Urban Arena Wiki - User contributions [en]

Energy and mobility solutions

2020-04-20T12:19:36Z

Anna Bruen:

Increased fossil fuel use is a major cause of global warming, leading to Climate Breakdown<ref>George Monbiot, Sep 2013, Guardian UK: Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-global-warming</ref>. A lot of energy is expended in the energy and mobility systems used to move citizens around cities. This UrbanA approach cluster addresses technological interventions that can support the transition to a low-carbon society<ref>Robin McKie, Apr 2019, Guardian UK: Slow burn? The long road to a zero-emissions UK https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/21/long-road-to-zero-emissions-uk</ref>.

''This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.''

==General introduction to approach==

The technological interventions presented here point to changes in energy and mobility systems that can support the transition to a low-carbon society. These interventions mostly relate to good practices and recommendations based on research and case-study analysis, surveys and future studies (e.g. good practices in urban schemes with decarbonised transport and energy system, innovation roadmap for urban bus systems, research blindspots for vehicle-to-grid and electric mobility diffusion). It also includes a transnational pilot deployment towards advancing Smart Cities (e.g. through Intelligent Districts and Smarter Energy applications). Actors coming from business, academia and research, public / city authorities and policy makers, and citizens and the wider public were involved to varying degrees and combinations.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Some approaches aim to show proof of concept of a Smart City (see: [[Smart Cities]]) that is not only technologically driven, but in which the end-users, in particular public authorities and citizens, also influence the Smart City design. This means end-users are active shapers of a Smart City that fits their needs and nudges desired behaviours (e.g. increased energy savings). These approaches are part of a transnational pilot across different building-sites with a focus on Intelligent Districts, Smarter Energy, and Smarter Lighting interventions.

Smart cities are still an emerging concept in Europe that is being explored through small-scale pilot projects, such as those in cities across the Mediterranean through ESMARTCITY. Most of these pilots are still in the initial phases of massive data gathering, which then would determine the investments in building infra-structure. The biggest challenges arising from these pilots relate to data privacy and handling. Who owns the data collected from the end-users? What are the threats and opportunities to making all the data publicly available? How can the data be used and translated into benefits for all citizens and for the sustainability of the city? These are questions that remain unanswered for the time being, and which could hamper the scaling and transfer of Smart city interventions. See also [[Data collection]].

Other approaches herein identified good practices, and defined investment and research priorities for the diffusion of technologies such as electric mobility and vehicle-to-grid, or for the increased performance, accessibility and efficiency or urban bus systems. The latter culminated in an Innovative Bus System Roadmap (2015) developed and supported by diverse stakeholders , such as industries, Public Transport operators and authorities, suppliers and research institutes, indicating areas for innovation and priorities research. These were stronger EU political commitment to improve public transport market shares (namely with quantitative targets), campaigning for a new identity of bus systems that would re-dignify the bus, creating financial support mechanisms to accelerate the modernisation of the bus systems in EU cities and supporting market uptake of newer and cleaner propulsion technologies, and ensure institutional investment for long-term innovation in the bus system.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

All the approaches refer to cities, with applications in buildings or public spaces such as squares and streets, neighborhoods or system scales. Justice is identified as a key research area for ensuring accessibility and safety measures to bus infrastructures and vehicles, particularly in light of ageing population trends, and also as a blindspot in research related to the diffusion of electric mobility, vehicle-to-grid (V2G), and Smart Cities. The link between justice and sustainability is not addressed in depth in these approaches, but highlight that although a vehicle-to-grid or Smart city transition has much to offer society, less is understood about how those benefits are distributed, especially among vulnerable groups.

Sustainability topics cover smart and sustainable Green Growth, factors that shape energy demand from the viewpoints of both infrastructure and lifestyle and behaviour, and improved efficiency and reduced emissions from transport from a mobility perspective.

==Narrative of change==

Transitioning into a low-carbon society through smart and sustainable green growth of the energy and transport sectors, while promoting broader uptake of technological innovations and participation of end-users (in particular citizens and public authorities), and reducing traffic and pollution in Europe's cities.

Innovation ecosystems such as those brought about by [[Smart Cities]], and taking system approaches to energy and transport development (namely linking end-users, vehicles, infrastructure and operations together with a high-quality service) are key elements of change. Sharing good practices to stimulate the deployment of key solutions at scale and exploiting research outcomes through sectoral and cross-sectoral networks are also fundamental.

Criticisms exist around the lack of a narrative and vision for a mobility system (rather than a transport system). Such mobility system would also have to be designed to serve the needs of the end-users first, rather than being mostly technologically driven. Today there is a lot of investment being directed to e-mobility and to make cities technologically smart, based on moving people from one place to another as efficiently as possible. These are important measures, namely to transition to a low-carbon society, but they are also are missed opportunities for wider well-being.

Designing and implementing a sustainable and just mobility system is an opportunity to bring about broader change in lifestyles and attitudes towards life in cities. What should be the importance of cars, when compared with smooth mobility (such as walking and cycling) or public transport systems? Could we have more grassroots development of mobility solutions, locally attuned and in a way that enhances the quality of the public space (e.g. a cooperative of privately owned cars<ref>DEEL - mobility cooperative in the Netherlands, https://wijzijndeel.nl/</ref>)? What new business models and community interventions could support the further transition from an integrated transport system to a mobility system that gives access to the city, improves its quality of life and nurtures the freedom to imagine different ways of living it (for inspiration see <ref>MobiCascais - an integrated mobility system in Cascais, Portugal, https://www.mobicascais.pt/</ref>, <ref>Happy Mobility movement, http://happymobility.nl/portfolio/happy-streets/</ref>, <ref>Hopkins, R., 2019, From What Is to What If: Unleashing the Power of Imagination to Create the Future We Want, Chelsea Green Publishing</ref>)?

==Transformative potential==

One approach, as part of a foresight study, looked into enablers and obstacles of the energy transition towards a post-carbon society from a technological societal process and a political societal process. Furthermore, making public the data coming from the digitisation of cities, such as through Smart Cities interventions, without further consideration and or assessment structures for its further uses and ownership might be problematic given the e.g. commercial or surveillance value it carries.

==Illustration==

'''A transport roadmap for developing new bus systems based on more-electric technologies and alternative fuels in Europe´s cities'''

A transport roadmap for developing new bus systems based on more-electric technologies and alternative fuels was developed under the FP7 project 3 IBS - The Intelligent, Innovative, Integrated Bus Systems, and promises to reduce traffic and pollution in Europe's cities. The roadmap for an European Advanced Bus Systems was based on surveys conducted on European bus system strategies. It presents a snapshot of the bus fleets in operation in urban areas across Europe and helps understanding the role of bus systems in local mobility policies for the coming years, a step towards a stronger competitiveness of the bus in the urban environment.

It identified six research areas:
* A “bus system” perspective should be prioritised in order to manage efficiently interfaces with infrastructure, traffic and all users’ needs.
* IT platform integration; standardization and harmonization of information system and open architecture as a logical answer to efficient bus system integration
* Sustainability of the bus system can be reached via smart use of energy all along the bus system (of which electrification offers an important contribution), and the improvement of the environmental, economical and social performances under a life cycle perspective
* Research on innovative vehicle technologies;
* Modularity can bring an important contribution to the attractiveness of the bus system, through the optimization of the capacity, consumption (and emissions), as well as frequency of services during different hours according to the demand
* Meeting the mobility challenges of an ageing society; where future bus systems must also be attractive for elderly people and their needs

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Energy and mobility solutions]]
[[Category: Crowdsourcing]]
[[Category: Data collection]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: ESMARTCITY]]
[[Category: NV2G]]
[[Category: PACT]]
[[Category: 3IBS]]

Civil disobedience

2020-04-17T10:04:32Z

Anna Bruen: /* Narrative of change */

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/ Civil disobedience] is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies.<ref>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Civil disobedience is a form of direction action, which can communicate and illustrate a message more clearly than writing a letter or an article. Citizens use this tactic to confront perceived injustices of governments and corporations alike who often benefit from an imbalance of power. [https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/24721/why-civil-disobedience-works/]

Civil disobedience is a form of public action in which people directly challenge traditional "rules of engagement" and call into question the moral frameworks shaping society. Scholars often think of it having four components - conscientiousness, communication, publicity, non-violence.

*'''Conscientiousness''' - the actors draw attention to laws and policies that they believe warrant re-valuation or rejection.
*'''Communication''' - civil disobedience actions communicate a perspective to the target of the action
*'''Publicity''' - some scholars believe that civil disobedience is only committed in public, openly, and with fair warning to officials. In lieu of fair advanced notice, an actor may take responsibility for the action immediately after it has been taken.
*'''Non-violence''' - while this is a commonly agreed upon principle, defining "violence" is not so easy and there are many types e.g. violence to self, violence to property, or minor violence against others. Furthermore, non-violence does not necessarily mean "no harm."

"There is more agreement amongst thinkers that civil disobedience can be either direct or indirect. In other words, civil disobedients can either breach the law they oppose or breach a law which, other things being equal, they do not oppose in order to demonstrate their protest against another law or policy." [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/]

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

==Narrative of change==

Cities' policies and laws can inadvertently, or by design, benefit certain groups of people or businesses to the detriment of other people, businesses, or the planet. Engaging civil disobedience draws attention to and facilitates understanding of these injustices. With increased awareness and knowledge of a problem, comes the opportunity to take action for change.

==Transformative potential==

==Illustration==

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]

Civil disobedience

2020-04-17T09:56:45Z

Anna Bruen: /* General introduction to approach */

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/ Civil disobedience] is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies.<ref>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Civil disobedience is a form of direction action, which can communicate and illustrate a message more clearly than writing a letter or an article. Citizens use this tactic to confront perceived injustices of governments and corporations alike who often benefit from an imbalance of power. [https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/24721/why-civil-disobedience-works/]

Civil disobedience is a form of public action in which people directly challenge traditional "rules of engagement" and call into question the moral frameworks shaping society. Scholars often think of it having four components - conscientiousness, communication, publicity, non-violence.

*'''Conscientiousness''' - the actors draw attention to laws and policies that they believe warrant re-valuation or rejection.
*'''Communication''' - civil disobedience actions communicate a perspective to the target of the action
*'''Publicity''' - some scholars believe that civil disobedience is only committed in public, openly, and with fair warning to officials. In lieu of fair advanced notice, an actor may take responsibility for the action immediately after it has been taken.
*'''Non-violence''' - while this is a commonly agreed upon principle, defining "violence" is not so easy and there are many types e.g. violence to self, violence to property, or minor violence against others. Furthermore, non-violence does not necessarily mean "no harm."

"There is more agreement amongst thinkers that civil disobedience can be either direct or indirect. In other words, civil disobedients can either breach the law they oppose or breach a law which, other things being equal, they do not oppose in order to demonstrate their protest against another law or policy." [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/]

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

==Narrative of change==

==Transformative potential==

==Illustration==

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]

Crowdsourcing

2020-04-16T15:46:03Z

Anna Bruen: edited for grammar and clarity

Crowdsourcing is a participatory online activity in which participants voluntarily undertake a task in response to a call or request from a state institution, group, company, individual or non-governmental organisation or other group.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

Crowdsourcing is one way to solve complex problems by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a specific project has many component parts, then it can be divided up and tasked to different groups of people who are able to work on different elements simultaneously. Groups involved in creating sustainable and just cities might be drawn to using crowdsourcing as an approach because, if introduced early in the process and designed in an open complex-embracing manner, it not only allows citizens to have their say within a pre-existing discussion in a passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the discussion topics about their cities and environment.

Crowdsourcing can involve gathering data from engaged people, gathering data from sensors, or a combination of the two. Crowdsourcing can involve closed or limited responses (e.g. voting on a list) or be relatively open (e.g. allowing for user generated categories or suggestions). For example, residents might be asked to 1) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; 2) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; 3) voting again on a list of final suggestions.

An example of a particularly open variant of crowdsourcing is the platform OpenIDEO, set up to help tackle the challenges faced by Detroit, USA. OpenIDEO works by issuing a ‘challenge’, which kickstarts a multi-step process: individuals submit ideas, these are grouped under themes, which then go through concept development (which may include combining themes or ideas), these fleshed out concepts are then voted on, refined, evaluated and then finally chosen.

There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope<ref>https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/</ref> which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic <ref>https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/</ref>, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware<ref>http://www.everyaware.eu</ref> a project that combined data sensors and active user-generated content to help improve the environment through monitoring, awareness and finally behavioural change in different European cities; Cities4People<ref>https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/</ref> which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB<ref>https://cobwebproject.eu</ref>, Citizen OBservatory WEB, a project in which everyday people collected environmental information via mobile phones for research, decision making and policy formation in Dyfi Biosphere Reserve area in mid-Wales.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Crowdsourcing can take different shapes and sizes. One possible way of categorising different modes of crowdsourcing is by the relationship between the crowd (users, participants, public) and the organiser of a particular project or initiative. From the most closed to the most open, there is -- crowd processing, where large amounts of similar data is gathered (e.g. an app that measures how many minutes people spend in a park each month); crowd rating, where large amounts of similar data is gathered and then assessed via ratings (e.g. voting for different options about how to renovate a park); crowd solving, where very different responses or data is gathered and assessed against existing criteria for evaluation (e.g. we need a park with disabled access, how can we do it); and crowd creation, where the final solution, value or choice is determined by its relationship to other suggestions (e.g. we have some space in the city, what should we do with it?)<ref>Geiger, David, Michael Rosemann, Erwin Fielt, and Martin Schader. ‘Crowdsourcing Information Systems-Definition Typology, and Design’. In ICIS 2012 : Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012), Vol. Paper 53. Orlando, Fla., 2012. https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/32631.</ref> . In reality, there is often a mix of different types of crowdsourcing at different stages in a particular project. Crowdsourcing has been used all over the world to solve many different challenges and thus has been tested, refined, critiqued and redeveloped. However, there have been concerns raised about data governance and privacy, even when participation is voluntary.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
Because of the scope for data collection, in both passive and active ways, cities can harness crowdsourcing methods with relative ease (when compared to rural areas). However, it is not only the size of the data which makes cities particularly interesting places to use crowdsourcing, but also the heterogeneity of cities: there are many different types and groups of people, they have different interests and experiences, and often quite different aims and goals. This may seem as if it makes crowdsourcing particularly difficult, because of the potential for disagreement. However, it could equally be argued that because cities are places in which disorder, unexpected mixing and conflict take place, cities are also the places from which innovative and interesting solutions to challenges might arise. Moreover, the imperative to hear different voices is forefronted in such circumstances. Related to this, if done well, crowdsourcing can make decision making and problem solving more just by bringing in voices that are not usually considered when thinking about current and future uses of the city. It has the potential to allow disenfranchised groups - working classes, women, ethnic minorities, different abled people - to frame the contours of decision making, at least on certain issues. Further to this, it can allow for sustainably minded projects to have greater sustainability - if people feel invested in a certain project or idea (e.g. measuring their local air quality) then, even if a project or initiative ends, they might remain committed to an idea. Finally, thinking about sustainability and justice together, crowdsourcing, if it allows for diverse groups to co-create suggestions for urban challenges, can ensure that wider questions of justice are entwined in sustainable solutions.

==Narrative of change==
Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making and/or problem solving. It relies on the premise that if many people put their heads together they can find solutions that an individual or small group of people cannot and, moreover, might even identify new challenges or problems that otherwise might not have been considered. A positive consequence of bringing together people to solve a challenge is that it can create new communities of collaborators who may work together in the future. See also [[Democratic innovation through recognition]].

==Transformative potential==
Crowdsourcing contains the same seeds of transformative potential and obvious shortcomings as other participatory approaches - it depends very much on how processes are designed, who is included in process, when crowdsourcing is used within a project or initiative timeframe, and if genuinely radical or transformative ideas are allowed or will be dismissed. Beyond mere participation, and as explored as part of the CROWD_USG project<ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en</ref>, transformative uses of crowdsourcing might need to include space for both environmental and social issues; an awareness of equality; high degrees of transparency throughout the process; genuine collaboration and cooperation between between different actors as individuals, groups or institutions; and an ability to adapt a challenge in light of the crowdsourcing process, when it throws up new ideas or issues. Without such considerations, it runs the risk of becoming a box ticking exercise where the glamour of using technology-enabled web platforms combines with empty gestures of participation to alter minor elements within wider projects, and thus justify and enable the upholding of existing power relations<ref>Certomà, Chiara, Filippo Corsini, and Francesco Rizzi. ‘Crowdsourcing Urban Sustainability. Data, People and Technologies in Participatory Governance’. Futures 74 (1 November 2015): 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.006</ref>. Without such considerations, it runs the risk of becoming a box ticking exercise where the glamour of using technology enabled web platforms combines with empty gestures of participation to alter minor elements within wider projects, and thus justify and enable the upholding of existing power relations.

