodrigo Davies
    DRAFT – Do not cite without permission Three Provocations for Civic Crowdfunding1 Rodrigo Davies Abstract The rapid rise of crowdfunding in the past five years, most prominently among US-based platforms such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, has begun to attract the attention of a wide range of scholars, policymakers and practitioners. This paper considers civic crowdfunding — the use of crowdfunding for projects that produce community or quasipublic assets — and argues that its emergence demands a fresh set of questions and approaches. The work draws on critical case studies constructed through fieldwork in the US, the UK and Brazil, and a discourse analysis of civic crowdfunding projects collected from platforms by the author. It offers three provocations to scholars and practitioners considering the practice, questioning the extent to which civic crowdfunding is participatory, the extent to which it addresses or contributes to social inequality, and the extent to which it augments or weakens the role of public institutions. In doing so, it finds that civic crowdfunding is capable of vastly divergent outcomes, and argues that the extent to which civic crowdfunding produces outcomes that are beneficial, rather than harmful to the public sphere, will be determined by the extent to which the full range of stakeholders in civic life participate in the practice. 1 This is a draft of Davies, Rodrigo (2015), "Three Provocations for Civic Crowfunding". Information, Communication and Society, 18 (3). Routledge. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.989878. Do not cite without permission. 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2546206 DRAFT – Do not cite without permission The emergence of crowdfunding since 2008 has begun to attract the attention of a wide range of scholars, policymakers and practitioners, spurred by the success of US-based platforms such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo.
    [Show full text]
  • The City Accelerator Guide to Urban Infrastructure Finance by Jennifer Mayer Concept Jeneration, LLC
    Resilience, Equity and Innovation The City Accelerator Guide to Urban Infrastructure Finance by Jennifer Mayer Concept Jeneration, LLC A special project of Proudly supported by Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary p. 1 2 Background: Fundamentals of p. 7 Infrastructure Capital Finance 3 Bringing Resilience into the p. 11 Capital Planning Process 4 Addressing Equity in the p. 21 Capital Planning Process 5 The Financial Strategy Framework p. 27 Framing: Building the Project Vision, p. 32 Exploring: Identifying Diverse Revenue and Funding Sources, p. 42 Exploring: Identifying Financial Tools, p. 54 Exploring: Considering Alternative Delivery Models, p. 60 Screening: Finding the Right Tools for the Job, p. 72 Implementation: Putting the Strategy into Practice, p. 76 6 The Way Forward: Reaching into p. 79 the Future with Equitable and Resilient Finance Tools 7 Appendices p. 85 1 Executive Summary Capital financing has always involved a kind of time travel. Resilient and equitable financial strategies simply reach into the future in a different way. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Every week seems to bring another report high- lighting the crumbling state of America’s infrastruc- ture, from lead poisonings in Flint, to levee breaches in Houston, and deteriorating transit systems in Washington, DC and New York. City governments seeking to finance infrastruc- COHORT CITY ture projects face a legacy of past underinvestment, PITTSBURGH which can make improvements or rehabilitation more expensive. They also experience outdated mindsets and siloed and informal project development processes that can increase the challenges involved in solving finan- cial gaps. And if that isn’t enough—cities are also confronted with the need to strengthen infrastructure against extreme weather and sea level rise.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowd-Funding Conservation
    Crowd-funding conservation (and other public goods)∗ Erik Ansink,a Mark Koetse,b Jetske Bouma,c Dominic Hauck,b Daan van Soestd August 17, 2017 Abstract We assess the impact of crowd-funding design on the success of crowd-funded public goods using a lab-in-the-field experiment. Our design treatments aim to in- crease the efficiency of crowd-funding campaigns by decreasing possible coordination problems that may occur when potential donors are faced with a multitude of projects to contribute to. Amongst others, we explore the potential of seed contributions and the impact of the attraction effect. We implement our crowd-funding experiment using a web-based user interface with multiple threshold public goods over the course of four days, similar in style to conventional crowd-funding websites. Our results show that such alternative crowd-funding designs do not affect the total amount of contributions, but they do affect coordination. These restuls are confirmed in a follow-up experiment with actual nature conservation projects. JEL Classification: C91, C92, H41, L31 Keywords: Crowd-funding, field experiment, threshold public goods, charitable giving, nature conservation ∗We thank Jos van Ommeren, seminar participants at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, EAERE 2017, and the 2017 Workshop on Experimental Economics for the Environment in Bremen for comments, suggestions, and discussion. We thank Natuurmonumenten and Kantar TNS for excellent support and advice. We are grateful to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency for financial support. Ansink, Bouma, and Hauck gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Grant No. 841.12.002. Van Soest gratefully acknowledges receiving funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) Grant No.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdfunding Public Goods: an Experiment
