https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Ian+Cook 2026-06-13T13:15:14Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.37.2 https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=1499 2019-12-12T09:13:03Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Transformative potential */</p> <hr /> <div>Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a certain product.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive or joining &lt;ref&gt;https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing&lt;/ref&gt; - or sometimes by the different materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations. It is rooted in open design, and allows for adaptability to local desires and needs. Furthermore, FabLabs can help link together local communities and neighbours, enabling co-creation, the opening up of tech (beyond circles of 'geeks').<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The transformational potential for FabLabs include:<br /> <br /> * the potential connection to other activities - vegetable gardens, coops<br /> * the allowing for experiments<br /> * the learning of new skills and tools<br /> * a scaling out rather than a scaling up<br /> * micro-production<br /> * being the basis for a citizen-led model such as a Fab City<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> However for such transformation to be realised, we must be aware of challenges including:<br /> <br /> * the need to document everything <br /> * need to share innovation<br /> * That the prevalent current knowledge system is often closed and propriety (thus digital fabrication's openness might get subsumed)<br /> * school systems don’t encourage peer learning<br /> * Funding <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> As such we must be aware of very real concerns including:<br /> <br /> * that DIY culture can be individual and consumerist at times<br /> * Digital fabrication innovations could be captured by venture capitalists<br /> * That the tech is dtill expensive to set up and so tied/chained to contributors<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, assessing the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, FabLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Digital fabrication]]<br /> [[Category: Experimentation labs]]<br /> [[Category: FabLab Amersfoort]]<br /> [[Category: FabLab Argentina]]<br /> [[Category: TRANSIT]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=1498 2019-12-12T09:12:17Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Narrative of change */</p> <hr /> <div>Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a certain product.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive or joining &lt;ref&gt;https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing&lt;/ref&gt; - or sometimes by the different materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations. It is rooted in open design, and allows for adaptability to local desires and needs. Furthermore, FabLabs can help link together local communities and neighbours, enabling co-creation, the opening up of tech (beyond circles of 'geeks').<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> <br /> The transformational potential for FabLabs include:<br /> <br /> * the potential connection to other activities - vegetable gardens, coops<br /> * the allowing for experiments<br /> * the learning of new skills and tools<br /> * a scaling out rather than a scaling up<br /> * micro-production<br /> * being the basis for a citizen-led model such as a Fab City<br /> <br /> However for such transformation to be realised, we must be aware of challenges including:<br /> <br /> * the need to document everything <br /> * need to share innovation<br /> * That the prevalent current knowledge system is often closed and propriety (thus digital fabrication's openness might get subsumed)<br /> * school systems don’t encourage peer learning<br /> * Funding <br /> <br /> <br /> As such we must be aware of very real concerns including:<br /> <br /> * that DIY culture can be individual and consumerist at times<br /> * Digital fabrication innovations could be captured by venture capitalists<br /> * That the tech is dtill expensive to set up and so tied/chained to contributors<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, assessing the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, FabLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Digital fabrication]]<br /> [[Category: Experimentation labs]]<br /> [[Category: FabLab Amersfoort]]<br /> [[Category: FabLab Argentina]]<br /> [[Category: TRANSIT]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=1497 2019-12-12T09:10:14Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Transformative potential */</p> <hr /> <div>Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a certain product.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive or joining &lt;ref&gt;https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing&lt;/ref&gt; - or sometimes by the different materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> <br /> The transformational potential for FabLabs include:<br /> <br /> * the potential connection to other activities - vegetable gardens, coops<br /> * the allowing for experiments<br /> * the learning of new skills and tools<br /> * a scaling out rather than a scaling up<br /> * micro-production<br /> * being the basis for a citizen-led model such as a Fab City<br /> <br /> However for such transformation to be realised, we must be aware of challenges including:<br /> <br /> * the need to document everything <br /> * need to share innovation<br /> * That the prevalent current knowledge system is often closed and propriety (thus digital fabrication's openness might get subsumed)<br /> * school systems don’t encourage peer learning<br /> * Funding <br /> <br /> <br /> As such we must be aware of very real concerns including:<br /> <br /> * that DIY culture can be individual and consumerist at times<br /> * Digital fabrication innovations could be captured by venture capitalists<br /> * That the tech is dtill expensive to set up and so tied/chained to contributors<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, assessing the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, FabLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Digital fabrication]]<br /> [[Category: Experimentation labs]]<br /> [[Category: FabLab Amersfoort]]<br /> [[Category: FabLab Argentina]]<br /> [[Category: TRANSIT]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=User:Ian_Cook&diff=1283 2019-11-13T12:45:39Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>I am a Research Fellow at the Central European University (Budapest). An anthropologist with a regional focus on south India, I work primarily on cities, new media and doing academia differently.<br /> <br /> I have published work on topics including small cities, housing, vigilantism and land. I am keen to open up universities, which I do (hopefully) by both making academic podcasts and teaching others how to make them, and as part of an access programme for refugees and asylum seekers. I like to work with sounds, images and texts.<br /> <br /> My current research projects include – urban change in Mangaluru (India), academic podcasting, corruption and environmental damage in Hungary, digital media, and urban justice in Europe.<br /> <br /> Within UrbanA I work on different aspects of the project including co-producing the UrbanA podcast.<br /> <br /> <br /> Personal website: The City as a River[http://thecityasariver.net/]<br /> <br /> Podcast (co)host @ Online Gods[http://www.fordigitaldignity.com/onlinegods/] &amp; New Books Network[http://newbooksnetwork.com/?s=Ian+Cook]<br /> <br /> Co-founder @ CEU Podcast Library[https://podcasts.ceu.edu/]<br /> <br /> Editor @ Allegra[http://allegralaboratory.net/author/iancook/]<br /> <br /> Social: LinkedIn[https://hu.linkedin.com/in/ianmickcook] // Twitter[https://twitter.com/ianmickcook]<br /> <br /> Research: Academia.edu[https://ceu.academia.edu/IanCook] // Google Scholar[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7Fn0MlgAAAAJ&amp;hl=en] // Research Gate[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_Cook15]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=User:Ian_Cook&diff=1282 2019-11-13T12:45:21Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>I am a Research Fellow at the Central European University (Budapest). An anthropologist with a regional focus on south India, I work primarily on cities, new media and doing academia differently.<br /> <br /> I have published work on topics including small cities, housing, vigilantism and land. I am keen to open up universities, which I do (hopefully) by both making academic podcasts and teaching others how to make them, and as part of an access programme for refugees and asylum seekers. I like to work with sounds, images and texts.<br /> <br /> My current research projects include – urban change in Mangaluru (India), academic podcasting, corruption and environmental damage in Hungary, digital media, and urban justice in Europe.<br /> <br /> Within UrbanA I work on different aspects of the project including co-producing the UrbanA podcast.<br /> <br /> <br /> Personal website: The City as a River[http://thecityasariver.net/]<br /> Podcast (co)host @ Online Gods[http://www.fordigitaldignity.com/onlinegods/] &amp; New Books Network[http://newbooksnetwork.com/?s=Ian+Cook]<br /> Co-founder @ CEU Podcast Library[https://podcasts.ceu.edu/]<br /> Editor @ Allegra[http://allegralaboratory.net/author/iancook/]<br /> Social: LinkedIn[https://hu.linkedin.com/in/ianmickcook] // Twitter[https://twitter.com/ianmickcook]<br /> Research: Academia.edu[https://ceu.academia.edu/IanCook] // Google Scholar[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7Fn0MlgAAAAJ&amp;hl=en] // Research Gate[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_Cook15]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=User:Ian_Cook&diff=1281 2019-11-13T12:44:44Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>I am a Research Fellow at the Central European University (Budapest). An anthropologist with a regional focus on south India, I work primarily on cities, new media and doing academia differently.<br /> <br /> I have published work on topics including small cities, housing, vigilantism and land. I am keen to open up universities, which I do (hopefully) by both making academic podcasts and teaching others how to make them, and as part of an access programme for refugees and asylum seekers. I like to work with sounds, images and texts.<br /> <br /> My current research projects include – urban change in Mangaluru (India), academic podcasting, corruption and environmental damage in Hungary, digital media, and urban justice in Europe.<br /> <br /> Within UrbanA I work on different aspects of the project including co-producing the UrbanA podcast.<br /> <br /> Personal website: The City as a River[http://thecityasariver.net/]<br /> <br /> Podcast (co)host @ Online Gods[http://www.fordigitaldignity.com/onlinegods/] &amp; New Books Network[http://newbooksnetwork.com/?s=Ian+Cook]<br /> <br /> Co-founder @ CEU Podcast Library[https://podcasts.ceu.edu/]<br /> <br /> Editor @ Allegra[http://allegralaboratory.net/author/iancook/]<br /> <br /> Social: LinkedIn[https://hu.linkedin.com/in/ianmickcook] // Twitter[https://twitter.com/ianmickcook]<br /> <br /> Research: Academia.edu[https://ceu.academia.edu/IanCook] // Google Scholar[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7Fn0MlgAAAAJ&amp;hl=en] // Research Gate[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_Cook15]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=User:Ian_Cook&diff=1280 2019-11-13T12:42:39Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>I am a Research Fellow at the Central European University (Budapest). An anthropologist with a regional focus on south India, I work primarily on cities, new media and doing academia differently.