==Illustrations of approaches==
'''The Citizen Mobility Kit'''<ref>https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/</ref> is a collection of methods and tools designed to find solutions to urban mobility challenges. It is meant to be used in different ways depending upon a local community’s needs. It might include a guide on how to enable information sharing or collective approaches, feedback mechanisms that work in real time (e.g. collecting data and evaluating it), collections of existing solutions to mobility issues and so on. Five different tool kits are currently being used within pilot projects as part of the Cities4People project in Oxfordshire, Hamburg, Budapest, Trikala and Istanbul.

'''PPGIS''' (public participation geographic information system) is about utilizing and creating maps and other visual or spatial tools in a way that changes people's awareness and geographic involvement. Geographic technology is thus harnessed to increase participaction. It is being used as part of Helsinki’s master planning. As Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife<ref>https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/</ref> at Forum Virium Helsinki, puts it “[More than just] sticking a pin on a map… PPGIS [Public Participation Geographical Information System] it is about understanding how people see their neighbourhood and what they have to improve...”

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Crowdsourcing]]
[[Category: Data collection]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
[[Category: OpenIDEO]]
[[Category: Collideoscope]]
[[Category: The Citizen Mobility Kit]]

Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons

2020-04-06T14:46:39Z

Anna Bruen: /* Transformative potential */

Sharing in the context of urban sustainability and justice refers to a paradigm shift away from individualistic and exclusivity practices, which are embedded in modern urbanism and urban lifestyles in regards to particular resources and services. '''Sharing is a central aspect of commoning practices, while commons governance often takes the form of cooperatives.'''

The '''concept of the commons''' is important to cooperatives. It represents a form of collective but decentralised control over resources, or forms of wealth, which (should) belong to all and must be actively protected and managed in a collective manner, for the collective good.

Cooperatives are jointly-owned and horizontally/democratically governed enterprises, and can include consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or shared/hybrid cooperatives where ownership is shared between consumers, workers, and other stakeholders like non-profits. Cooperatives can govern housing, businesses, and food enterprises.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

During the last decade, a number of efforts have focused on gathering information about the sharing economy, sharing initiatives, and innovations that enable sharing <ref>Schor J (2016) Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4(3). Addleton Academic Publishers: 7–22.</ref>. People often identify sharing initiatives in urban contexts such as co-working, co-living and co-housing; These are are often more focused on sharing space rather than resources and services. Resources and services can be shared through cooperatives, community-led management, co-finance and food sharing, among others.

Food sharing, for example, is a very prominent example of how resources can be optimised in order to strengthen social relations, while also securing food for the most vulnerable, and avoiding food waste. '''Sharing practices, especially when referring to the long-term sharing of a resource, can become synonymous of commons-based projects and/or cooperatives, in the sense that what is shared is managed by those who share it.''' However, this is not necessarily the case, as sharing can be to a large extent governed by external rules and formal institutions. For example, food can be shared between those businesses or households that have it in excess, and those organisations or groups that are in demand. This can be regulated by rules on quality, means of transport, and sanitary checks. However, food sharing can also mean the cultivation of food in a community garden and the distribution of the produce among participants in an informal manner. While one is a facilitated offer that does not necessitate social interaction between the two parties, the second is an example of a commons governance.

With urban sustainability in mind, the idea of cooperatives and commons has been applied to the local production/distribution of “clean” energy services such as bicycle-repairing, but also community gardens, social centers, and other public and private spaces that are reclaimed by citizen groups. Such spaces are reconfigured, transformed, and maintained "commons." Cooperatives are often integrated. Note: whereas in cooperatives the purpose and different roles within the “enterprise” are usually well-defined, in other forms of urban commons these are not always as clear.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

‘Sharing cities’ is an idea and an approach of how cities can battle against some of their main challenges (e.g. poverty, health issues, housing needs, lack of space, lack of available land etc.), through the actions and networks of citizens and supported by committed city governments. The Sharing Cities network emerged in 2013 from a non-profit organisation based in San Fransisco (Shareable <ref> https://www.shareable.net/about/</ref>) which set out to be a news, action and connection hub for cities and urban issues. Now, the ‘Sharing City Network’ comprises local communities and group of activists in more than 50 cities, who engage in a cooperative process by organizing sharing projects. The Network thus acts at multi-territorial and transnational level to collect information and promote sharing. They have brought together a collection of over a hundred sharing-related case studies and model policies from more than 80 cities in 35 countries <ref>Sharing Cities. Activating the Urban Commons. Available for download here: https://www.sharingcities.net/</ref>, which covers examples of housing (e.g. cooperative Housing, short-term rental, open-source design), food (surplus food redistribution, community gardens, farmers markets), work (e.g. FabLabs, cooperative ownership, community wealth, maker-spaces, social entrepreneur networks), waste (citizen compost initiative, repair café, worker-owned recycling cooperative) and more. This shows the breadth of implementations that the sharing idea can have in cities, and the connection with cooperatives and commons projects.

A strong component of what is observed as urban sustainability-oriented cooperatives are those dedicated to, or include, the local production and consumption of clean(er) energy (see Rescoop <ref>https://www.rescoop.eu/</ref> for a collection of identified such projects, geographically referenced). One example stemming from the results of the INCONTEXT (2010-2013) project <ref>https://incontext-fp7.eu/</ref> is the Emission-Zero initiative in Les Vents d'Houyet <ref>http://www.vents-houyet.be/</ref>, Belgium. After its initial phase of experimenting with raising awareness and spreading information on renewable energy, now it is focused on raising capital for and volumes of renewable energy. The cooperative connects about 1000 cooperators and 10 000 affiliated members (2011). It built seven wind turbines that are now jointly owned (and democratically managed) by the cooperative.

Other examples range from tool libraries to financial cooperatives for mutual self-management, democratic engagement through/with digital means <ref>https://www.oikos.be/english/about-oikos/157-english</ref>, and multi-faceted initiatives like Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi, USA <ref>https://cooperationjackson.org/story</ref>.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The idea of cooperativism, sharing, and common management of resources is not new. However, it has been intensely rediscovered in modern cities of today, due to increasing pressures that urban citizens experience on the physical environment (pollution, lack of green space, lack of healthy food), their livelihoods (non-affordable housing, precarious employment) and their political recognition and participation (lack of public space, mistrust in governmental institutions). As a response, urban commons, sharing and cooperatives are seen to operate mostly at the level of cities (but also in the digital sphere) as urban densities provide an adequate ground for sharing/commoning to be taken on board, both as viable alternatives or solutions to pressing problems related to lack of resources (including land, space, housing, food but also knowledge and expertise) and because population dynamics help these initiatives to build momentum. Recently, the rise of such initiatives in cities such as Barcelona or Ghent, has called for a more translocal vision (see Commons Transition Plan for Ghent<ref>http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-plan-city-ghent/</ref>, and the Electoral Program of Barcelona En Comu <ref>https://barcelonaencomu.cat/ca/programa-2019</ref>). Moreover, many such initiatives (like consumer coops, urban agriculture initiatives), combine the use of both urban and rural territories and their interaction, in a way also helping in reconceptualising the relations and dependencies between urban-rural areas in metabolic, social and environmental terms.

(Re)claiming urban commons from solely profit-seeking actors and/or central institutions governed by distant and rigid bureaucracies that operate in increasingly neoliberal fashion, is part of reclaiming justice in the city. Through sharing, commoning and cooperativism, resources and participation in governance can become more widely accessible and possible. Most sharing food initiatives, such as community gardens, collaborative cooking and eating in community kitchens, surplus food sharing initiatives, can indeed address distributive justice by enabling socially vulnerable people to access healthy food.However, initiatives also face contradictions and challenges with regard to justice, as they are embedded in historical patterns of exclusion and discrimination, and current neoliberal rationalities. Some, for example, assume the withdrawal of the state from certain domains and take on individual responsibilities for aspects that should be of common and public concern. In the case of Gela (‘GEmeinsam LAndwirtschaften’)<ref>https://www.gaertnerhof-staudenmueller.de/gela-familien/</ref>, the arrangement between consumer groups and organic farm producers ensures security of income for the farmers and healthy food for urban citizens. However, if both those aspects are not supported by more universal public policy, these benefits might only accrue to those who can afford to invest and be part of such initiatives. Similarly, in the example of co-working, while sharing the cost of a larger space might be enabling for small enterprises, individual artists, or craftspeople to advance their work, circumventing high rentals in city centers, the type of business promoted and the inclusivity of some such spaces varies to a great extent. The Impact Hub [https://impacthub.net], for example, is a network of 16.000 social entrepreneurs around the world, who all have very different visions, products and services, and thus very different relations to issues of inequality, ecology and justice.

Socio-environmental sustainability is not necessarily central to the goals of commoning/cooperative projects, but sustainability issues have increasingly become a central preoccupation of citizens and movements, thus are being increasingly reflected also in such projects. The community-supported agriculture initiative studied under INCONTEXT project, for example, has a strong sustainability perspective as it promotes organic food of proximity, reducing the use of agrochemicals and avoiding embedded energy consumption (transportation). Many of the sharing initiatives directly address issues of sustainability, as they have to do with the reduction of waste (through recycling/repairing/reusing materials, avoiding food waste) or the production of renewable/cleaner energy (through cooperatives), or by optimising the use of space and resources (in co-housing or co-working arrangements). Moreover, in places of sharing and conviviality, it is also the case that ideas (often about sustainability) circulate faster and with more potential for innovation, which in turn can enable sustainable transformations. The idea of sharing can indeed link sustainability and justice as it can enable redistribution of scarce resources in innovative ways. However, when justice is not an explicit concern in the development of these projects, they do risk of becoming enclaves of privilege, where those with access can benefit from each other and from niche services/knowledge.

At the same time, environmentalists find that working directly with citizens brings more promising results than with upper-level governments. Many dedicated organizations and NGOs that work towards increasing the share of renewables in energy, for example, are now looking at cooperative or public ownership for renewable energy facilities as a way of reducing the increasing resistance to big wind turbine facilities. However, aspects of sustainability are envisioned and implemented at different scales and in different ways in cooperative/commons projects. SomEnergia<ref>https://www.somenergia.coop/</ref> is an energy cooperative in Barcelona, which not only aims to produce local renewable energy but also promotes a degrowth perspective to energy use so that overall energy consumption be reduced.

==Narrative of change==

Cooperatives and other common-based projects that practice sharing are addressing interwoven problems of unequal and insufficient access to resources, knowledge, and services that urban citizens deem valuable, if not necessary, for their well being. They also address environmental concerns at various scales (from global warming to environmental health issues) which have deep justice implications as they differentially impact urban populations.

An underlying premise in some projects utilizing this approach is that by fomenting and practicing equal participation, common management of resources and direct democratic control over processes, wider socio-cultural and systemic change will also be enabled and dominant institutions will be challenged.

In the short term, a lot of projects are struggling to “fill the gap” that formal institutions leave unaddressed (e.g. making use of derelict land, making viable and accessible the production/consumption of healthy and organic food), and thus achieving change by “taking things in their own hands.”

'''Challenges to change:''' A great challenge for coop/commons and sharing projects is the ability to continue without burdening the community which sustains them. Many times, especially when projects do not constitute an important part of the participants’ livelihood, members that assume a lot of voluntary responsibilities get tired and burn out. While urban commons are often built around the concept of care, many projects still tend to privilege powerful positions or individuals. The challenge therefore also lies in building more empathetic and collaborative dynamic leadership within those projects, including addressing gender inequalities. Long-term institutional support from municipalities and other public actors proves crucial for these projects' sustainability. This support means both shifting materials/assets into common ownership and promoting an ethics of sharing, but also implementing more pro-citizen, socially just approaches to urban development and the decisions involved in it.

==Transformative potential==

There is a growing expectation that bottom-up and citizen-led common-based projects will challenge dominant institutions that reproduce power structures and prioritise profit-based values while not accounting for environmental and social externalities. As urban governments work more closely together in domains like renewable energy and urban economy, and as the most progressive of those governments build synergies between public and common domains, socio-ecological transformation through citizen-led and -owned initiatives becomes possible.

As SHARECITY (2015-2020) project <ref>https://sharecity.ie/</ref> observes, for example, sharing is increasingly being identified as a transformative mechanism towards sustainable cities as it can help reduce consumption, conserve resources, prevent waste and provide new forms of socio-economic relations. This can pose challenges to dominant institutions and powerful interests which depend on ever-increasing production and consumption patterns, that is, of the growth of the formal economy. Research has shown that configurations of community-based initiatives such as cooperatives and commons-based projects do provide a fertile ground for productive transformations, as long as they constructively deal with the contradictions and challenges that they face, and thus allowing for more resilient strategies and structures to emerge <ref>Sekulova, F. et al. (2017) ‘A ‘fertile soil’ for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical framework’, Environment and Planning A. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 49(10), pp. 2362–2382.</ref>. But research has also shown that inequality can be reproduced within micro-level interactions in sharing economies <ref>Schor, J. B. et al. (2016) ‘Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy’, Poetics. Elsevier, 54, pp. 66–81.</ref>. Not all sharing initiatives are challenging socio-economic power relations, even as they do contribute to new forms of thinking and doing with regards to sharing. This reflects the tension on what type of transformations are sought, and towards what direction.

==Illustrations==

* In Colombes, Paris (France), a pilot implementation of ideas that stemmed from the R-URBAN project <ref>http://r-urban.net/en/</ref> and is called Agrocité <ref>http://r-urban.net/blog/projects/agrocite/</ref>, aims at initiating locally closed ecological cycles that will support the emergence of alternative models of living, producing and consuming between the urban and the rural. Since 2012, a “bottom up strategy of resilient regeneration” started including a micro-farm for collective use, a mini recycling plant and cooperative eco-housing and, currently, 400 citizens are co-managing the project following also sustainability principles of reduced water use and reducing waste.

* At transnational level, the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)<ref>https://www.ica.coop/en/about-us/international-cooperative-alliance</ref> is a a non-governmental co-operative federation or, more precisely, a co-operative union representing 313 co-operative federations and organisations in 109 countries (see also the Case Study Report, by TRANSIT project <ref>Picabea, F., Kunze, I., Bidinost, A., Phillip, A. and Becerra, L (coord.) (2015) Case Study Report: Cooperative Housing. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.Available at: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf</ref>.

* In Finland, the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Recycling Centre <ref>https://www.kierratyskeskus.fi/in_english</ref> is an example of a community-based initiative that assists in the recycling and recirculation of things that people donate, offering a sustainable and affordable way of purchasing furniture, clothes and bicycles, amongst many other goods. The initiative grew from a small grass-root activity to an influential actor in the recycling and re-using business. In 2014, they recirculated over 3 million items in their five shops (see also PATHWAYS project<ref>https://www.path-ways.eu/</ref>).

* [https://www.somenergia.coop/ Som Energia] - Green Energy Cooperative, Spain. Energy cooperative based on funding from its associates, which main activities are producing and commercializing renewable energy. Their value proposition for potential associates is defined as follows: to support a renewable energy model that is efficient and citizen-owned, to support the development of a social and solidarity-based economy, to help dismantle the current energy oligopoly, to participate in a transformative social movement, and to obtain transparent information and a people-based customer-service.

==References==

<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: INCONTEXT]]
[[Category: SomEnergia]]
[[Category: SHARECITY]]

Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons

2020-04-06T14:45:01Z

Anna Bruen: /* Narrative of change */

Sharing in the context of urban sustainability and justice refers to a paradigm shift away from individualistic and exclusivity practices, which are embedded in modern urbanism and urban lifestyles in regards to particular resources and services. '''Sharing is a central aspect of commoning practices, while commons governance often takes the form of cooperatives.'''

The '''concept of the commons''' is important to cooperatives. It represents a form of collective but decentralised control over resources, or forms of wealth, which (should) belong to all and must be actively protected and managed in a collective manner, for the collective good.

Cooperatives are jointly-owned and horizontally/democratically governed enterprises, and can include consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or shared/hybrid cooperatives where ownership is shared between consumers, workers, and other stakeholders like non-profits. Cooperatives can govern housing, businesses, and food enterprises.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

During the last decade, a number of efforts have focused on gathering information about the sharing economy, sharing initiatives, and innovations that enable sharing <ref>Schor J (2016) Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4(3). Addleton Academic Publishers: 7–22.</ref>. People often identify sharing initiatives in urban contexts such as co-working, co-living and co-housing; These are are often more focused on sharing space rather than resources and services. Resources and services can be shared through cooperatives, community-led management, co-finance and food sharing, among others.

Food sharing, for example, is a very prominent example of how resources can be optimised in order to strengthen social relations, while also securing food for the most vulnerable, and avoiding food waste. '''Sharing practices, especially when referring to the long-term sharing of a resource, can become synonymous of commons-based projects and/or cooperatives, in the sense that what is shared is managed by those who share it.''' However, this is not necessarily the case, as sharing can be to a large extent governed by external rules and formal institutions. For example, food can be shared between those businesses or households that have it in excess, and those organisations or groups that are in demand. This can be regulated by rules on quality, means of transport, and sanitary checks. However, food sharing can also mean the cultivation of food in a community garden and the distribution of the produce among participants in an informal manner. While one is a facilitated offer that does not necessitate social interaction between the two parties, the second is an example of a commons governance.