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Ansink, Erik; Koetse, Mark; Bouma, Jetske; Hauck, Dominic; van Soest, Daan Working Paper Crowdfunding public goods: An experiment Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, No. 17-119/VIII Provided in Cooperation with: Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam and Rotterdam Suggested Citation: Ansink, Erik; Koetse, Mark; Bouma, Jetske; Hauck, Dominic; van Soest, Daan (2017) : Crowdfunding public goods: An experiment, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, No. 17-119/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam and Rotterdam This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/177687 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 the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen
    [Show full text]
  • Three Provocations for Civic Crowdfunding
    Selected Papers of Internet Research 15: The 15th Annual Meeting of the Association of Internet Researchers Daegu, Korea, 22-24 October 2014 THREE PROVOCATIONS FOR CIVIC CROWDFUNDING Rodrigo Davies Massachusetts Institute of Technology The rapid rise of crowdfunding in the past five years, most prominently among US- based platforms such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, has begun to attract the attention of a wide range of scholars, policymakers and practitioners. As the industry evolves, it is developing a range of specialist sub-genres and platforms, from politics to manufacturing. This paper considers civic crowdfunding – the use of crowdfunding for projects that produce community or quasi-public assets – and argues that its emergence demands a fresh set of questions and approaches. Scholarly analyses of crowdfunding to date have centered on fields such as investment finance, and Computer-Supported Co-operative Work (CSCW). While these inquiries have begun to build a frameworks for understanding the dynamics of the fundraising process and participants' motivations, there is yet to be substantial work considering the socio-political context and broader implications of crowdfunding. These questions are necessarily more pressing and contested when considering the use of crowdfunding for civic projects. The sub-field of `civic crowdfunding' as an application of the model is yet to be defined by academic researchers. The use of the term can be traced to 2012, and is used by platforms such as Spacehive and Neighbor.ly (Davies 2014a). This paper uses a mixed-methods case study approach to highlight and analyze critical cases in civic crowdfunding. It draws on quantitative analysis of project fundraising data drawn from four platforms (Citizinvestor, IOBY, Neighbo.ly and Spacehive), participant interviews and discourse analysis of projects' promotional material.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdfunding Our Cities: Three Perspectives on Stakeholder Dynamics During Innovative Infrastructure Delivery
    CROWDFUNDING OUR CITIES: THREE PERSPECTIVES ON STAKEHOLDER DYNAMICS DURING INNOVATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY KATHRYN E. GASPARRO SUMMER 2019 © 2019 by Kate Elizabeth Gasparro. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/bf989ng4777 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Raymond Levitt, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Douglas McAdam I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ashby Monk, Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost for Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii iv ABSTRACT Infrastructure is the lifeblood of our cities and towns.
    [Show full text]
  • Civic Crowdfunding: Participatory Communities, Entrepreneurs And
    Civic Crowdfunding: Participatory Communities, Entrepreneurs and the Political Economy of Place by Rodrigo Davies B.A., Oxford University (2003) Submitted to the Department of Comparative Media Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Comparative Media Studies at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2014 c Rodrigo Davies, 2014. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Author.............................................................. Department of Comparative Media Studies May 9, 2014 Certified by. Ethan Zuckerman Director, Center for Civic Media Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Heather Hendershot Director of Graduate Studies, Comparative Media Studies 2 Civic Crowdfunding: Participatory Communities, Entrepreneurs and the Political Economy of Place by Rodrigo Davies Submitted to the Department of Comparative Media Studies on May 9, 2014, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Comparative Media Studies Abstract Crowdfunding, the raising of capital from a large and diverse pool of donors via on- line platforms, has grown exponentially in the past five years, spurred by the rise of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. While legislative attention in the US has turned to the potential to use crowdfunding as a means of raising capital for companies, less atten- tion has been paid to the use of crowdfunding for civic projects - projects involving either directly or indirectly, the use of government funds, assets or sponsorship, which may include the development of public assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Las Plataformas De Crowdfunding En América Latina