<br /> <br /> I have published work on topics including small cities, housing, vigilantism and land. I am keen to open up universities, which I do (hopefully) by both making academic podcasts and teaching others how to make them, and as part of an access programme for refugees and asylum seekers. I like to work with sounds, images and texts.<br /> <br /> My current research projects include – urban change in Mangaluru (India), academic podcasting, corruption and environmental damage in Hungary, digital media, and urban justice in Europe.<br /> <br /> Within UrbanA I work on different aspects of the project including co-producing the UrbanA podcast.<br /> <br /> Personal website: The City as a River[http://thecityasariver.net/]<br /> Podcast (co)host @ Online Gods &amp; New Books Network<br /> Co-founder @ CEU Podcast Library <br /> Editor @ Allegra<br /> Project sites: UrbanA &amp; Black Waters<br /> Social: LinkedIn // Twitter<br /> Research: Academia.edu // Google Scholar // Research Gate</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=User:Ian_Cook&diff=1279 2019-11-13T12:41:38Z

<p>Ian Cook: Created page with &quot;I am a Research Fellow at the Central European University (Budapest). An anthropologist with a regional focus on south India, I work primarily on cities, new media and doing a...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>I am a Research Fellow at the Central European University (Budapest). An anthropologist with a regional focus on south India, I work primarily on cities, new media and doing academia differently.<br /> <br /> I have published work on topics including small cities, housing, vigilantism and land. I am keen to open up universities, which I do (hopefully) by both making academic podcasts and teaching others how to make them, and as part of an access programme for refugees and asylum seekers. I like to work with sounds, images and texts.<br /> <br /> My current research projects include – urban change in Mangaluru (India), academic podcasting, corruption and environmental damage in Hungary, digital media, and urban justice in Europe.<br /> <br /> Within UrbanA I work on different aspects of the project including co-producing the UrbanA podcast.</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Talk:Crowdsourcing&diff=876 2019-10-25T12:42:10Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* How to address class bias in crowdsourcing? */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>== How to address class bias in crowdsourcing? ==<br /> <br /> I'm worried that often crowdsourcing is class blind and/or often draws in middle and upper middle classes. Does anyone know of any good examples/techniques to account for this? [[User:Ian Cook|Ian Cook]] ([[User talk:Ian Cook|talk]]) 12:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Talk:Data_collection&diff=875 2019-10-25T12:40:49Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>== Dystopias ==<br /> <br /> Can anyone think of a way to make sure data collection doesn't lead to robots controlled by billionaires taking over our cities and our lives? How can we make sure it doesn't happen? Are there any critical projects that use digital data in a way that still allows us to be free? [[User:Ian Cook|Ian Cook]] ([[User talk:Ian Cook|talk]]) 12:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_fabrication&diff=874 2019-10-25T12:40:36Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>== Digital Fabrication, Sustainability and Justice ==<br /> <br /> Does anyone know of any more great examples where digital fabrication is being used explicitly with sustainability and justice in mind? [[User:Ian Cook|Ian Cook]] ([[User talk:Ian Cook|talk]]) 12:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_fabrication&diff=873 2019-10-25T12:40:18Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Digital Fabrication, Sustainability and Justice */</p> <hr /> <div>== Digital Fabrication, Sustainability and Justice ==<br /> <br /> Does anyone know of any more great examples where digital fabrication is being used explicitly with sustainability and justice in mind? [[User:Ian Cook|Ian Cook]] ([[User talk:Ian Cook|talk]]) 12:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Ian Cook</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Talk:Data_collection&diff=872 2019-10-25T12:39:47Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>== Dystopias ==<br /> <br /> Can anyone think of a way to make sure data collection doesn't lead to robots controlled by billionaires taking over our cities and our lives? How can we make sure it doesn't happen? Are there any critical projects that use digital data in a way that still allows us to be free? [[User:Ian Cook|Ian Cook]] ([[User talk:Ian Cook|talk]]) 12:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Ian</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Talk:Data_collection&diff=871 2019-10-25T12:37:14Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Dystopias */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>== Dystopias ==<br /> <br /> Can anyone think of a way to make sure data collection doesn't lead to robots controlled by billionaires taking over our cities and our lives? How can we make sure it doesn't happen? Are there any critical projects that use digital data in a way that still allows us to be free?