With urban sustainability in mind, the idea of cooperatives and commons has been applied to the local production/distribution of “clean” energy services such as bicycle-repairing, but also community gardens, social centers, and other public and private spaces that are reclaimed by citizen groups. Such spaces are reconfigured, transformed, and maintained "commons." Cooperatives are often integrated. Note: whereas in cooperatives the purpose and different roles within the “enterprise” are usually well-defined, in other forms of urban commons these are not always as clear.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

‘Sharing cities’ is an idea and an approach of how cities can battle against some of their main challenges (e.g. poverty, health issues, housing needs, lack of space, lack of available land etc.), through the actions and networks of citizens and supported by committed city governments. The Sharing Cities network emerged in 2013 from a non-profit organisation based in San Fransisco (Shareable <ref> https://www.shareable.net/about/</ref>) which set out to be a news, action and connection hub for cities and urban issues. Now, the ‘Sharing City Network’ comprises local communities and group of activists in more than 50 cities, who engage in a cooperative process by organizing sharing projects. The Network thus acts at multi-territorial and transnational level to collect information and promote sharing. They have brought together a collection of over a hundred sharing-related case studies and model policies from more than 80 cities in 35 countries <ref>Sharing Cities. Activating the Urban Commons. Available for download here: https://www.sharingcities.net/</ref>, which covers examples of housing (e.g. cooperative Housing, short-term rental, open-source design), food (surplus food redistribution, community gardens, farmers markets), work (e.g. FabLabs, cooperative ownership, community wealth, maker-spaces, social entrepreneur networks), waste (citizen compost initiative, repair café, worker-owned recycling cooperative) and more. This shows the breadth of implementations that the sharing idea can have in cities, and the connection with cooperatives and commons projects.

A strong component of what is observed as urban sustainability-oriented cooperatives are those dedicated to, or include, the local production and consumption of clean(er) energy (see Rescoop <ref>https://www.rescoop.eu/</ref> for a collection of identified such projects, geographically referenced). One example stemming from the results of the INCONTEXT (2010-2013) project <ref>https://incontext-fp7.eu/</ref> is the Emission-Zero initiative in Les Vents d'Houyet <ref>http://www.vents-houyet.be/</ref>, Belgium. After its initial phase of experimenting with raising awareness and spreading information on renewable energy, now it is focused on raising capital for and volumes of renewable energy. The cooperative connects about 1000 cooperators and 10 000 affiliated members (2011). It built seven wind turbines that are now jointly owned (and democratically managed) by the cooperative.

Other examples range from tool libraries to financial cooperatives for mutual self-management, democratic engagement through/with digital means <ref>https://www.oikos.be/english/about-oikos/157-english</ref>, and multi-faceted initiatives like Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi, USA <ref>https://cooperationjackson.org/story</ref>.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The idea of cooperativism, sharing, and common management of resources is not new. However, it has been intensely rediscovered in modern cities of today, due to increasing pressures that urban citizens experience on the physical environment (pollution, lack of green space, lack of healthy food), their livelihoods (non-affordable housing, precarious employment) and their political recognition and participation (lack of public space, mistrust in governmental institutions). As a response, urban commons, sharing and cooperatives are seen to operate mostly at the level of cities (but also in the digital sphere) as urban densities provide an adequate ground for sharing/commoning to be taken on board, both as viable alternatives or solutions to pressing problems related to lack of resources (including land, space, housing, food but also knowledge and expertise) and because population dynamics help these initiatives to build momentum. Recently, the rise of such initiatives in cities such as Barcelona or Ghent, has called for a more translocal vision (see Commons Transition Plan for Ghent<ref>http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-plan-city-ghent/</ref>, and the Electoral Program of Barcelona En Comu <ref>https://barcelonaencomu.cat/ca/programa-2019</ref>). Moreover, many such initiatives (like consumer coops, urban agriculture initiatives), combine the use of both urban and rural territories and their interaction, in a way also helping in reconceptualising the relations and dependencies between urban-rural areas in metabolic, social and environmental terms.

(Re)claiming urban commons from solely profit-seeking actors and/or central institutions governed by distant and rigid bureaucracies that operate in increasingly neoliberal fashion, is part of reclaiming justice in the city. Through sharing, commoning and cooperativism, resources and participation in governance can become more widely accessible and possible. Most sharing food initiatives, such as community gardens, collaborative cooking and eating in community kitchens, surplus food sharing initiatives, can indeed address distributive justice by enabling socially vulnerable people to access healthy food.However, initiatives also face contradictions and challenges with regard to justice, as they are embedded in historical patterns of exclusion and discrimination, and current neoliberal rationalities. Some, for example, assume the withdrawal of the state from certain domains and take on individual responsibilities for aspects that should be of common and public concern. In the case of Gela (‘GEmeinsam LAndwirtschaften’)<ref>https://www.gaertnerhof-staudenmueller.de/gela-familien/</ref>, the arrangement between consumer groups and organic farm producers ensures security of income for the farmers and healthy food for urban citizens. However, if both those aspects are not supported by more universal public policy, these benefits might only accrue to those who can afford to invest and be part of such initiatives. Similarly, in the example of co-working, while sharing the cost of a larger space might be enabling for small enterprises, individual artists, or craftspeople to advance their work, circumventing high rentals in city centers, the type of business promoted and the inclusivity of some such spaces varies to a great extent. The Impact Hub [https://impacthub.net], for example, is a network of 16.000 social entrepreneurs around the world, who all have very different visions, products and services, and thus very different relations to issues of inequality, ecology and justice.

Socio-environmental sustainability is not necessarily central to the goals of commoning/cooperative projects, but sustainability issues have increasingly become a central preoccupation of citizens and movements, thus are being increasingly reflected also in such projects. The community-supported agriculture initiative studied under INCONTEXT project, for example, has a strong sustainability perspective as it promotes organic food of proximity, reducing the use of agrochemicals and avoiding embedded energy consumption (transportation). Many of the sharing initiatives directly address issues of sustainability, as they have to do with the reduction of waste (through recycling/repairing/reusing materials, avoiding food waste) or the production of renewable/cleaner energy (through cooperatives), or by optimising the use of space and resources (in co-housing or co-working arrangements). Moreover, in places of sharing and conviviality, it is also the case that ideas (often about sustainability) circulate faster and with more potential for innovation, which in turn can enable sustainable transformations. The idea of sharing can indeed link sustainability and justice as it can enable redistribution of scarce resources in innovative ways. However, when justice is not an explicit concern in the development of these projects, they do risk of becoming enclaves of privilege, where those with access can benefit from each other and from niche services/knowledge.

At the same time, environmentalists find that working directly with citizens brings more promising results than with upper-level governments. Many dedicated organizations and NGOs that work towards increasing the share of renewables in energy, for example, are now looking at cooperative or public ownership for renewable energy facilities as a way of reducing the increasing resistance to big wind turbine facilities. However, aspects of sustainability are envisioned and implemented at different scales and in different ways in cooperative/commons projects. SomEnergia<ref>https://www.somenergia.coop/</ref> is an energy cooperative in Barcelona, which not only aims to produce local renewable energy but also promotes a degrowth perspective to energy use so that overall energy consumption be reduced.

==Narrative of change==

Cooperatives and other common-based projects that practice sharing are addressing interwoven problems of unequal and insufficient access to resources, knowledge, and services that urban citizens deem valuable, if not necessary, for their well being. They also address environmental concerns at various scales (from global warming to environmental health issues) which have deep justice implications as they differentially impact urban populations.

An underlying premise in some projects utilizing this approach is that by fomenting and practicing equal participation, common management of resources and direct democratic control over processes, wider socio-cultural and systemic change will also be enabled and dominant institutions will be challenged.

In the short term, a lot of projects are struggling to “fill the gap” that formal institutions leave unaddressed (e.g. making use of derelict land, making viable and accessible the production/consumption of healthy and organic food), and thus achieving change by “taking things in their own hands.”

'''Challenges to change:''' A great challenge for coop/commons and sharing projects is the ability to continue without burdening the community which sustains them. Many times, especially when projects do not constitute an important part of the participants’ livelihood, members that assume a lot of voluntary responsibilities get tired and burn out. While urban commons are often built around the concept of care, many projects still tend to privilege powerful positions or individuals. The challenge therefore also lies in building more empathetic and collaborative dynamic leadership within those projects, including addressing gender inequalities. Long-term institutional support from municipalities and other public actors proves crucial for these projects' sustainability. This support means both shifting materials/assets into common ownership and promoting an ethics of sharing, but also implementing more pro-citizen, socially just approaches to urban development and the decisions involved in it.

==Transformative potential==

There is indeed a growing expectation that bottom-up and citizen-led common-based projects will challenge dominant institutions that reproduce power structures and prioritise profit-based values while not accounting for environmental and social externalities. It is seen that at city level, as urban governments work more closely together in domains like renewable energy and urban economy, and as the most progressive of those governments build synergies between public and common domains, socio-ecological transformation through citizen-led and -owned initiatives becomes possible.

As SHARECITY (2015-2020) project <ref>https://sharecity.ie/</ref> observes, for example, sharing is increasingly being identified as a transformative mechanism towards sustainable cities as it can help reduce consumption, conserve resources, prevent waste and provide new forms of socio-economic relations. This can pose challenges to dominant institutions and powerful interests which depend on ever-increasing production and consumption patterns, that is, of the growth of the formal economy. Research has shown that configurations of community-based initiatives such as cooperatives and commons-based projects do provide a fertile ground for productive transformations, as long as they constructively deal with the contradictions and challenges that they face, and thus allowing for more resilient strategies and structures to emerge <ref>Sekulova, F. et al. (2017) ‘A ‘fertile soil’ for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical framework’, Environment and Planning A. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 49(10), pp. 2362–2382.</ref>. But research has also shown that inequality can be reproduced within micro-level interactions in sharing economies <ref>Schor, J. B. et al. (2016) ‘Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy’, Poetics. Elsevier, 54, pp. 66–81.</ref>. Not all sharing initiatives are challenging socio-economic power relations, even as they do contribute to new forms of thinking and doing with regards to sharing. This reflects the tension on what type of transformations are sought, and towards what direction.

==Illustrations==

* In Colombes, Paris (France), a pilot implementation of ideas that stemmed from the R-URBAN project <ref>http://r-urban.net/en/</ref> and is called Agrocité <ref>http://r-urban.net/blog/projects/agrocite/</ref>, aims at initiating locally closed ecological cycles that will support the emergence of alternative models of living, producing and consuming between the urban and the rural. Since 2012, a “bottom up strategy of resilient regeneration” started including a micro-farm for collective use, a mini recycling plant and cooperative eco-housing and, currently, 400 citizens are co-managing the project following also sustainability principles of reduced water use and reducing waste.

* At transnational level, the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)<ref>https://www.ica.coop/en/about-us/international-cooperative-alliance</ref> is a a non-governmental co-operative federation or, more precisely, a co-operative union representing 313 co-operative federations and organisations in 109 countries (see also the Case Study Report, by TRANSIT project <ref>Picabea, F., Kunze, I., Bidinost, A., Phillip, A. and Becerra, L (coord.) (2015) Case Study Report: Cooperative Housing. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.Available at: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf</ref>.

* In Finland, the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Recycling Centre <ref>https://www.kierratyskeskus.fi/in_english</ref> is an example of a community-based initiative that assists in the recycling and recirculation of things that people donate, offering a sustainable and affordable way of purchasing furniture, clothes and bicycles, amongst many other goods. The initiative grew from a small grass-root activity to an influential actor in the recycling and re-using business. In 2014, they recirculated over 3 million items in their five shops (see also PATHWAYS project<ref>https://www.path-ways.eu/</ref>).

* [https://www.somenergia.coop/ Som Energia] - Green Energy Cooperative, Spain. Energy cooperative based on funding from its associates, which main activities are producing and commercializing renewable energy. Their value proposition for potential associates is defined as follows: to support a renewable energy model that is efficient and citizen-owned, to support the development of a social and solidarity-based economy, to help dismantle the current energy oligopoly, to participate in a transformative social movement, and to obtain transparent information and a people-based customer-service.

==References==

<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: INCONTEXT]]
[[Category: SomEnergia]]
[[Category: SHARECITY]]

Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons

2020-04-06T14:44:38Z

Anna Bruen: /* Narrative of change */

Sharing in the context of urban sustainability and justice refers to a paradigm shift away from individualistic and exclusivity practices, which are embedded in modern urbanism and urban lifestyles in regards to particular resources and services. '''Sharing is a central aspect of commoning practices, while commons governance often takes the form of cooperatives.'''

The '''concept of the commons''' is important to cooperatives. It represents a form of collective but decentralised control over resources, or forms of wealth, which (should) belong to all and must be actively protected and managed in a collective manner, for the collective good.

Cooperatives are jointly-owned and horizontally/democratically governed enterprises, and can include consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or shared/hybrid cooperatives where ownership is shared between consumers, workers, and other stakeholders like non-profits. Cooperatives can govern housing, businesses, and food enterprises.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

During the last decade, a number of efforts have focused on gathering information about the sharing economy, sharing initiatives, and innovations that enable sharing <ref>Schor J (2016) Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4(3). Addleton Academic Publishers: 7–22.</ref>. People often identify sharing initiatives in urban contexts such as co-working, co-living and co-housing; These are are often more focused on sharing space rather than resources and services. Resources and services can be shared through cooperatives, community-led management, co-finance and food sharing, among others.

Food sharing, for example, is a very prominent example of how resources can be optimised in order to strengthen social relations, while also securing food for the most vulnerable, and avoiding food waste. '''Sharing practices, especially when referring to the long-term sharing of a resource, can become synonymous of commons-based projects and/or cooperatives, in the sense that what is shared is managed by those who share it.''' However, this is not necessarily the case, as sharing can be to a large extent governed by external rules and formal institutions. For example, food can be shared between those businesses or households that have it in excess, and those organisations or groups that are in demand. This can be regulated by rules on quality, means of transport, and sanitary checks. However, food sharing can also mean the cultivation of food in a community garden and the distribution of the produce among participants in an informal manner. While one is a facilitated offer that does not necessitate social interaction between the two parties, the second is an example of a commons governance.

With urban sustainability in mind, the idea of cooperatives and commons has been applied to the local production/distribution of “clean” energy services such as bicycle-repairing, but also community gardens, social centers, and other public and private spaces that are reclaimed by citizen groups. Such spaces are reconfigured, transformed, and maintained "commons." Cooperatives are often integrated. Note: whereas in cooperatives the purpose and different roles within the “enterprise” are usually well-defined, in other forms of urban commons these are not always as clear.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

‘Sharing cities’ is an idea and an approach of how cities can battle against some of their main challenges (e.g. poverty, health issues, housing needs, lack of space, lack of available land etc.), through the actions and networks of citizens and supported by committed city governments. The Sharing Cities network emerged in 2013 from a non-profit organisation based in San Fransisco (Shareable <ref> https://www.shareable.net/about/</ref>) which set out to be a news, action and connection hub for cities and urban issues. Now, the ‘Sharing City Network’ comprises local communities and group of activists in more than 50 cities, who engage in a cooperative process by organizing sharing projects. The Network thus acts at multi-territorial and transnational level to collect information and promote sharing. They have brought together a collection of over a hundred sharing-related case studies and model policies from more than 80 cities in 35 countries <ref>Sharing Cities. Activating the Urban Commons. Available for download here: https://www.sharingcities.net/</ref>, which covers examples of housing (e.g. cooperative Housing, short-term rental, open-source design), food (surplus food redistribution, community gardens, farmers markets), work (e.g. FabLabs, cooperative ownership, community wealth, maker-spaces, social entrepreneur networks), waste (citizen compost initiative, repair café, worker-owned recycling cooperative) and more. This shows the breadth of implementations that the sharing idea can have in cities, and the connection with cooperatives and commons projects.

A strong component of what is observed as urban sustainability-oriented cooperatives are those dedicated to, or include, the local production and consumption of clean(er) energy (see Rescoop <ref>https://www.rescoop.eu/</ref> for a collection of identified such projects, geographically referenced). One example stemming from the results of the INCONTEXT (2010-2013) project <ref>https://incontext-fp7.eu/</ref> is the Emission-Zero initiative in Les Vents d'Houyet <ref>http://www.vents-houyet.be/</ref>, Belgium. After its initial phase of experimenting with raising awareness and spreading information on renewable energy, now it is focused on raising capital for and volumes of renewable energy. The cooperative connects about 1000 cooperators and 10 000 affiliated members (2011). It built seven wind turbines that are now jointly owned (and democratically managed) by the cooperative.

