DOCSLIB.ORG

Crowdfunding Public Projects a Simplify Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crowdfunding Public Projects a Simplify Project Crowdfunding public projects a Simplify project 1 Published by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources Government of South Australia 30 March 2015 Head Office Chesser House 91-97 Grenfell Street ADELAIDE SA 5000 Phone +61 (8) 8204 9000 Web www.environment.sa.gov.au ABN 36702093234 Report prepared by Performance and Strategy Branch Strategy & Advice Group Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources Copies of the report can be obtained from Phone +61 (8) 8204 9365 Email [email protected] Web http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/simplify_ideas 2 Contents A Simplify project 5 Acknowledgments 5 WHAT IS CROWDFUNDING? 6 A brief history 6 Different types of crowdfunding 6 It’s about more than just money 7 It’s not easy money 7 WHAT MAKES A CROWDFUNDING CAMPAIGN SUCCESSFUL? 8 WHY SHOULD GOVERNMENT SUPPORT CROWDFUNDING? 9 Democratised funding 9 Empowers more people to be altruistic 9 Lower business costs 9 Fills a gap left by traditional finance 10 Targets niche public needs, rather than mass public good 10 INVESTMENT-BASED CROWDFUNDING 11 INVESTING IN PUBLIC PROJECTS 12 A note about bonds 12 WHAT ROLES COULD GOVERNMENT PLAY IN DONATION-BASED CROWDFUNDING? 13 Campaigner – running our own projects 13 Facilitator – helping projects that support our goals 13 Investor – directly funding projects 14 Platform – owning the whole process 14 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA 15 For investment-based crowdfunding 15 For donation-based crowdfunding 15 What kinds of projects should government support? 16 What kinds of projects are not suitable? 16 What else do we need to consider? 16 Where to from here? 17 WHAT ABOUT CROWDSOURCING? 18 What’s the difference between crowdfunding and crowdsourcing? 18 A note about alternative government investment models 18 Which crowdsourcing approaches are government using? 19 WHERE CAN I FIND OUT MORE? 20 3 Crowdfunding is part of the online collaborative economy, which is growing exponentially and constantly evolving. Crowdfunding happens when a project is funded by raising many small "The power of crowdfunding isn't i amounts of money from a large number of people in an online community. in the funding, it's in the crowd." - Mari Kuraishi But it’s not just about the money. Crowdfunding allows project campaigners Co-Founder & President GlobalGiving to simultaneously obtain investment, test the market, gain exposure, and build their customer base. It allows funders to invest financially and emotionally in what they think is worthwhile, democratising decisions about which projects happen. Almost US$2.7 billion was raised to fund more than one million new crowdfunding projects in 2012, The great promise of crowdfunding is that it offers advantages that other and by 2014 it was already a forms of finance do not. It enables a very personalised value exchange. A US$6 billion industry.ii project will be funded if it taps people’s motivations and interests – and they will pay what it is worth to them. Using an online platform, it unlocks new interactions between the producers of goods and services and the people who want them. So what does this have to do with government? The public sector is shifting – we are moving from representative to more participatory and deliberative democracy. Through implementing Building a Stronger South Australia: A Modern Public Service and Better Together: Principles of Engagement, the South Australian Government is bringing government closer to citizens, business and communities. This includes finding new ways to deliver better outcomes with finite government funds and assets. It includes unlocking the capacity of individuals and the private and third sectors to contribute to the public good. Crowdfunding presents opportunities to help us do this. This paper highlights government’s interest in leveraging crowdfunding to bring new resources to public projects. It gives a brief overview of what crowdfunding is, the benefits it brings, and the roles that government could play in supporting it. This paper starts the conversation, and puts forward suggested applications for further exploration. We focus on reward crowdfunding, but also touch on related online tools which help to raise investment and create jobs, and to bring community and government closer together – investment-based crowdfunding and various forms of crowdsourcing. 