    Abril 2016 º > LAS PLATAFORMAS DE CROWDFUNDING EN AMÉRICA LATINA. César Rentería CIDE [email protected] 1 > Este trabajo se llevó a cabo con la ayuda de fondos asignados al IEP por el Centro Internacional de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo y de la Agencia Canadiense de Desarrollo Internacional, Ottawa, Canadá. César Rentería Las plataformas de crowdfunding en América Latina Lima: Diálogo Regional sobre Sociedad de la Información, (2016). 2 Este documento cuenta con una licencia Creative Commons del tipo Reconocimiento-No comercial- Compartir bajo la misma licencia 2.5 Perú. Usted puede copiar, distribuir y comunicar públicamente la obra y hacer obras derivadas, bajo las condiciones establecidas en la licencia: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/pe/legalcode Contenidos Contenidos Índice de tablas Índice de Ilustraciones Resumen 1. Introducción 2. Definiciones y estudios recientes de crowdfunding 3. Evolución del crowdfunding en América Latina 4. Características de los modelos de negocio del crowdfunding en América Latina 5. Análisis de datos sobre campañas financiadas exitosamente 6. Conclusiones 7. Revisión bibliográfica Anexo 1: Tablas y Gráficas de la Sección 7 Anexo 2: Tablas y Gráficas de la Sección 8 3 Índice de tablas Tabla 1 Promedios de financiamiento por tipo de plataforma de crowdfunding (en USD) ................................................................................................................................ 11 Tabla 2 Estadísticas de comisiones en plataformas sociales ..................................... 41 Tabla 3 Estadística de proyectos recibidos, lanzados y exitosos en las plataformas 44 Tabla 4 Total de inversionistas involucrados en campañas exitosas durante 2014, por tipo de plataforma .................................................................................................... 45 Tabla 5 Estadísticas descriptivas del porcentaje emprendedor en campañas semi- exitosas con respecto a la meta .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Smart Cities from the Ground Up
    RETHINKING SMART CITIES FROM THE GROUND UP Tom Saunders and Peter Baeck June 2015 Nesta is an innovation charity with a mission to help people and organisations bring great ideas to life. We are dedicated to supporting ideas that can help improve all our lives, with activities ranging from early–stage investment to in–depth research and practical programmes. Nesta is a registered charity in England and Wales with company number 7706036 and charity number 1144091. Registered as a charity in Scotland number SCO42833. Registered office: 1 Plough Place, London, EC4A 1DE. www.nesta.org.uk ©Nesta 2015 RETHINKING SMART CITIES FROM THE GROUND UP CONTENTS Forewords 4 Acknowledgements 7 PART 1 THE CASE FOR PEOPLE–CENTRED SMART CITIES 8 PART 2 SMART CITIES PAST AND PRESENT 16 2.1 A brief history of the smart city 16 2.2 How are cities piloting smart city technologies today? 22 PART 3 USING COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 29 TO ADDRESS URBAN CHALLENGES 3.1 Smarter ways to use city resources: the collaborative economy 30 3.2 Smarter ways to collect data: crowdsourcing 37 3.3 Smarter ways to make decisions: collective intelligence 44 PART 4 HOW COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ARE HELPING 53 PEOPLE SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THEIR CITIES PART 5 A VISION FOR PEOPLE–CENTRED SMART CITIES 61 ANNEX 64 What else is Nesta doing to make cities smarter? 64 Interviewees 66 About the authors 67 Endnotes 68 4 RETHINKING SMART CITIES FROM THE GROUND UP Foreword CY Yeung, Director, Corporate Responsibility, Intel China; Vice Chair of the Board, Cinnovate Center At Intel China, corporate social responsibility is not only about what we do, but what we can make possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadway Complete Streets Final Recommendations
    BROADWAY Complete Streets Plan BROADWAY COMPLETE STREETS FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS APRIL 2016 Resolution 2016-0277 August 4, 2016 Page 4 of 127 Resolution 2016-0277 August 4, 2016 Page 5 of 127 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................5 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................9 URBAN DESIGN ................................................................................................ 31 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES .................................................................................57 FUNDING + IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................63 CONCLUSIONS + NEXT STEPS ....................................................................................71 Resolution 2016-0277 August 4, 2016 Page 6 of 127 III TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................2 FIGURE 2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY EVALUATION FRAMEWORK .................................................................7 FIGURE 3 CORRIDOR DISTRICTS .......................................................................................10 FIGURE 4 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - EXISTING . .......................................................................11 FIGURE 5 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION – PROPOSED
    [Show full text]
  • D2: Review of State of the Art and Mapping: Crowdemploy
    D2: REVIEW OF STATE OF THE ART AND MAPPING: CROWDEMPLOY Prepared by Sally-Anne Barnes Maria de Hoyos, Beate Baldauf Heike Behle Anne Green Institute for Employment Research University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K. Contact [email protected] [email protected] Tel. +44 (0) 2476 524 113 Fax. +44 (0) 2476 524 241 7th April 2013 This review was funded by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies under contract JRC- 2012-SVQ-J03-049NC. The researchers acknowledge the support provided by IPTS, financial and otherwise. The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Forward A key policy concern of Member States of the EU is the need to stimulate the creation of employment as part of the 'job rich recovery'. This is happening at a time when the nature and organisation of work is changing rapidly: industry demands more flexible work organisation to maintain competitiveness; globalisation changes the supply and demand for labour; and new uses of information and communication technologies (ICTs) change the practices and possibilities of work. The Internet has been a key factor in shaping paid and unpaid work over the last 15years, facilitating changes in the way that large and small business, NGOs, and the public sector access skills and labour; the nature of entrepreneurship and self-employment; the way we make employment transitions; the skill requirements of contemporary work; exclusion from work; pathways to social inclusion and social cohesion through work; and policy on welfare, labour and enterprise.
    [Show full text]