Other examples range from tool libraries to financial cooperatives for mutual self-management, democratic engagement through/with digital means <ref>https://www.oikos.be/english/about-oikos/157-english</ref>, and multi-faceted initiatives like Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi, USA <ref>https://cooperationjackson.org/story</ref>.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The idea of cooperativism, sharing, and common management of resources is not new. However, it has been intensely rediscovered in modern cities of today, due to increasing pressures that urban citizens experience on the physical environment (pollution, lack of green space, lack of healthy food), their livelihoods (non-affordable housing, precarious employment) and their political recognition and participation (lack of public space, mistrust in governmental institutions). As a response, urban commons, sharing and cooperatives are seen to operate mostly at the level of cities (but also in the digital sphere) as urban densities provide an adequate ground for sharing/commoning to be taken on board, both as viable alternatives or solutions to pressing problems related to lack of resources (including land, space, housing, food but also knowledge and expertise) and because population dynamics help these initiatives to build momentum. Recently, the rise of such initiatives in cities such as Barcelona or Ghent, has called for a more translocal vision (see Commons Transition Plan for Ghent<ref>http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-plan-city-ghent/</ref>, and the Electoral Program of Barcelona En Comu <ref>https://barcelonaencomu.cat/ca/programa-2019</ref>). Moreover, many such initiatives (like consumer coops, urban agriculture initiatives), combine the use of both urban and rural territories and their interaction, in a way also helping in reconceptualising the relations and dependencies between urban-rural areas in metabolic, social and environmental terms.

(Re)claiming urban commons from solely profit-seeking actors and/or central institutions governed by distant and rigid bureaucracies that operate in increasingly neoliberal fashion, is part of reclaiming justice in the city. Through sharing, commoning and cooperativism, resources and participation in governance can become more widely accessible and possible. Most sharing food initiatives, such as community gardens, collaborative cooking and eating in community kitchens, surplus food sharing initiatives, can indeed address distributive justice by enabling socially vulnerable people to access healthy food.However, initiatives also face contradictions and challenges with regard to justice, as they are embedded in historical patterns of exclusion and discrimination, and current neoliberal rationalities. Some, for example, assume the withdrawal of the state from certain domains and take on individual responsibilities for aspects that should be of common and public concern. In the case of Gela (‘GEmeinsam LAndwirtschaften’)<ref>https://www.gaertnerhof-staudenmueller.de/gela-familien/</ref>, the arrangement between consumer groups and organic farm producers ensures security of income for the farmers and healthy food for urban citizens. However, if both those aspects are not supported by more universal public policy, these benefits might only accrue to those who can afford to invest and be part of such initiatives. Similarly, in the example of co-working, while sharing the cost of a larger space might be enabling for small enterprises, individual artists, or craftspeople to advance their work, circumventing high rentals in city centers, the type of business promoted and the inclusivity of some such spaces varies to a great extent. The Impact Hub [https://impacthub.net], for example, is a network of 16.000 social entrepreneurs around the world, who all have very different visions, products and services, and thus very different relations to issues of inequality, ecology and justice.

Socio-environmental sustainability is not necessarily central to the goals of commoning/cooperative projects, but sustainability issues have increasingly become a central preoccupation of citizens and movements, thus are being increasingly reflected also in such projects. The community-supported agriculture initiative studied under INCONTEXT project, for example, has a strong sustainability perspective as it promotes organic food of proximity, reducing the use of agrochemicals and avoiding embedded energy consumption (transportation). Many of the sharing initiatives directly address issues of sustainability, as they have to do with the reduction of waste (through recycling/repairing/reusing materials, avoiding food waste) or the production of renewable/cleaner energy (through cooperatives), or by optimising the use of space and resources (in co-housing or co-working arrangements). Moreover, in places of sharing and conviviality, it is also the case that ideas (often about sustainability) circulate faster and with more potential for innovation, which in turn can enable sustainable transformations. The idea of sharing can indeed link sustainability and justice as it can enable redistribution of scarce resources in innovative ways. However, when justice is not an explicit concern in the development of these projects, they do risk of becoming enclaves of privilege, where those with access can benefit from each other and from niche services/knowledge.

At the same time, environmentalists find that working directly with citizens brings more promising results than with upper-level governments. Many dedicated organizations and NGOs that work towards increasing the share of renewables in energy, for example, are now looking at cooperative or public ownership for renewable energy facilities as a way of reducing the increasing resistance to big wind turbine facilities. However, aspects of sustainability are envisioned and implemented at different scales and in different ways in cooperative/commons projects. SomEnergia<ref>https://www.somenergia.coop/</ref> is an energy cooperative in Barcelona, which not only aims to produce local renewable energy but also promotes a degrowth perspective to energy use so that overall energy consumption be reduced.

==Narrative of change==

Cooperatives and other common-based projects that practice sharing are addressing interwoven problems of unequal and insufficient access to resources, knowledge, and services that urban citizens deem valuable, if not necessary, for their well being. They also address environmental concerns at various scales (from global warming to environmental health issues) which have deep justice implications as they differentially impact urban populations.

An underlying premise in some projects utilizing this approach is that by fomenting and practicing equal participation, common management of resources and direct democratic control over processes, wider socio-cultural and systemic change will also be enabled and dominant institutions will be challenged.

In the short term, a lot of projects are struggling to “fill the gap” that formal institutions leave unaddressed (e.g. making use of derelict land, making viable and accessible the production/consumption of healthy and organic food), and thus achieving change by “taking things in their own hands.”

'''Challenges to change:" A great challenge for coop/commons and sharing projects is the ability to continue without burdening the community which sustains them. Many times, especially when projects do not constitute an important part of the participants’ livelihood, members that assume a lot of voluntary responsibilities get tired and burn out. While urban commons are often built around the concept of care, many projects still tend to privilege powerful positions or individuals. The challenge therefore also lies in building more empathetic and collaborative dynamic leadership within those projects, including addressing gender inequalities. Long-term institutional support from municipalities and other public actors proves crucial for these projects' sustainability. This support means both shifting materials/assets into common ownership and promoting an ethics of sharing, but also implementing more pro-citizen, socially just approaches to urban development and the decisions involved in it.

==Transformative potential==

There is indeed a growing expectation that bottom-up and citizen-led common-based projects will challenge dominant institutions that reproduce power structures and prioritise profit-based values while not accounting for environmental and social externalities. It is seen that at city level, as urban governments work more closely together in domains like renewable energy and urban economy, and as the most progressive of those governments build synergies between public and common domains, socio-ecological transformation through citizen-led and -owned initiatives becomes possible.

As SHARECITY (2015-2020) project <ref>https://sharecity.ie/</ref> observes, for example, sharing is increasingly being identified as a transformative mechanism towards sustainable cities as it can help reduce consumption, conserve resources, prevent waste and provide new forms of socio-economic relations. This can pose challenges to dominant institutions and powerful interests which depend on ever-increasing production and consumption patterns, that is, of the growth of the formal economy. Research has shown that configurations of community-based initiatives such as cooperatives and commons-based projects do provide a fertile ground for productive transformations, as long as they constructively deal with the contradictions and challenges that they face, and thus allowing for more resilient strategies and structures to emerge <ref>Sekulova, F. et al. (2017) ‘A ‘fertile soil’ for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical framework’, Environment and Planning A. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 49(10), pp. 2362–2382.</ref>. But research has also shown that inequality can be reproduced within micro-level interactions in sharing economies <ref>Schor, J. B. et al. (2016) ‘Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy’, Poetics. Elsevier, 54, pp. 66–81.</ref>. Not all sharing initiatives are challenging socio-economic power relations, even as they do contribute to new forms of thinking and doing with regards to sharing. This reflects the tension on what type of transformations are sought, and towards what direction.

==Illustrations==

* In Colombes, Paris (France), a pilot implementation of ideas that stemmed from the R-URBAN project <ref>http://r-urban.net/en/</ref> and is called Agrocité <ref>http://r-urban.net/blog/projects/agrocite/</ref>, aims at initiating locally closed ecological cycles that will support the emergence of alternative models of living, producing and consuming between the urban and the rural. Since 2012, a “bottom up strategy of resilient regeneration” started including a micro-farm for collective use, a mini recycling plant and cooperative eco-housing and, currently, 400 citizens are co-managing the project following also sustainability principles of reduced water use and reducing waste.

* At transnational level, the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)<ref>https://www.ica.coop/en/about-us/international-cooperative-alliance</ref> is a a non-governmental co-operative federation or, more precisely, a co-operative union representing 313 co-operative federations and organisations in 109 countries (see also the Case Study Report, by TRANSIT project <ref>Picabea, F., Kunze, I., Bidinost, A., Phillip, A. and Becerra, L (coord.) (2015) Case Study Report: Cooperative Housing. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.Available at: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf</ref>.

* In Finland, the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Recycling Centre <ref>https://www.kierratyskeskus.fi/in_english</ref> is an example of a community-based initiative that assists in the recycling and recirculation of things that people donate, offering a sustainable and affordable way of purchasing furniture, clothes and bicycles, amongst many other goods. The initiative grew from a small grass-root activity to an influential actor in the recycling and re-using business. In 2014, they recirculated over 3 million items in their five shops (see also PATHWAYS project<ref>https://www.path-ways.eu/</ref>).

* [https://www.somenergia.coop/ Som Energia] - Green Energy Cooperative, Spain. Energy cooperative based on funding from its associates, which main activities are producing and commercializing renewable energy. Their value proposition for potential associates is defined as follows: to support a renewable energy model that is efficient and citizen-owned, to support the development of a social and solidarity-based economy, to help dismantle the current energy oligopoly, to participate in a transformative social movement, and to obtain transparent information and a people-based customer-service.

==References==

<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: INCONTEXT]]
[[Category: SomEnergia]]
[[Category: SHARECITY]]

Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons

2020-04-06T14:31:57Z

Anna Bruen: /* General introduction to approach */ edited for grammar and clarity

Sharing in the context of urban sustainability and justice refers to a paradigm shift away from individualistic and exclusivity practices, which are embedded in modern urbanism and urban lifestyles in regards to particular resources and services. '''Sharing is a central aspect of commoning practices, while commons governance often takes the form of cooperatives.'''

The '''concept of the commons''' is important to cooperatives. It represents a form of collective but decentralised control over resources, or forms of wealth, which (should) belong to all and must be actively protected and managed in a collective manner, for the collective good.

Cooperatives are jointly-owned and horizontally/democratically governed enterprises, and can include consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or shared/hybrid cooperatives where ownership is shared between consumers, workers, and other stakeholders like non-profits. Cooperatives can govern housing, businesses, and food enterprises.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

During the last decade, a number of efforts have focused on gathering information about the sharing economy, sharing initiatives, and innovations that enable sharing <ref>Schor J (2016) Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4(3). Addleton Academic Publishers: 7–22.</ref>. People often identify sharing initiatives in urban contexts such as co-working, co-living and co-housing; These are are often more focused on sharing space rather than resources and services. Resources and services can be shared through cooperatives, community-led management, co-finance and food sharing, among others.

Food sharing, for example, is a very prominent example of how resources can be optimised in order to strengthen social relations, while also securing food for the most vulnerable, and avoiding food waste. '''Sharing practices, especially when referring to the long-term sharing of a resource, can become synonymous of commons-based projects and/or cooperatives, in the sense that what is shared is managed by those who share it.''' However, this is not necessarily the case, as sharing can be to a large extent governed by external rules and formal institutions. For example, food can be shared between those businesses or households that have it in excess, and those organisations or groups that are in demand. This can be regulated by rules on quality, means of transport, and sanitary checks. However, food sharing can also mean the cultivation of food in a community garden and the distribution of the produce among participants in an informal manner. While one is a facilitated offer that does not necessitate social interaction between the two parties, the second is an example of a commons governance.

With urban sustainability in mind, the idea of cooperatives and commons has been applied to the local production/distribution of “clean” energy services such as bicycle-repairing, but also community gardens, social centers, and other public and private spaces that are reclaimed by citizen groups. Such spaces are reconfigured, transformed, and maintained "commons." Cooperatives are often integrated. Note: whereas in cooperatives the purpose and different roles within the “enterprise” are usually well-defined, in other forms of urban commons these are not always as clear.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

‘Sharing cities’ is an idea and an approach of how cities can battle against some of their main challenges (e.g. poverty, health issues, housing needs, lack of space, lack of available land etc.), through the actions and networks of citizens and supported by committed city governments. The Sharing Cities network emerged in 2013 from a non-profit organisation based in San Fransisco (Shareable <ref> https://www.shareable.net/about/</ref>) which set out to be a news, action and connection hub for cities and urban issues. Now, the ‘Sharing City Network’ comprises local communities and group of activists in more than 50 cities, who engage in a cooperative process by organizing sharing projects. The Network thus acts at multi-territorial and transnational level to collect information and promote sharing. They have brought together a collection of over a hundred sharing-related case studies and model policies from more than 80 cities in 35 countries <ref>Sharing Cities. Activating the Urban Commons. Available for download here: https://www.sharingcities.net/</ref>, which covers examples of housing (e.g. cooperative Housing, short-term rental, open-source design), food (surplus food redistribution, community gardens, farmers markets), work (e.g. FabLabs, cooperative ownership, community wealth, maker-spaces, social entrepreneur networks), waste (citizen compost initiative, repair café, worker-owned recycling cooperative) and more. This shows the breadth of implementations that the sharing idea can have in cities, and the connection with cooperatives and commons projects.

A strong component of what is observed as urban sustainability-oriented cooperatives are those dedicated to, or include, the local production and consumption of clean(er) energy (see Rescoop <ref>https://www.rescoop.eu/</ref> for a collection of identified such projects, geographically referenced). One example stemming from the results of the INCONTEXT (2010-2013) project <ref>https://incontext-fp7.eu/</ref> is the Emission-Zero initiative in Les Vents d'Houyet <ref>http://www.vents-houyet.be/</ref>, Belgium. After its initial phase of experimenting with raising awareness and spreading information on renewable energy, now it is focused on raising capital for and volumes of renewable energy. The cooperative connects about 1000 cooperators and 10 000 affiliated members (2011). It built seven wind turbines that are now jointly owned (and democratically managed) by the cooperative.

Other examples range from tool libraries to financial cooperatives for mutual self-management, democratic engagement through/with digital means <ref>https://www.oikos.be/english/about-oikos/157-english</ref>, and multi-faceted initiatives like Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi, USA <ref>https://cooperationjackson.org/story</ref>.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The idea of cooperativism, sharing, and common management of resources is not new. However, it has been intensely rediscovered in modern cities of today, due to increasing pressures that urban citizens experience on the physical environment (pollution, lack of green space, lack of healthy food), their livelihoods (non-affordable housing, precarious employment) and their political recognition and participation (lack of public space, mistrust in governmental institutions). As a response, urban commons, sharing and cooperatives are seen to operate mostly at the level of cities (but also in the digital sphere) as urban densities provide an adequate ground for sharing/commoning to be taken on board, both as viable alternatives or solutions to pressing problems related to lack of resources (including land, space, housing, food but also knowledge and expertise) and because population dynamics help these initiatives to build momentum. Recently, the rise of such initiatives in cities such as Barcelona or Ghent, has called for a more translocal vision (see Commons Transition Plan for Ghent<ref>http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-plan-city-ghent/</ref>, and the Electoral Program of Barcelona En Comu <ref>https://barcelonaencomu.cat/ca/programa-2019</ref>). Moreover, many such initiatives (like consumer coops, urban agriculture initiatives), combine the use of both urban and rural territories and their interaction, in a way also helping in reconceptualising the relations and dependencies between urban-rural areas in metabolic, social and environmental terms.

(Re)claiming urban commons from solely profit-seeking actors and/or central institutions governed by distant and rigid bureaucracies that operate in increasingly neoliberal fashion, is part of reclaiming justice in the city. Through sharing, commoning and cooperativism, resources and participation in governance can become more widely accessible and possible. Most sharing food initiatives, such as community gardens, collaborative cooking and eating in community kitchens, surplus food sharing initiatives, can indeed address distributive justice by enabling socially vulnerable people to access healthy food.However, initiatives also face contradictions and challenges with regard to justice, as they are embedded in historical patterns of exclusion and discrimination, and current neoliberal rationalities. Some, for example, assume the withdrawal of the state from certain domains and take on individual responsibilities for aspects that should be of common and public concern. In the case of Gela (‘GEmeinsam LAndwirtschaften’)<ref>https://www.gaertnerhof-staudenmueller.de/gela-familien/</ref>, the arrangement between consumer groups and organic farm producers ensures security of income for the farmers and healthy food for urban citizens. However, if both those aspects are not supported by more universal public policy, these benefits might only accrue to those who can afford to invest and be part of such initiatives. Similarly, in the example of co-working, while sharing the cost of a larger space might be enabling for small enterprises, individual artists, or craftspeople to advance their work, circumventing high rentals in city centers, the type of business promoted and the inclusivity of some such spaces varies to a great extent. The Impact Hub [https://impacthub.net], for example, is a network of 16.000 social entrepreneurs around the world, who all have very different visions, products and services, and thus very different relations to issues of inequality, ecology and justice.