4 A Simplify project ‘Simplify: a red tape reduction initiative’ gathered ideas from South Australian citizens on what government can do to be better. One of the top 20 ideas endorsed by Cabinet in August 2014 for further development and investigation was to ‘establish opportunities for leveraging community participation through co-funding new ventures’. DEWNR is the sponsor agency for the idea, and has produced this report to facilitate further action. Acknowledgments This paper was prepared by a small team of committed DEWNR staff, all passionate about finding ways that government can do better. Special thanks go to the research and writing team, Jen St Jack, Noriko Wynn, Nerida Buckley and Lynn Newman. Extra help came from Liz Barnett, Paul Dearden, Tarnya van Driel, Cindy Flower, Jennie Fluin, Lauren Heritage-Brand, Liz Millington, Aaron Osterby, Katrina Pobke, Andy Raymond, Michelle Read, Carol Schmidt, Kieran Squire, and Jodie Woof, who attended a workshop or reviewed the draft paper. Crowdfunding is a relatively new and constantly evolving phenomenon. We are infinitely grateful for the papers and generous support from Dr Rodrigo Davies, Nesta (Peter Baeck, Liam Collins and Stiam Westlake) and Dr Daren Brabham, whose research has heavily informed our thinking and content. 5 What is crowdfunding? Crowdfunding is a way to finance projects through small contributions from a large audience (the crowd), rather than large amounts from one or a few sources.ii It happens online, via a crowdfunding website or ‘platform’. Key features A project idea is pitched on the platform, stating what the campaigner hopes - Small $ from many to achieve, how much money they need and how it will be spent. The - Online contribution may be in the form of a donation, loan, equity purchase, or pre- - Project-based - Sense of urgency: time- ordering of a product or service. Most platforms operate an ‘all-or-nothing’ bound funding target model – if a pre-set target is not met in a given time period, funding does not - Mutual visibility proceed and investors are not charged. Progress towards the target and the - Platform as mediator number and names of contributors are publicly available. A brief history Public subscription was used for centuries to fund projects like the Statue of Liberty plinth or Shinto shrine torii gates in Japan, appealing to widely held motivations like nationalism or religion. Now, thanks to the internet, modern crowdfunding is connecting projects that need funding with people motivated to fund them with increasing ease, no matter how obscure their motivation. Since the launch of the first crowdfunding platform for music in 2000, ArtistShare, crowdfunding has rapidly become a widespread form of alternative finance. Donation and lending crowdfunding took off in the mid-2000s, with platforms like Kiva and Prosper enabling micro-financing and peer-to-peer lending.ii Reward-based crowdfunding exploded between 2006 and 2010 and now accounts for about 40% of the market,iii with platforms popular in Australia including Pozible, Kickstarter and Chuffed. The past decade has seen crowdfunding expand in both scope and scale, funding the arts, movies, tech start-ups, gaming, scientific research, disaster relief, and civic projects. 70% of projects raise less than $10,000,iv but amounts have run to more than $10 million for the five most successful campaigns of all time. Different types of crowdfunding Most crowdfunding can be defined as fitting into two types – donation-based and investment-based – each with two variations. Importantly, each variation relies on funders being intrinsically and socially motivated to contribute. Beyond those motivations, each contribution offers a different return. Type Variation Contribution Return Donation-based Charity Donation Intangible benefits only crowdfunding Reward Pre-purchase Products, perks or rewards Investment-based Lending Loan Repayment of loan, with (peer-to-peer) or without crowdfunding (micro-financing) interest Equity Investment Stake or shares in the venture 6 It’s about more than just money There are many more benefits to this exchange than purely financial. Crowdfunding allows project campaigners to simultaneously obtain investment, test the market, gain exposure, and build their customer base or community. It allows funders to invest in what they think is worthwhile, democratising decisions about which projects happen. Some of the non-financial benefits of crowdfunding are listed below, noting that they vary depending on the model. Benefits for the wider community will be explored further on page 10. For the campaigner For the investor For the wider community - Connecting with the interested - Minimal commitment altruism, - Democratised funding community, beyond location and helping to make something you - Empowers more people to be personal relationships care about happen altruistic - Promotion - First access to a product or service - Lower business costs - Market testing, particularly for - Connection to campaigner and - Fills a gap left by traditional finance riskier ideas community - Targets niche public needs, rather - Improving projects by engaging than mass public good with customers - Cheap,
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]
  • 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.
    [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]