Socio-environmental sustainability is not necessarily central to the goals of commoning/cooperative projects, but sustainability issues have increasingly become a central preoccupation of citizens and movements, thus are being increasingly reflected also in such projects. The community-supported agriculture initiative studied under INCONTEXT project, for example, has a strong sustainability perspective as it promotes organic food of proximity, reducing the use of agrochemicals and avoiding embedded energy consumption (transportation). Many of the sharing initiatives directly address issues of sustainability, as they have to do with the reduction of waste (through recycling/repairing/reusing materials, avoiding food waste) or the production of renewable/cleaner energy (through cooperatives), or by optimising the use of space and resources (in co-housing or co-working arrangements). Moreover, in places of sharing and conviviality, it is also the case that ideas (often about sustainability) circulate faster and with more potential for innovation, which in turn can enable sustainable transformations. The idea of sharing can indeed link sustainability and justice as it can enable redistribution of scarce resources in innovative ways. However, when justice is not an explicit concern in the development of these projects, they do risk of becoming enclaves of privilege, where those with access can benefit from each other and from niche services/knowledge.

At the same time, environmentalists find that working directly with citizens brings more promising results than with upper-level governments. Many dedicated organizations and NGOs that work towards increasing the share of renewables in energy, for example, are now looking at cooperative or public ownership for renewable energy facilities as a way of reducing the increasing resistance to big wind turbine facilities. However, aspects of sustainability are envisioned and implemented at different scales and in different ways in cooperative/commons projects. SomEnergia<ref>https://www.somenergia.coop/</ref> is an energy cooperative in Barcelona, which not only aims to produce local renewable energy but also promotes a degrowth perspective to energy use so that overall energy consumption be reduced.

==Narrative of change==

Cooperatives and other common-based projects that practice sharing are addressing interwoven problems of unequal and insufficient access to resources, knowledge, and services that urban citizens deem valuable, if not necessary, for their well being. They also address environmental concerns at various scales (from global warming to environmental health issues) which have deep justice implications as they differentially impact urban populations. Whereas a lot of projects are struggling to “fill the gap” that formal institutions leave unaddressed (e.g. making use of derelict land, making viable and accessible the production/consumption of healthy and organic food), and thus achieving change by “taking things in their own hands”. However, an underlying premise in some cases under this approach is also that by fomenting and practicing equal participation, common management of resources and direct democratic control over processes, wider socio-cultural and systemic change will also be enabled and dominant institutions will be challenged.

A great challenge for coop/commons and, to certain extent, sharing projects is the ability to continue without burdening the community which sustains them. Many times, especially when projects do not constitute an important part of the participants’ livelihood, members that assume a lot of voluntary responsibilities get tired and abandon. While urban commons are often built around the concept of care, many projects still tend to privilege powerful positions or individuals. The challenge therefore also lies on building more empathetic and collaborative dynamic within those projects, including addressing gender inequalities. Long-term institutional support from municipalities and other public actors proves crucial for these projects' sustainability. This support means both shifting materials/assets into common ownership and promoting an ethics of sharing, but also implementing more pro-citizen, socially just approach to urban development and the decisions around it.

==Transformative potential==

There is indeed a growing expectation that bottom-up and citizen-led common-based projects will challenge dominant institutions that reproduce power structures and prioritise profit-based values while not accounting for environmental and social externalities. It is seen that at city level, as urban governments work more closely together in domains like renewable energy and urban economy, and as the most progressive of those governments build synergies between public and common domains, socio-ecological transformation through citizen-led and -owned initiatives becomes possible.

As SHARECITY (2015-2020) project <ref>https://sharecity.ie/</ref> observes, for example, sharing is increasingly being identified as a transformative mechanism towards sustainable cities as it can help reduce consumption, conserve resources, prevent waste and provide new forms of socio-economic relations. This can pose challenges to dominant institutions and powerful interests which depend on ever-increasing production and consumption patterns, that is, of the growth of the formal economy. Research has shown that configurations of community-based initiatives such as cooperatives and commons-based projects do provide a fertile ground for productive transformations, as long as they constructively deal with the contradictions and challenges that they face, and thus allowing for more resilient strategies and structures to emerge <ref>Sekulova, F. et al. (2017) ‘A ‘fertile soil’ for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical framework’, Environment and Planning A. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 49(10), pp. 2362–2382.</ref>. But research has also shown that inequality can be reproduced within micro-level interactions in sharing economies <ref>Schor, J. B. et al. (2016) ‘Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy’, Poetics. Elsevier, 54, pp. 66–81.</ref>. Not all sharing initiatives are challenging socio-economic power relations, even as they do contribute to new forms of thinking and doing with regards to sharing. This reflects the tension on what type of transformations are sought, and towards what direction.

==Illustrations==

* In Colombes, Paris (France), a pilot implementation of ideas that stemmed from the R-URBAN project <ref>http://r-urban.net/en/</ref> and is called Agrocité <ref>http://r-urban.net/blog/projects/agrocite/</ref>, aims at initiating locally closed ecological cycles that will support the emergence of alternative models of living, producing and consuming between the urban and the rural. Since 2012, a “bottom up strategy of resilient regeneration” started including a micro-farm for collective use, a mini recycling plant and cooperative eco-housing and, currently, 400 citizens are co-managing the project following also sustainability principles of reduced water use and reducing waste.

* At transnational level, the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)<ref>https://www.ica.coop/en/about-us/international-cooperative-alliance</ref> is a a non-governmental co-operative federation or, more precisely, a co-operative union representing 313 co-operative federations and organisations in 109 countries (see also the Case Study Report, by TRANSIT project <ref>Picabea, F., Kunze, I., Bidinost, A., Phillip, A. and Becerra, L (coord.) (2015) Case Study Report: Cooperative Housing. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.Available at: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf</ref>.

* In Finland, the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Recycling Centre <ref>https://www.kierratyskeskus.fi/in_english</ref> is an example of a community-based initiative that assists in the recycling and recirculation of things that people donate, offering a sustainable and affordable way of purchasing furniture, clothes and bicycles, amongst many other goods. The initiative grew from a small grass-root activity to an influential actor in the recycling and re-using business. In 2014, they recirculated over 3 million items in their five shops (see also PATHWAYS project<ref>https://www.path-ways.eu/</ref>).

* [https://www.somenergia.coop/ Som Energia] - Green Energy Cooperative, Spain. Energy cooperative based on funding from its associates, which main activities are producing and commercializing renewable energy. Their value proposition for potential associates is defined as follows: to support a renewable energy model that is efficient and citizen-owned, to support the development of a social and solidarity-based economy, to help dismantle the current energy oligopoly, to participate in a transformative social movement, and to obtain transparent information and a people-based customer-service.

==References==

<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: INCONTEXT]]
[[Category: SomEnergia]]
[[Category: SHARECITY]]

Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons

2020-04-06T12:56:31Z

Anna Bruen: edited for grammar and clarity

Sharing in the context of urban sustainability and justice refers to a paradigm shift away from individualistic and exclusivity practices, which are embedded in modern urbanism and urban lifestyles in regards to particular resources and services. '''Sharing is a central aspect of commoning practices, while commons governance often takes the form of cooperatives.'''

The '''concept of the commons''' is important to cooperatives. It represents a form of collective but decentralised control over resources, or forms of wealth, which (should) belong to all and must be actively protected and managed in a collective manner, for the collective good.

Cooperatives are jointly-owned and horizontally/democratically governed enterprises, and can include consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or shared/hybrid cooperatives where ownership is shared between consumers, workers, and other stakeholders like non-profits. Cooperatives can govern housing, businesses, and food enterprises.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==

During the last decade, a number of efforts have focused on gathering information about the sharing economy, sharing initiatives, and innovations that enable sharing <ref>Schor J (2016) Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4(3). Addleton Academic Publishers: 7–22.</ref>. People often identify sharing initiatives in urban contexts such as co-working, co-living and co-housing; These are are often more focused on sharing space rather than resources and services. Resources and services can be shared through cooperatives, community-led management, co-finance and food sharing, among others.

Food sharing, for example, is a very prominent example of how resources can be optimised in order to strengthen social relations, while also securing food for the most vulnerable, and avoiding food waste. '''Sharing practices, especially when referring to the long-term sharing of a resource, can become synonymous of commons-based projects and/or cooperatives, in the sense that what is shared is managed by those who share it.''' However, this is not necessarily the case, as sharing can be to a large extent governed by external rules and formal institutions. For example, food can be shared between those businesses or households that have it in excess, and those organisations or groups that are in demand. This can be regulated by rules on quality, means of transport, and sanitary checks. However, food sharing can also mean the cultivation of food in a community garden and the distribution of the produce among participants in an informal manner. While one is a facilitated offer that does not necessitate social interaction between the two parties, the second is an example of a commons governance. With urban sustainability in mind, the idea of cooperatives and commons has been very much applied to the local production/distribution of “clean” energy, services such as bicycle-repairing, but also community gardens, social centers, and other public or private spaces which are reclaimed by citizen groups, reconfiguring their use, transforming and maintaining them. Cooperatives are often integrated or themselves constitute forms of urban commons. Whereas in cooperatives the purpose and different roles within the “enterprise” are usually well-defined, in other forms of urban commons these are not always as clear.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

‘Sharing cities’ is an idea and an approach of how cities can battle against some of their main challenges (e.g. poverty, health issues, housing needs, lack of space, lack of available land etc.), through the actions and networks of citizens and supported by committed city governments. The Sharing Cities network emerged in 2013 from a non-profit organisation based in San Fransisco (Shareable <ref> https://www.shareable.net/about/</ref>) which set out to be a news, action and connection hub for cities and urban issues. Now, the ‘Sharing City Network’ comprises local communities and group of activists in more than 50 cities, who engage in a cooperative process by organizing sharing projects. The Network thus acts at multi-territorial and transnational level to collect information and promote sharing. They have brought together a collection of over a hundred sharing-related case studies and model policies from more than 80 cities in 35 countries <ref>Sharing Cities. Activating the Urban Commons. Available for download here: https://www.sharingcities.net/</ref>, which covers examples of housing (e.g. cooperative Housing, short-term rental, open-source design), food (surplus food redistribution, community gardens, farmers markets), work (e.g. FabLabs, cooperative ownership, community wealth, maker-spaces, social entrepreneur networks), waste (citizen compost initiative, repair café, worker-owned recycling cooperative) and more. This shows the breadth of implementations that the sharing idea can have in cities, and the connection with cooperatives and commons projects.

A strong component of what is observed as urban sustainability-oriented cooperatives are those dedicated to, or include, the local production and consumption of clean(er) energy (see Rescoop <ref>https://www.rescoop.eu/</ref> for a collection of identified such projects, geographically referenced). One example stemming from the results of the INCONTEXT (2010-2013) project <ref>https://incontext-fp7.eu/</ref> is the Emission-Zero initiative in Les Vents d'Houyet <ref>http://www.vents-houyet.be/</ref>, Belgium. After its initial phase of experimenting with raising awareness and spreading information on renewable energy, now it is focused on raising capital for and volumes of renewable energy. The cooperative connects about 1000 cooperators and 10 000 affiliated members (2011). It built seven wind turbines that are now jointly owned (and democratically managed) by the cooperative.

Other examples range from tool libraries to financial cooperatives for mutual self-management, democratic engagement through/with digital means <ref>https://www.oikos.be/english/about-oikos/157-english</ref>, and multi-faceted initiatives like Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi, USA <ref>https://cooperationjackson.org/story</ref>.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

The idea of cooperativism, sharing, and common management of resources is not new. However, it has been intensely rediscovered in modern cities of today, due to increasing pressures that urban citizens experience on the physical environment (pollution, lack of green space, lack of healthy food), their livelihoods (non-affordable housing, precarious employment) and their political recognition and participation (lack of public space, mistrust in governmental institutions). As a response, urban commons, sharing and cooperatives are seen to operate mostly at the level of cities (but also in the digital sphere) as urban densities provide an adequate ground for sharing/commoning to be taken on board, both as viable alternatives or solutions to pressing problems related to lack of resources (including land, space, housing, food but also knowledge and expertise) and because population dynamics help these initiatives to build momentum. Recently, the rise of such initiatives in cities such as Barcelona or Ghent, has called for a more translocal vision (see Commons Transition Plan for Ghent<ref>http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-plan-city-ghent/</ref>, and the Electoral Program of Barcelona En Comu <ref>https://barcelonaencomu.cat/ca/programa-2019</ref>). Moreover, many such initiatives (like consumer coops, urban agriculture initiatives), combine the use of both urban and rural territories and their interaction, in a way also helping in reconceptualising the relations and dependencies between urban-rural areas in metabolic, social and environmental terms.

(Re)claiming urban commons from solely profit-seeking actors and/or central institutions governed by distant and rigid bureaucracies that operate in increasingly neoliberal fashion, is part of reclaiming justice in the city. Through sharing, commoning and cooperativism, resources and participation in governance can become more widely accessible and possible. Most sharing food initiatives, such as community gardens, collaborative cooking and eating in community kitchens, surplus food sharing initiatives, can indeed address distributive justice by enabling socially vulnerable people to access healthy food.However, initiatives also face contradictions and challenges with regard to justice, as they are embedded in historical patterns of exclusion and discrimination, and current neoliberal rationalities. Some, for example, assume the withdrawal of the state from certain domains and take on individual responsibilities for aspects that should be of common and public concern. In the case of Gela (‘GEmeinsam LAndwirtschaften’)<ref>https://www.gaertnerhof-staudenmueller.de/gela-familien/</ref>, the arrangement between consumer groups and organic farm producers ensures security of income for the farmers and healthy food for urban citizens. However, if both those aspects are not supported by more universal public policy, these benefits might only accrue to those who can afford to invest and be part of such initiatives. Similarly, in the example of co-working, while sharing the cost of a larger space might be enabling for small enterprises, individual artists, or craftspeople to advance their work, circumventing high rentals in city centers, the type of business promoted and the inclusivity of some such spaces varies to a great extent. The Impact Hub [https://impacthub.net], for example, is a network of 16.000 social entrepreneurs around the world, who all have very different visions, products and services, and thus very different relations to issues of inequality, ecology and justice.

Socio-environmental sustainability is not necessarily central to the goals of commoning/cooperative projects, but sustainability issues have increasingly become a central preoccupation of citizens and movements, thus are being increasingly reflected also in such projects. The community-supported agriculture initiative studied under INCONTEXT project, for example, has a strong sustainability perspective as it promotes organic food of proximity, reducing the use of agrochemicals and avoiding embedded energy consumption (transportation). Many of the sharing initiatives directly address issues of sustainability, as they have to do with the reduction of waste (through recycling/repairing/reusing materials, avoiding food waste) or the production of renewable/cleaner energy (through cooperatives), or by optimising the use of space and resources (in co-housing or co-working arrangements). Moreover, in places of sharing and conviviality, it is also the case that ideas (often about sustainability) circulate faster and with more potential for innovation, which in turn can enable sustainable transformations. The idea of sharing can indeed link sustainability and justice as it can enable redistribution of scarce resources in innovative ways. However, when justice is not an explicit concern in the development of these projects, they do risk of becoming enclaves of privilege, where those with access can benefit from each other and from niche services/knowledge.

At the same time, environmentalists find that working directly with citizens brings more promising results than with upper-level governments. Many dedicated organizations and NGOs that work towards increasing the share of renewables in energy, for example, are now looking at cooperative or public ownership for renewable energy facilities as a way of reducing the increasing resistance to big wind turbine facilities. However, aspects of sustainability are envisioned and implemented at different scales and in different ways in cooperative/commons projects. SomEnergia<ref>https://www.somenergia.coop/</ref> is an energy cooperative in Barcelona, which not only aims to produce local renewable energy but also promotes a degrowth perspective to energy use so that overall energy consumption be reduced.

==Narrative of change==

Cooperatives and other common-based projects that practice sharing are addressing interwoven problems of unequal and insufficient access to resources, knowledge, and services that urban citizens deem valuable, if not necessary, for their well being. They also address environmental concerns at various scales (from global warming to environmental health issues) which have deep justice implications as they differentially impact urban populations. Whereas a lot of projects are struggling to “fill the gap” that formal institutions leave unaddressed (e.g. making use of derelict land, making viable and accessible the production/consumption of healthy and organic food), and thus achieving change by “taking things in their own hands”. However, an underlying premise in some cases under this approach is also that by fomenting and practicing equal participation, common management of resources and direct democratic control over processes, wider socio-cultural and systemic change will also be enabled and dominant institutions will be challenged.

A great challenge for coop/commons and, to certain extent, sharing projects is the ability to continue without burdening the community which sustains them. Many times, especially when projects do not constitute an important part of the participants’ livelihood, members that assume a lot of voluntary responsibilities get tired and abandon. While urban commons are often built around the concept of care, many projects still tend to privilege powerful positions or individuals. The challenge therefore also lies on building more empathetic and collaborative dynamic within those projects, including addressing gender inequalities. Long-term institutional support from municipalities and other public actors proves crucial for these projects' sustainability. This support means both shifting materials/assets into common ownership and promoting an ethics of sharing, but also implementing more pro-citizen, socially just approach to urban development and the decisions around it.

==Transformative potential==

There is indeed a growing expectation that bottom-up and citizen-led common-based projects will challenge dominant institutions that reproduce power structures and prioritise profit-based values while not accounting for environmental and social externalities. It is seen that at city level, as urban governments work more closely together in domains like renewable energy and urban economy, and as the most progressive of those governments build synergies between public and common domains, socio-ecological transformation through citizen-led and -owned initiatives becomes possible.

As SHARECITY (2015-2020) project <ref>https://sharecity.ie/</ref> observes, for example, sharing is increasingly being identified as a transformative mechanism towards sustainable cities as it can help reduce consumption, conserve resources, prevent waste and provide new forms of socio-economic relations. This can pose challenges to dominant institutions and powerful interests which depend on ever-increasing production and consumption patterns, that is, of the growth of the formal economy. Research has shown that configurations of community-based initiatives such as cooperatives and commons-based projects do provide a fertile ground for productive transformations, as long as they constructively deal with the contradictions and challenges that they face, and thus allowing for more resilient strategies and structures to emerge <ref>Sekulova, F. et al. (2017) ‘A ‘fertile soil’ for sustainability-related community initiatives: A new analytical framework’, Environment and Planning A. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 49(10), pp. 2362–2382.</ref>. But research has also shown that inequality can be reproduced within micro-level interactions in sharing economies <ref>Schor, J. B. et al. (2016) ‘Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy’, Poetics. Elsevier, 54, pp. 66–81.</ref>. Not all sharing initiatives are challenging socio-economic power relations, even as they do contribute to new forms of thinking and doing with regards to sharing. This reflects the tension on what type of transformations are sought, and towards what direction.

==Illustrations==

* In Colombes, Paris (France), a pilot implementation of ideas that stemmed from the R-URBAN project <ref>http://r-urban.net/en/</ref> and is called Agrocité <ref>http://r-urban.net/blog/projects/agrocite/</ref>, aims at initiating locally closed ecological cycles that will support the emergence of alternative models of living, producing and consuming between the urban and the rural. Since 2012, a “bottom up strategy of resilient regeneration” started including a micro-farm for collective use, a mini recycling plant and cooperative eco-housing and, currently, 400 citizens are co-managing the project following also sustainability principles of reduced water use and reducing waste.

* At transnational level, the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA)<ref>https://www.ica.coop/en/about-us/international-cooperative-alliance</ref> is a a non-governmental co-operative federation or, more precisely, a co-operative union representing 313 co-operative federations and organisations in 109 countries (see also the Case Study Report, by TRANSIT project <ref>Picabea, F., Kunze, I., Bidinost, A., Phillip, A. and Becerra, L (coord.) (2015) Case Study Report: Cooperative Housing. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.Available at: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf</ref>.

* In Finland, the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Recycling Centre <ref>https://www.kierratyskeskus.fi/in_english</ref> is an example of a community-based initiative that assists in the recycling and recirculation of things that people donate, offering a sustainable and affordable way of purchasing furniture, clothes and bicycles, amongst many other goods. The initiative grew from a small grass-root activity to an influential actor in the recycling and re-using business. In 2014, they recirculated over 3 million items in their five shops (see also PATHWAYS project<ref>https://www.path-ways.eu/</ref>).

* [https://www.somenergia.coop/ Som Energia] - Green Energy Cooperative, Spain. Energy cooperative based on funding from its associates, which main activities are producing and commercializing renewable energy. Their value proposition for potential associates is defined as follows: to support a renewable energy model that is efficient and citizen-owned, to support the development of a social and solidarity-based economy, to help dismantle the current energy oligopoly, to participate in a transformative social movement, and to obtain transparent information and a people-based customer-service.

==References==

<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Experimentation labs]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]
[[Category: INCONTEXT]]
[[Category: SomEnergia]]
[[Category: SHARECITY]]

Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities

2020-04-03T08:04:04Z

Anna Bruen: edited for grammar and clarity

A variety of approaches and movements have the aim to provide affordable, ecological or community housing in both urban and rural contexts. The approaches mentioned here are all centered around shared values. They are all about a group of people who live together or share common facilities and who connect with each other on the basis of explicitly stated values.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
A variety of approaches and movements have the aim to provide affordable, ecological or community housing in both urban and rural contexts. The diversity of housing initiatives is illustrated by the broad definition of an intentional community by the [https://www.ic.org/foundation-for-intentional-community/ Foundation for Intentional Community] : “a group of people who live together or share common facilities and who regularly associate with each other on the basis of explicit common values”, which includes ecovillages, but also cohousing, cooperative houses, communes and other shared living arrangements. What these approaches have in common is a collective focus either organized through a specific governance or ownership model like a cooperative '''or''' revolving around a community like in [[ecovillages]].

This collection of approaches includes examples of the cooperative housing movement referred to as co-housing (as described in the TRANSIT project [http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf]) and intentional communities such as [[ecovillages]] (as described in the projects TRANSIT, Pathways, TESS and by Transformative Cities).

Co-housing, in general, can provide the opportunity for people to secure affordable homes, especially when this is done through community land trusts (see for example, the London Community Land Trust(LCLT) <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust </ref> for example the [https://www.communityledhousing.london/project/st-clements-london-clt/ St. Clements project]. However, co-living is also increasingly promoted as a lifestyle "of real opportunity that's yet to be found" <ref> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/03/co-living-the-end-of-urban-loneliness-or-cynical-corporate-dormitories </ref>, which is pursued in order to increase social networks or to stimulate inter-generational living.

[[Ecovillages]] are communities where people aim to live in harmony with each other and with nature. The [https://ecovillage.org/ Global Ecovillage Network] defines an ecovillage as an “intentional, traditional or urban community that is consciously designed through locally owned, participatory processes in all four dimensions of sustainability (social, culture, ecology and economy) to regenerate its social and natural environments” (Website GEN 2017). While this definition explicitly includes traditional villages, we in this Wiki-page focus on the intentional community version of ecovillages in both (peri-)urban and rural areas.

Communal living is sometimes perceived as oppressive, a thing of the past, a sign of poverty or a lifestyle to be adopted only in certain defined periods of the life cycle (e.g. student or old age).

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
The concept of cooperative housing has a long history. According to the TRANSIT project (Picabea et al. 2016 <ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf </ref>) the first independent housing cooperatives date back to the mid 19th century. In some countries, cooperative housing is an important part of the housing market. Although housing cooperatives can be found all over the world, the numbers vary significantly from country to country.
Cooperative housing, that was studied as part of the TRANSIT project, is part of a global movement of cooperatives that has existed since 1895. Housing cooperatives can have many forms with their own characteristics and can be found in both urban and rural contexts. In the TRANSIT project two examples of co-housing were studied in depth: El Hogar Obrera in Buenos Aires City Argentina and Vauban District in Freiburg Germany. El Hogar Obrera built more than 15.000 homes while Vauban Freiburg is “a special model district of sustainable living and participatory planning” with 2000 housing units.

Like housing co-operatives, fcovillages also come in many shapes, sizes and sorts. The size of intentional ecovillage communities range anywhere between 8 to 250 residents. Read more on the [[Ecovillages]] page.

Another example of an intentional community is [[co-working spaces]], like Impact Hub.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
Many of the co-housing initiatives and intentional communities directly address several aspects of sustainability. Some pay attention to ecological aspects of building and living, e.g. through recycling/repairing/reusing materials or the production of renewable/cleaner energy). While others focus more on economical aspects of living and providing affordable housing, e.g. through developing community land trusts. And others focus more on social aspects, such as living in a community where people share spaces.

==Narrative of change==
According to Picabea et al. 2016 <ref> http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/244%20TRANSIT%20Case%20Report%20-%20Co-Housing%20-%20Final.pdf </ref>, the global network of the cooperative housing movement is oriented to: “First, the movement proposes cooperation against competition. That is, their main objective is to strengthen the cooperative values and cooperation between cooperatives at local, regional and international levels. The aim of the movement is no competition and overcoming other (in terms of zero-sum game), but social cooperation for mutual benefit. Secondly, the cooperative movement despises the spirit of individual gain (in fact cooperatives do not generate profit rate) in order to activate dynamics of economic and social welfare” (p.6). Following this TRANSIT study, empowerment of communities in terms of decision making about where, when and how people want to live is part of their narrative of change.

Given the rich diversity of ecovillages across the world, It is impossible to generalise one narrative of change for all ecovillages. There is however a shared narrative used by the Global Ecovillage Network <ref> https://ecovillage.org </ref>, which e.g. on its website claims to “envision a world of empowered citizens and communities, designing and implementing pathways to a regenerative future, while building bridges of hope and international solidarity”.

A commonality of the narratives of change for housing cooperatives and ecovillages is the need for more decentralized or self-organized systems to enable access to or the generation of housing that is more affordable, ecological or social.

==Transformative potential==
Similar to other initiatives like community land trusts, cooperative housing can be seen as a mechanism to produce housing and provide access to the city for low income groups. Nevertheless, due to the diversity of their manifestations co-housing or intentional communities also symbolize negotiation processes between traditional planning practices and alternative ways of planning and building like for example in the case of Vauban or Ecovillage Bergen.
As such, the wide variety of projects propose alternatives to ownership structures, organizational models, planning practices, building practices and social relations between neighbors and between residents, local authorities and developers. Depending on the aim of each individual project and the actors involved they contribute to challenging the economic, ecologic and social unsustainability of the housing sector.

==Illustration==
In Freiburg, Germany, the City of Vauban is a special model district of sustainable living and participatory planning in which several co-housing initiatives could be realised. Starting in 1992 from a squat of ex-military facilities that was later bought by the City authorities (1994), who opened up a participatory process of co-designing and re-making the place into affordable and sustainable co-housing, together with citizens. Aspects of traffic, building, energy, nature in the city, sanitation and public space were widely discussed in the Forum and in the city. The district now comprises 2000 housing units for about 5.500 residents, having more than 70 co‐housing projects – either private or cooperative (see also the report by TRANSIT project.

Co-housing Initiatives in the Critical Turning Points-database of the TRANSIT project:
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/ica-4 ICA/COVILPI (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/httpmoiorgar ICA/MOI (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/ccvq ICA/CCVQ (Argentina)]
*[http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/sii/wwwfucvamorguy ICA/Fucvam (Uruguay)]

Co-housing Initiatives studied in-depth as Social Innovation Initiative in the TRANSIT project:
*El Hogar Obrero (Argentina)
*[https://freiburg-vauban.de/en/quartier-vauban-2/ Vauban (Germany)]

== Additional reading==
* https://eurotopiaversand.de/en/Book-Print/eurotopia-Directory-English-2014-edition.html

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]]
[[Category: Ecovillages]]
[[Category: Right to housing]]
[[Category: Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]]
[[Category: TRANSIT]]
[[Category: St. Clements project]]
[[Category: London Community Land Trust]]

Citizen science

2020-04-03T07:48:24Z

Anna Bruen: added section about how to contribute

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection]. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.<ref>http://lab.cccb.org/en/citizen-science-for-social-change/</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Citizen science can take place on a local, national, or international scale. It can involve "big data" and crowdsourcing[https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing] information on any scale (local to global). It can also involve collecting data on a scale or in different places that might otherwise not be available to scientists.

The European Citizen Science Association <ref>https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/</ref> articulates ten guiding principles <ref>https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/sites/default/files/ecsa_ten_principles_of_citizen_science.pdf</ref> for consideration when utilizing citizen science:

#Citizen science projects actively involve citizens in scientific endeavours that generate new knowledge or understanding.
#Citizen science projects have a genuine science outcom.
#Both the professional scientists and the citizen scientists benefit from taking part.
#Citizent scientists may, if they wish, participate in multiple stages of the scientific process.
#Citizen scientists receive feedback from the project.
#Citizen science is considered a research approach lik any other, with limitations and biases that should be considered and controlled for.
#Citizen science project data and meta-data are made publicly available and where possible, results are published in an open access format.
#Citizen scientists are acknowledged in project results and publications.
#Citizen science programmes are evaluated for their scientific output, data quality, participant experience and wider societal or policy impact.
#The leaders of citizen science projects take into consideration legal and ethical issues surrounding copyright, intellectual property, data sharing agreements, confidentiality, attribution, and the environmental impact of any activities.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Citizen science increases participation in the scientific process, knowledge creation and dissemination. Citizen science addresses two central elements of the social good model—environmental justice and inclusion with particular attention to diversity in age, gender, race/ethnicity, and social class in addressing environmental injustice that is more prevalent in underrepresented communities. <ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1049731519890404</ref> Depending on the exact methodology, citizen science can include voices and people who would not be heard using other methodologies. Furthermore, it can bring the results directly to the community impacted and implicated in the research, shortening the timeline between problem identification, solution finding, and interventions. This has implications for environmental and social justice, and the relationship between the two, within cities.

==Narrative of change==

Citizen science is research inspired by a desire for change. It expands the scientific model of the 20th century that relegated science to academics and their institutions. The process directly responds to citizens' concerns and can take into consideration their perspectives and expertise. By identifying citizens as scientists, not solely participants, they are empowered to actively contribute to knowledge creation and promotion. Through the process and results local networks can be strengthened and valuable relationship created, which will have long-term benefits for the community.

==Transformative potential==

Local people understand their local environment and can access it better than most people. Citizen scientists become stewards of their local environments as they gather robust data that generates environmental insights and informs future policy. <ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref>

Citizen science can complement and augment standard scientific approaches, for example by collecting data on a different scale or in places that are not normally accessible for scientists. Citizens hold different knowledge, eg about crucial local context, and the history and impact of environmental issues. Working with citizens opens up new perspectives that can lead to breakthrough insights and solutions. <ref>https://earthwatch.org.uk/our-science/citizen-science</ref>

Data collected by volunteers has contributed to vital scientific discovery in the fields of ecology, medicine, physics, meteorology and various environmental science disciplines. Harnessing the power of citizen science gives scientists the opportunity to gather more data than they ever could alone, gain a greater understanding of how we're impacting our planet.<ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref>

==Illustration==

'''D-Noses''' <ref>https://dnoses.eu/</ref>, distributed network for odour sensing empowerment and sustainability, Empowers citizens with Responsible Research and Innovation, citizen science and co-creation tools to design odour pollution control measures at local, national and global levels with CSOs, NGOs, local public authorities, odour emitting industries and academia. They are piloting 10 European and non European studies and will create DIY guidelines. The project is funded by Horizon 2020.

'''Monocle'''<ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref> partners are developing low-cost optical sensors, methods and technologies to support water quality monitoring by regional and national agencies. In addition to their own research programme they are exploring the role local communities and volunteers (led by MONOCLE partner Earthwatch Europe) can play in collecting essential environmental data to complement existing monitoring networks, evaluate the performance of in-situ sensors, and the role citizens can play in the maintenance and deployment of sensors. Funded by Horizon 2020.

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Citizen science

2020-04-01T10:38:28Z

Anna Bruen: /* Shapes, sizes and applications */

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection]. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.<ref>http://lab.cccb.org/en/citizen-science-for-social-change/</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

Citizen science can take place on a local, national, or international scale. It can involve "big data" and crowdsourcing[https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing] information on any scale (local to global). It can also involve collecting data on a scale or in different places that might otherwise not be available to scientists.

The European Citizen Science Association <ref>https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/</ref> articulates ten guiding principles <ref>https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/sites/default/files/ecsa_ten_principles_of_citizen_science.pdf</ref> for consideration when utilizing citizen science:

#Citizen science projects actively involve citizens in scientific endeavours that generate new knowledge or understanding.
#Citizen science projects have a genuine science outcom.
#Both the professional scientists and the citizen scientists benefit from taking part.
#Citizent scientists may, if they wish, participate in multiple stages of the scientific process.
#Citizen scientists receive feedback from the project.
#Citizen science is considered a research approach lik any other, with limitations and biases that should be considered and controlled for.
#Citizen science project data and meta-data are made publicly available and where possible, results are published in an open access format.
#Citizen scientists are acknowledged in project results and publications.
#Citizen science programmes are evaluated for their scientific output, data quality, participant experience and wider societal or policy impact.
#The leaders of citizen science projects take into consideration legal and ethical issues surrounding copyright, intellectual property, data sharing agreements, confidentiality, attribution, and the environmental impact of any activities.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Citizen science increases participation in the scientific process, knowledge creation and dissemination. Citizen science addresses two central elements of the social good model—environmental justice and inclusion with particular attention to diversity in age, gender, race/ethnicity, and social class in addressing environmental injustice that is more prevalent in underrepresented communities. <ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1049731519890404</ref> Depending on the exact methodology, citizen science can include voices and people who would not be heard using other methodologies. Furthermore, it can bring the results directly to the community impacted and implicated in the research, shortening the timeline between problem identification, solution finding, and interventions. This has implications for environmental and social justice, and the relationship between the two, within cities.

==Narrative of change==

Citizen science is research inspired by a desire for change. It expands the scientific model of the 20th century that relegated science to academics and their institutions. The process directly responds to citizens' concerns and can take into consideration their perspectives and expertise. By identifying citizens as scientists, not solely participants, they are empowered to actively contribute to knowledge creation and promotion. Through the process and results local networks can be strengthened and valuable relationship created, which will have long-term benefits for the community.

==Transformative potential==

Local people understand their local environment and can access it better than most people. Citizen scientists become stewards of their local environments as they gather robust data that generates environmental insights and informs future policy. <ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref>

Citizen science can complement and augment standard scientific approaches, for example by collecting data on a different scale or in places that are not normally accessible for scientists. Citizens hold different knowledge, eg about crucial local context, and the history and impact of environmental issues. Working with citizens opens up new perspectives that can lead to breakthrough insights and solutions. <ref>https://earthwatch.org.uk/our-science/citizen-science</ref>

Data collected by volunteers has contributed to vital scientific discovery in the fields of ecology, medicine, physics, meteorology and various environmental science disciplines. Harnessing the power of citizen science gives scientists the opportunity to gather more data than they ever could alone, gain a greater understanding of how we're impacting our planet.<ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref>

==Illustration==

'''D-Noses''' <ref>https://dnoses.eu/</ref>, distributed network for odour sensing empowerment and sustainability, Empowers citizens with Responsible Research and Innovation, citizen science and co-creation tools to design odour pollution control measures at local, national and global levels with CSOs, NGOs, local public authorities, odour emitting industries and academia. They are piloting 10 European and non European studies and will create DIY guidelines. The project is funded by Horizon 2020.

'''Monocle'''<ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref> partners are developing low-cost optical sensors, methods and technologies to support water quality monitoring by regional and national agencies. In addition to their own research programme they are exploring the role local communities and volunteers (led by MONOCLE partner Earthwatch Europe) can play in collecting essential environmental data to complement existing monitoring networks, evaluate the performance of in-situ sensors, and the role citizens can play in the maintenance and deployment of sensors. Funded by Horizon 2020.

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Citizen science

2020-04-01T10:20:00Z

Anna Bruen: /* Transformative potential */

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection]. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.<ref>http://lab.cccb.org/en/citizen-science-for-social-change/</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Citizen science increases participation in the scientific process, knowledge creation and dissemination. Citizen science addresses two central elements of the social good model—environmental justice and inclusion with particular attention to diversity in age, gender, race/ethnicity, and social class in addressing environmental injustice that is more prevalent in underrepresented communities. <ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1049731519890404</ref> Depending on the exact methodology, citizen science can include voices and people who would not be heard using other methodologies. Furthermore, it can bring the results directly to the community impacted and implicated in the research, shortening the timeline between problem identification, solution finding, and interventions. This has implications for environmental and social justice, and the relationship between the two, within cities.

==Narrative of change==

Citizen science is research inspired by a desire for change. It expands the scientific model of the 20th century that relegated science to academics and their institutions. The process directly responds to citizens' concerns and can take into consideration their perspectives and expertise. By identifying citizens as scientists, not solely participants, they are empowered to actively contribute to knowledge creation and promotion. Through the process and results local networks can be strengthened and valuable relationship created, which will have long-term benefits for the community.

==Transformative potential==

Local people understand their local environment and can access it better than most people. Citizen scientists become stewards of their local environments as they gather robust data that generates environmental insights and informs future policy. <ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref>

Citizen science can complement and augment standard scientific approaches, for example by collecting data on a different scale or in places that are not normally accessible for scientists. Citizens hold different knowledge, eg about crucial local context, and the history and impact of environmental issues. Working with citizens opens up new perspectives that can lead to breakthrough insights and solutions. <ref>https://earthwatch.org.uk/our-science/citizen-science</ref>

Data collected by volunteers has contributed to vital scientific discovery in the fields of ecology, medicine, physics, meteorology and various environmental science disciplines. Harnessing the power of citizen science gives scientists the opportunity to gather more data than they ever could alone, gain a greater understanding of how we're impacting our planet.<ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref>

==Illustration==

'''D-Noses''' <ref>https://dnoses.eu/</ref>, distributed network for odour sensing empowerment and sustainability, Empowers citizens with Responsible Research and Innovation, citizen science and co-creation tools to design odour pollution control measures at local, national and global levels with CSOs, NGOs, local public authorities, odour emitting industries and academia. They are piloting 10 European and non European studies and will create DIY guidelines. The project is funded by Horizon 2020.

'''Monocle'''<ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref> partners are developing low-cost optical sensors, methods and technologies to support water quality monitoring by regional and national agencies. In addition to their own research programme they are exploring the role local communities and volunteers (led by MONOCLE partner Earthwatch Europe) can play in collecting essential environmental data to complement existing monitoring networks, evaluate the performance of in-situ sensors, and the role citizens can play in the maintenance and deployment of sensors. Funded by Horizon 2020.

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Citizen science

2020-04-01T10:16:15Z

Anna Bruen: /* Illustration */

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection]. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.<ref>http://lab.cccb.org/en/citizen-science-for-social-change/</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Citizen science increases participation in the scientific process, knowledge creation and dissemination. Citizen science addresses two central elements of the social good model—environmental justice and inclusion with particular attention to diversity in age, gender, race/ethnicity, and social class in addressing environmental injustice that is more prevalent in underrepresented communities. <ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1049731519890404</ref> Depending on the exact methodology, citizen science can include voices and people who would not be heard using other methodologies. Furthermore, it can bring the results directly to the community impacted and implicated in the research, shortening the timeline between problem identification, solution finding, and interventions. This has implications for environmental and social justice, and the relationship between the two, within cities.

==Narrative of change==

Citizen science is research inspired by a desire for change. It expands the scientific model of the 20th century that relegated science to academics and their institutions. The process directly responds to citizens' concerns and can take into consideration their perspectives and expertise. By identifying citizens as scientists, not solely participants, they are empowered to actively contribute to knowledge creation and promotion. Through the process and results local networks can be strengthened and valuable relationship created, which will have long-term benefits for the community.

==Transformative potential==

==Illustration==

'''D-Noses''' <ref>https://dnoses.eu/</ref>, distributed network for odour sensing empowerment and sustainability, Empowers citizens with Responsible Research and Innovation, citizen science and co-creation tools to design odour pollution control measures at local, national and global levels with CSOs, NGOs, local public authorities, odour emitting industries and academia. They are piloting 10 European and non European studies and will create DIY guidelines. The project is funded by Horizon 2020.

'''Monocle'''<ref>https://monocle-h2020.eu/Citizen_science</ref> partners are developing low-cost optical sensors, methods and technologies to support water quality monitoring by regional and national agencies. In addition to their own research programme they are exploring the role local communities and volunteers (led by MONOCLE partner Earthwatch Europe) can play in collecting essential environmental data to complement existing monitoring networks, evaluate the performance of in-situ sensors, and the role citizens can play in the maintenance and deployment of sensors. Funded by Horizon 2020.

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Citizen science

2020-04-01T09:55:10Z

Anna Bruen: /* Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice */

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection]. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.<ref>http://lab.cccb.org/en/citizen-science-for-social-change/</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Citizen science increases participation in the scientific process, knowledge creation and dissemination. Citizen science addresses two central elements of the social good model—environmental justice and inclusion with particular attention to diversity in age, gender, race/ethnicity, and social class in addressing environmental injustice that is more prevalent in underrepresented communities. <ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1049731519890404</ref> Depending on the exact methodology, citizen science can include voices and people who would not be heard using other methodologies. Furthermore, it can bring the results directly to the community impacted and implicated in the research, shortening the timeline between problem identification, solution finding, and interventions. This has implications for environmental and social justice, and the relationship between the two, within cities.

==Narrative of change==

Citizen science is research inspired by a desire for change. It expands the scientific model of the 20th century that relegated science to academics and their institutions. The process directly responds to citizens' concerns and can take into consideration their perspectives and expertise. By identifying citizens as scientists, not solely participants, they are empowered to actively contribute to knowledge creation and promotion. Through the process and results local networks can be strengthened and valuable relationship created, which will have long-term benefits for the community.

==Transformative potential==

==Illustration==

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Citizen science

2020-04-01T09:34:04Z

Anna Bruen: added reference

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection]. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.<ref>http://lab.cccb.org/en/citizen-science-for-social-change/</ref>

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

==Narrative of change==

Citizen science is research inspired by a desire for change. It expands the scientific model of the 20th century that relegated science to academics and their institutions. The process directly responds to citizens' concerns and can take into consideration their perspectives and expertise. By identifying citizens as scientists, not solely participants, they are empowered to actively contribute to knowledge creation and promotion. Through the process and results local networks can be strengthened and valuable relationship created, which will have long-term benefits for the community.

==Transformative potential==

==Illustration==

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Citizen science

2020-04-01T09:03:48Z

Anna Bruen: /* Narrative of change */

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection]. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

==Narrative of change==

Citizen science is research inspired by a desire for change. It expands the scientific model of the 20th century that relegated science to academics and their institutions. The process directly responds to citizens' concerns and can take into consideration their perspectives and expertise. By identifying citizens as scientists, not solely participants, they are empowered to actively contribute to knowledge creation and promotion. Through the process and results local networks can be strengthened and valuable relationship created, which will have long-term benefits for the community.

==Transformative potential==

==Illustration==

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Citizen science

2020-04-01T08:53:59Z

Anna Bruen: /* General introduction to approach */ added internal link to data collection page

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection]. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

==Narrative of change==

==Transformative potential==

==Illustration==

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Citizen science

2020-04-01T08:46:38Z

Anna Bruen: /* General introduction to approach */

[https://www.citizenscience.org/ Citizen science] is the involvement of the public in scientific research – whether community-driven research or global investigations.<ref>https://www.citizenscience.org/</ref>

''Everyone is cordially invited to contribute to this wiki page by writing their perspectives and examples about the given topic. This page is a part of [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page UrbanA wiki] which is an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database and knowledge source for city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. Check out the [https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/index.php?title=Urban_Arena_Wiki:User_guide User guide] to find out more about how to contribute, including links to tips on formatting and editing wiki pages.''

==General introduction to approach==

Citizen science is research conducted entirely or in part by members of the general public, usually on a volunteer basis. It is related to "participatory science" and "public participation in scientific research." Citizen scientists, amateur scientists, collect and analyse data. Sometimes they collaborate with academic or professional scientists and sometimes they act alone.

Citizen scientists help expand the range and opportunities for data collection and provide community members with more direct access to information. The process helps foster relationships between professional researchers and the general public, inspires curiosity and greater understanding of science, and can make research projects more relevant and applicable to daily life.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

==Narrative of change==

==Transformative potential==

==Illustration==

== Suggested reading==

==References==

[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Participatory pollination]]
[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
[[Category: Democratic innovation through recognition]]
[[Category: Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]
[[Category: Regeneration of disused urban land]]
[[Category: Community gardens and food]]

Beyond GDP indicators

2020-03-31T10:44:48Z

Anna Bruen:

Beyond GDP indicators refers to alternative economic indicators that do not place economic growth as the most important variable in assessing a country's progress. Beyond GDP indicators are inclusive of other aspects of development, such as, environmental and social.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Human Development Index] launched in 1990 was a first big milestone in broadening the measurement of societal progress by including a social dimension to the economic one. Aligned with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as citizens’ concerns and with the latest technological and political evolutions, new frameworks and indicators propose more comprehensive ways in which to think, assess and monitor progress. Several projects within the EU have helped evolve the “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_measures_of_economic_progress#Beyond_GDP Beyond GDP]” debate through various approaches which aim to address the pressing need of bridging the indicator gap, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Investors and business organizations are starting to pay more attention to sustainability and to use environmental, social and governance indicators in addition to purely economic ones. This trend is reflected in the increasing adoption of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility] departments and of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Reporting_Initiative Global Report Initiative] in big companies.

“Beyond GDP” approaches should be of particular interest to policymakers, statistical offices and planning agencies, as well as academia, and other assessment/monitoring stakeholders. However, designing indicator sets can be done by any agent of society, not just large companies and established institutions. Other agents bring their own knowledge of local challenges and priorities.

New evaluation frameworks and indicators have been generated to better assess, benchmark and monitor societal progress, within a broad definition of sustainability. For example, the monetisation of natural capital and ecosystem services operationalises the environmental dimension feeding into the economics and capitalist logic to transform it from within ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS]). Most approaches go beyond the pure economic rationale, and assign weights to the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainability in various ways. Some of the new alternative frameworks ([https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL], [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe]) prioritise the social dimension, while others clearly underline the environmental one ([https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM]). Locally co-created frameworks and indicators are of particular interest ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue])for their educational and community-building aspects carried throughout the design process.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
The [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL] project proposes - at the EU-level - shifting the primary focus onto other indicators than GDP. After brokering knowledge between policy-makers, statistical offices and planning agencies, this “priorities/needs assessment” has led to '''a joint action plan for the implementation of new indicators''', providing new insights into the barriers and drivers of their use.

[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe] have developed and intensively disseminated a '''“Wellbeing in a sustainable environment”''' benchmark system that balances out three dimensions: increasing incomes; social inclusiveness, gender equality and equitable distribution; and environmental sustainability. They have also made sectoral policy recommendations to support a people-centered growth path by changing the consumption structure towards less material and energy-intensive products (specifying the institutional changes needed at all policy levels).

Also including citizen wellbeing and social justice, but focusing on the less represented indicators of biodiversity, green growth and resource efficiency, [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM] proposes an '''integrated framework''' for sustainable prosperity to complement mainstream economic benchmarks, and explores the potential value of alternative composite indicators.

While keeping the economic dimension as the centre, the [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS] project gives the keys to '''operationalisation of natural capital (e.g. air, water, biodiversity) and ecosystem services''' (e.g. climate regulation, waste decomposition, pollination of crops, and other vital or wellbeing services to human societies). This innovative approach is based on the idea that giving nature a monetary value can help manage it more sustainably. Although, commodification of nature could have implications for justice, as the monetisation of environmental benefits challenges their status as public goods. Furthermore, the logic can lead to serious social implications if applied to human capital. There is no ethical way to calculate human capital value/loss. Indeed, giving greater economical value to a human being than another (based on its level of education, age, gender, state of health, or whatever other criteria) is politically very dangerous.

The [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue] project proposes '''a co-creative design of ethical/values-based indicators''' by using a combination of indicators based on perceptions and observable outputs. The dynamic ‘inside-out’ process of designing indicators is framed within clearly defined contexts of collective action. Multiple sets of values-based indicators can be created depending on what should be measured either within specific educational initiatives, projects or programmes (micro-level) or across a whole organisation or institution (meso-level).

All of these six approaches have a good level of maturity and transferability, some being more adequate for implementation within certain scale, which is a positive sign of complementarity between national and local levels. Nevertheless, the implementation of some approaches would probably require more ressources than others. For instance the WeValue values-based indicators is a participatory and educational process, where indicators definition process is as important as - to not say more than - the use of indicators.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
'''Urban''': These approaches are not necessarily urban per se, but are highly relevant and applicable in urban / peri-urban ecosystems and functional domains.

'''Sustainability''': This topic strongly links together the three dimensions of sustainability. All approaches explicitly embrace the sustainability debate trying to combine the growing environmental concerns with socio-economic issues, while weighing the economic, social and environmental priorities differently.

'''Justice''': Three types of justice (distributional, interactional, and procedural). It raises big questions - for example of equitable distribution of material resources and services, especially when “nature” is considered a stakeholder itself. Spatial justice and interactional equity are tackled as well to some extent, although not explicitly. As most of the approaches are of interest to technical agents primarily, only the WeValue project answers to procedural justice, including potentially multiple layers of society in the design of indicator sets.

==Narrative of change & Transformative Potential==
Skepticism towards the economy-centered capitalist model is on the rise. GDP, the single dominant metric for the three past generations, has set '''growth''' as the indicator to prosperity and wellbeing of a society, and shaped the management of our economy without taking into consideration resources limitations or assessing the level of fairness of its society. Indeed the limitations of GDP as an indicator are that it measures economic flows only and is unable to differentiate between transactions which are sustainable and beneficial from those which are not. Complementary and especially alternative frameworks and indicators bring ethics, well-being, social and environmental questions to the fore.

Alternative (and complementary) approaches and indicators to GDP carry ground-breaking transformative potential as it challenges the established belief that GDP growth is the n°1 indicator of a healthy economy and society. By providing more inclusive knowledge of sustainability and mainstreaming alternative indicators, these approaches can inform and transform the management of the socio-eco-environmental system we live in and depend on. Also, the process of defining the indicators can be as transformative as the indicators themselves. While the operationalisation of natural capital and ecosystem services and the co-design of values-based indicators are innovative, the other approaches are not. Nevertheless, they all explicitly seek to overcome the current unsustainable and unfair patterns, by altering the societal progress narrative, its definition and its GDP-centered measurement framework, and by broadening the stakeholder groups for the benefit of the common good, and with that for the sake of environmental sustainability.

==Additional reading==
'''EU Projects:'''

[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM]
[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL] [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe][https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS]
[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue]
[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en ESDINDS]

'''Wikipedia Pages:'''

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_measures_of_economic_progress#Beyond_GDP Beyond GDP]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Human Development Index]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Reporting_Initiative Global Report Initiative][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility]

'''Other Websites:'''

[https://www.beyondgdpindicators.com/ Beyond GDP Website]
[https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx Global Reporting Initiative]
[http://www.happycity.org.uk/happiness-pulse/ Happiness Pulse Index]

'''Articles:'''

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/659640?seq=1 Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: economic valuation and the nature of “nature”. American journal of sociology, 116(6), 1721-77]

<references />
[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Beyond GDP]]
[[Category: (Impact) Evaluation and Assessment Framework]]

Beyond GDP indicators

2020-03-31T10:37:50Z

Anna Bruen:

Beyond GDP indicators refers to alternative economic indicators that do not place economic growth as the most important variable in assessing a country's progress. Beyond GDP indicators are inclusive of other aspects of development, such as, environmental and social.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Human Development Index] launched in 1990 was a first big milestone in broadening the measurement of societal progress by including a social dimension to the economic one. Aligned with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as citizens’ concerns and with the latest technological and political evolutions, new frameworks and indicators propose more comprehensive ways in which to think, assess and monitor progress. Several projects within the EU have helped evolve the “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_measures_of_economic_progress#Beyond_GDP Beyond GDP]” debate through various approaches which aim to address the pressing need of bridging the indicator gap, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Investors and business organizations are starting to pay more attention to sustainability and to use environmental, social and governance indicators in addition to purely economic ones. This trend is reflected in the increasing adoption of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility] departments and of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Reporting_Initiative Global Report Initiative] in big companies. “Beyond GDP” approaches should be of particular interest to policymakers, statistical offices and planning agencies, as well as academia, and other assessment/monitoring stakeholders. However, designing indicator sets can be done by any agents of society, not just large companies. Other agents bring their own knowledge of local challenges and priorities.

In the context, new evaluation frameworks and indicators have been generated to better assess, benchmark and monitor societal progress, within a broader definition of sustainability too. For example, the monetisation of natural capital and ecosystem services operationalises the environmental dimension feeding into the economics and capitalist logic to transform it from within ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS]). Most approaches go beyond the pure economic rationale, and assign weights to the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainability in various ways. Some of the new alternative frameworks ([https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL], [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe]) prioritise the social dimension, while others clearly underline the environmental one ([https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM]). Locally co-created frameworks and indicators are of particular interest ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue])for their educational and community-building aspects carried throughout the design process.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
The [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL] project proposes - at the EU-level - shifting the primary focus onto other indicators than GDP. After brokering knowledge between policy-makers, statistical offices and planning agencies, this “priorities/needs assessment” has led to '''a joint action plan for the implementation of new indicators''', providing new insights into the barriers and drivers of their use.

[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe] have developed and intensively disseminated a '''“Wellbeing in a sustainable environment”''' benchmark system that balances out three dimensions: increasing incomes; social inclusiveness, gender equality and equitable distribution; and environmental sustainability. They have also made sectoral policy recommendations to support a people-centered growth path by changing the consumption structure towards less material and energy-intensive products (specifying the institutional changes needed at all policy levels).

Also including citizen wellbeing and social justice, but focusing on the less represented indicators of biodiversity, green growth and resource efficiency, [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM] proposes an '''integrated framework''' for sustainable prosperity to complement mainstream economic benchmarks, and explores the potential value of alternative composite indicators.

While keeping the economic dimension as the centre, the [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS] project gives the keys to '''operationalisation of natural capital (e.g. air, water, biodiversity) and ecosystem services''' (e.g. climate regulation, waste decomposition, pollination of crops, and other vital or wellbeing services to human societies). This innovative approach is based on the idea that giving nature a monetary value can help manage it more sustainably. Although, commodification of nature could have implications for justice, as the monetisation of environmental benefits challenges their status as public goods. Furthermore, the logic can lead to serious social implications if applied to human capital. There is no ethical way to calculate human capital value/loss. Indeed, giving greater economical value to a human being than another (based on its level of education, age, gender, state of health, or whatever other criteria) is politically very dangerous.

The [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue] project proposes '''a co-creative design of ethical/values-based indicators''' by using a combination of indicators based on perceptions and observable outputs. The dynamic ‘inside-out’ process of designing indicators is framed within clearly defined contexts of collective action. Multiple sets of values-based indicators can be created depending on what should be measured either within specific educational initiatives, projects or programmes (micro-level) or across a whole organisation or institution (meso-level).

All of these six approaches have a good level of maturity and transferability, some being more adequate for implementation within certain scale, which is a positive sign of complementarity between national and local levels. Nevertheless, the implementation of some approaches would probably require more ressources than others. For instance the WeValue values-based indicators is a participatory and educational process, where indicators definition process is as important as - to not say more than - the use of indicators.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
'''Urban''': These approaches are not necessarily urban per se, but are highly relevant and applicable in urban / peri-urban ecosystems and functional domains.

'''Sustainability''': This topic strongly links together the three dimensions of sustainability. All approaches explicitly embrace the sustainability debate trying to combine the growing environmental concerns with socio-economic issues, while weighing the economic, social and environmental priorities differently.

'''Justice''': Three types of justice (distributional, interactional, and procedural). It raises big questions - for example of equitable distribution of material resources and services, especially when “nature” is considered a stakeholder itself. Spatial justice and interactional equity are tackled as well to some extent, although not explicitly. As most of the approaches are of interest to technical agents primarily, only the WeValue project answers to procedural justice, including potentially multiple layers of society in the design of indicator sets.

==Narrative of change & Transformative Potential==
Skepticism towards the economy-centered capitalist model is on the rise. GDP, the single dominant metric for the three past generations, has set '''growth''' as the indicator to prosperity and wellbeing of a society, and shaped the management of our economy without taking into consideration resources limitations or assessing the level of fairness of its society. Indeed the limitations of GDP as an indicator are that it measures economic flows only and is unable to differentiate between transactions which are sustainable and beneficial from those which are not. Complementary and especially alternative frameworks and indicators bring ethics, well-being, social and environmental questions to the fore.

Alternative (and complementary) approaches and indicators to GDP carry ground-breaking transformative potential as it challenges the established belief that GDP growth is the n°1 indicator of a healthy economy and society. By providing more inclusive knowledge of sustainability and mainstreaming alternative indicators, these approaches can inform and transform the management of the socio-eco-environmental system we live in and depend on. Also, the process of defining the indicators can be as transformative as the indicators themselves. While the operationalisation of natural capital and ecosystem services and the co-design of values-based indicators are innovative, the other approaches are not. Nevertheless, they all explicitly seek to overcome the current unsustainable and unfair patterns, by altering the societal progress narrative, its definition and its GDP-centered measurement framework, and by broadening the stakeholder groups for the benefit of the common good, and with that for the sake of environmental sustainability.

==Additional reading==
'''EU Projects:'''

[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM]
[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL] [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe][https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS]
[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue]
[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en ESDINDS]

'''Wikipedia Pages:'''

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_measures_of_economic_progress#Beyond_GDP Beyond GDP]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Human Development Index]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Reporting_Initiative Global Report Initiative][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility]

'''Other Websites:'''

[https://www.beyondgdpindicators.com/ Beyond GDP Website]
[https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx Global Reporting Initiative]
[http://www.happycity.org.uk/happiness-pulse/ Happiness Pulse Index]

'''Articles:'''

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/659640?seq=1 Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: economic valuation and the nature of “nature”. American journal of sociology, 116(6), 1721-77]

<references />
[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Beyond GDP]]
[[Category: (Impact) Evaluation and Assessment Framework]]

Beyond GDP indicators

2020-03-31T10:26:56Z

Anna Bruen:

Beyond GDP indicators refers to alternative economic indicators that do not place economic growth as the most important variable in assessing a country's progress. Beyond GDP indicators are inclusive of other aspects of development, such as, environmental and social.

This page is part of an ongoing, open-ended online collaborative database, which collects relevant approaches that can be used by city-makers to tackle unsustainability and injustice in cities. It is based mainly on knowledge generated in EU-funded projects and touches on fast changing fields. As such, this page makes no claims of authoritative completeness and welcomes your suggestions.

==General introduction to approach==
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Human Development Index] launched in 1990 was a first big milestone in broadening the measurement of societal progress by including a social dimension to the economic one. Aligned with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as citizens’ concerns and with the latest technological and political evolutions, new frameworks and indicators propose more comprehensive ways in which to think, assess and monitor progress. Several projects within the EU have helped evolve the “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_measures_of_economic_progress#Beyond_GDP Beyond GDP]” debate through various approaches which aim to address the pressing need of bridging the indicator gap, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Investors and business organizations are starting to pay more attention to sustainability and to use environmental, social and governance indicators in addition to purely economic ones. This trend is reflected in the increasing adoption of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility] departments and of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Reporting_Initiative Global Report Initiative] in big companies. “Beyond GDP” approaches should be of particular interest to policymakers, statistical offices and planning agencies, as well as academia, and other assessment/monitoring stakeholders. Nevertheless, designing indicators sets can be done also by any agents of society as they bring their own knowledge of the local challenges and priorities.

In this context, new evaluation frameworks and indicators have been generated to better assess, benchmark and monitor societal progress, within a broader definition of sustainability too. For example, the monetisation of natural capital and ecosystem services operationalises the environmental dimension feeding into the economics and capitalist logic to transform it from within ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS]). Most approaches go beyond the pure economic rationale, and assign weights to the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainability in various ways. Some of the new alternative frameworks ([https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL], [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe]) prioritise the social dimension, while others clearly underline the environmental one ([https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM]). Locally co-created frameworks and indicators are of particular interest ([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue])for their educational and community-building aspects carried throughout the design process.

==Shapes, sizes and applications==
The [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL] project proposes - at the EU-level - shifting the primary focus onto other indicators than GDP. After brokering knowledge between policy-makers, statistical offices and planning agencies, this “priorities/needs assessment” has led to '''a joint action plan for the implementation of new indicators''', providing new insights into the barriers and drivers of their use.

[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe] have developed and intensively disseminated a '''“Wellbeing in a sustainable environment”''' benchmark system that balances out three dimensions: increasing incomes; social inclusiveness, gender equality and equitable distribution; and environmental sustainability. They have also made sectoral policy recommendations to support a people-centered growth path by changing the consumption structure towards less material and energy-intensive products (specifying the institutional changes needed at all policy levels).

Also including citizen wellbeing and social justice, but focusing on the less represented indicators of biodiversity, green growth and resource efficiency, [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM] proposes an '''integrated framework''' for sustainable prosperity to complement mainstream economic benchmarks, and explores the potential value of alternative composite indicators.

While keeping the economic dimension as the centre, the [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS] project gives the keys to '''operationalisation of natural capital (e.g. air, water, biodiversity) and ecosystem services''' (e.g. climate regulation, waste decomposition, pollination of crops, and other vital or wellbeing services to human societies). This innovative approach is based on the idea that giving nature a monetary value can help manage it more sustainably. Although, commodification of nature could have implications for justice, as the monetisation of environmental benefits challenges their status as public goods. Furthermore, the logic can lead to serious social implications if applied to human capital. There is no ethical way to calculate human capital value/loss. Indeed, giving greater economical value to a human being than another (based on its level of education, age, gender, state of health, or whatever other criteria) is politically very dangerous.

The [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue] project proposes '''a co-creative design of ethical/values-based indicators''' by using a combination of indicators based on perceptions and observable outputs. The dynamic ‘inside-out’ process of designing indicators is framed within clearly defined contexts of collective action. Multiple sets of values-based indicators can be created depending on what should be measured either within specific educational initiatives, projects or programmes (micro-level) or across a whole organisation or institution (meso-level).

All of these six approaches have a good level of maturity and transferability, some being more adequate for implementation within certain scale, which is a positive sign of complementarity between national and local levels. Nevertheless, the implementation of some approaches would probably require more ressources than others. For instance the WeValue values-based indicators is a participatory and educational process, where indicators definition process is as important as - to not say more than - the use of indicators.

==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==
'''Urban''': These approaches are not necessarily urban per se, but are highly relevant and applicable in urban / peri-urban ecosystems and functional domains.

'''Sustainability''': This topic strongly links together the three dimensions of sustainability. All approaches explicitly embrace the sustainability debate trying to combine the growing environmental concerns with socio-economic issues, while weighing the economic, social and environmental priorities differently.

'''Justice''': Three types of justice (distributional, interactional, and procedural). It raises big questions - for example of equitable distribution of material resources and services, especially when “nature” is considered a stakeholder itself. Spatial justice and interactional equity are tackled as well to some extent, although not explicitly. As most of the approaches are of interest to technical agents primarily, only the WeValue project answers to procedural justice, including potentially multiple layers of society in the design of indicator sets.

==Narrative of change & Transformative Potential==
Skepticism towards the economy-centered capitalist model is on the rise. GDP, the single dominant metric for the three past generations, has set '''growth''' as the indicator to prosperity and wellbeing of a society, and shaped the management of our economy without taking into consideration resources limitations or assessing the level of fairness of its society. Indeed the limitations of GDP as an indicator are that it measures economic flows only and is unable to differentiate between transactions which are sustainable and beneficial from those which are not. Complementary and especially alternative frameworks and indicators bring ethics, well-being, social and environmental questions to the fore.

Alternative (and complementary) approaches and indicators to GDP carry ground-breaking transformative potential as it challenges the established belief that GDP growth is the n°1 indicator of a healthy economy and society. By providing more inclusive knowledge of sustainability and mainstreaming alternative indicators, these approaches can inform and transform the management of the socio-eco-environmental system we live in and depend on. Also, the process of defining the indicators can be as transformative as the indicators themselves. While the operationalisation of natural capital and ecosystem services and the co-design of values-based indicators are innovative, the other approaches are not. Nevertheless, they all explicitly seek to overcome the current unsustainable and unfair patterns, by altering the societal progress narrative, its definition and its GDP-centered measurement framework, and by broadening the stakeholder groups for the benefit of the common good, and with that for the sake of environmental sustainability.

==Additional reading==
'''EU Projects:'''

[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/stream_en IN-STREAM]
[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/brainpool_en BRAINPOoL] [https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102396/factsheet/en Welfare, Wealth & Work for Europe][https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105523/reporting/en OpenNESS]
[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en WeValue]
[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89639/reporting/en ESDINDS]

'''Wikipedia Pages:'''

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_measures_of_economic_progress#Beyond_GDP Beyond GDP]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Human Development Index]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Reporting_Initiative Global Report Initiative][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility]

'''Other Websites:'''

[https://www.beyondgdpindicators.com/ Beyond GDP Website]
[https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx Global Reporting Initiative]
[http://www.happycity.org.uk/happiness-pulse/ Happiness Pulse Index]

'''Articles:'''

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/659640?seq=1 Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: economic valuation and the nature of “nature”. American journal of sociology, 116(6), 1721-77]

<references />
[[Category: Approaches]]
[[Category: Beyond GDP]]
[[Category: (Impact) Evaluation and Assessment Framework]]

User:Anna Bruen

2020-03-31T09:57:11Z

Anna Bruen:

I am a visiting fellow at ICLEI on the Governance and Social Innovation team. I am a 2019-2020 fellow at the Robert Bosch Foundation focusing on sustainable community development, food systems, and urban/rural relationships.

==More about me==

''Websites and Social Media''

*https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-b-35897715/
*https://twitter.com/abruen

User:Anna Bruen

2020-03-31T09:56:16Z

Anna Bruen: Created page with "I am a visiting fellow at ICLEI on the Governance and Social Innovation team. I am a 2019-2020 fellow at the Robert Bosch Foundation focusing on sustainable community developm..."

I am a visiting fellow at ICLEI on the Governance and Social Innovation team. I am a 2019-2020 fellow at the Robert Bosch Foundation focusing on sustainable community development, food systems, and urban/rural relationships.

==More about me==

"Websites and Social Media"

*https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-b-35897715/
*https://twitter.com/abruen