</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_fabrication&diff=870 2019-10-25T12:34:40Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Digital Fabrication, Sustainability and Justice */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>== Digital Fabrication, Sustainability and Justice ==<br /> <br /> Does anyone know of any more great examples where digital fabrication is being used explicitly with sustainability and justice in mind?</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=764 2019-10-18T12:42:25Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a certain product.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive or joining &lt;ref&gt;https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing&lt;/ref&gt; - or sometimes by the different materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, abLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Experimentation labs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=763 2019-10-18T12:42:14Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Data Collection]]<br /> <br /> [[Democratic innovation through recognition]]<br /> <br /> [[Experimentation labs]]<br /> <br /> [[Governance and participation processes]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=762 2019-10-18T12:41:37Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>Data is collected via electronic and digital technologies and then analysed either within a system or as part of a wider organisational structure.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data collection might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. Projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementation. <br /> <br /> Digital data collection as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. The OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data collection is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. <br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data collection and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data collection approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption &lt;ref&gt;Evans, James, Andrew Karvonen, Andres Luque-Ayala, Chris Martin, Kes McCormick, Rob Raven, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan. ‘Smart and Sustainable Cities? Pipedreams, Practicalities and Possibilities’. Local Environment 24, no. 7 (3 July 2019): 557–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1624701.&lt;/ref&gt;; whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. In such instances data collection not only fails to tackle unsustainable and unjust processes, but rather helps uphold them in the long term. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data collection rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data collection to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data collection will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> ICT platforms: ICT (internet communication technology) platforms can help with more efficient and easily analysable digital data exchange. For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in quasi real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and monitor how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to the above mentioned Andrea Cominola and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a relative difference in per-capita water consumption of between 5 and 20 percent for the SmartH2O users in Valencia (Spain). Castelletti says that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.”<br /> <br /> Smart cities: On a broader scale is the project Smart Impact&lt;ref&gt;https://smartimpact-project.eu/&lt;/ref&gt;. They aimed to create new ways of working so cities are more liveable and sustainable. It is a partnership of 10 cities, led by Manchester, and they share and work together. The project has 5 key components: data governance, organisational development, smart financing, regulations and incentives, and local innovation ecosystems. The cities all made action plans, strategies, data management plans, encouraged citizen involvement and helped start-ups. <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Crowdsourcing]]<br /> <br /> [[Energy and Mobility solutions]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=761 2019-10-18T12:41:05Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>Data is collected via electronic and digital technologies and then analysed either within a system or as part of a wider organisational structure. 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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data collection might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. Projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementation. <br /> <br /> Digital data collection as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. The OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data collection is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. <br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data collection and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data collection approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption &lt;ref&gt;Evans, James, Andrew Karvonen, Andres Luque-Ayala, Chris Martin, Kes McCormick, Rob Raven, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan. ‘Smart and Sustainable Cities? Pipedreams, Practicalities and Possibilities’. Local Environment 24, no. 7 (3 July 2019): 557–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1624701.&lt;/ref&gt;; whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. In such instances data collection not only fails to tackle unsustainable and unjust processes, but rather helps uphold them in the long term. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data collection rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data collection to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data collection will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> ICT platforms: ICT (internet communication technology) platforms can help with more efficient and easily analysable digital data exchange. For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in quasi real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and monitor how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to the above mentioned Andrea Cominola and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a relative difference in per-capita water consumption of between 5 and 20 percent for the SmartH2O users in Valencia (Spain). Castelletti says that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Smart cities: On a broader scale is the project Smart Impact&lt;ref&gt;https://smartimpact-project.eu/&lt;/ref&gt;. They aimed to create new ways of working so cities are more liveable and sustainable. It is a partnership of 10 cities, led by Manchester, and they share and work together. The project has 5 key components: data governance, organisational development, smart financing, regulations and incentives, and local innovation ecosystems. The cities all made action plans, strategies, data management plans, encouraged citizen involvement and helped start-ups. <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Crowdsourcing]]<br /> <br /> [[Energy and Mobility solutions]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=607 2019-10-10T15:05:07Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a certain product.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive or joining &lt;ref&gt;https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing&lt;/ref&gt; - or sometimes by the different materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, abLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Experimentation labs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=606 2019-10-10T14:59:09Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* General introduction to approach */</p> <hr /> <div>Data is collected via electronic and digital technologies and then analysed either within a system or as part of a wider organisational structure. <br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data collection might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. Projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementation. <br /> <br /> Digital data collection as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. The OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data collection is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. <br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data collection and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data collection approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption &lt;ref&gt;Evans, James, Andrew Karvonen, Andres Luque-Ayala, Chris Martin, Kes McCormick, Rob Raven, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan. ‘Smart and Sustainable Cities? Pipedreams, Practicalities and Possibilities’. Local Environment 24, no. 7 (3 July 2019): 557–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1624701.&lt;/ref&gt;; whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. In such instances data collection not only fails to tackle unsustainable and unjust processes, but rather helps uphold them in the long term. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data collection rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data collection to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data collection will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> ICT platforms: ICT (internet communication technology) platforms can help with more efficient and easily analysable digital data exchange. For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and thus predict how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to Andrea Cominola, and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a difference in consumption of between 5 and 20 percent. Castelletti argues that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.” <br /> <br /> <br /> Smart cities: On a broader scale is the project Smart Impact&lt;ref&gt;https://smartimpact-project.eu/&lt;/ref&gt;. They aimed to create new ways of working so cities are more liveable and sustainable. It is a partnership of 10 cities, led by Manchester, and they share and work together. The project has 5 key components: data governance, organisational development, smart financing, regulations and incentives, and local innovation ecosystems. The cities all made action plans, strategies, data management plans, encouraged citizen involvement and helped start-ups. <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Crowdsourcing]]<br /> <br /> [[Energy and Mobility solutions]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=605 2019-10-10T14:58:13Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>Data is collected via electronic and digital technologies and then analysed either within a system or as part of a wider organisational structure. <br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data collection might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. For example, projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementatioan. <br /> <br /> Digital data collection as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. The OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data collection is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. <br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data collection and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data collection approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption &lt;ref&gt;Evans, James, Andrew Karvonen, Andres Luque-Ayala, Chris Martin, Kes McCormick, Rob Raven, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan. ‘Smart and Sustainable Cities? Pipedreams, Practicalities and Possibilities’. Local Environment 24, no. 7 (3 July 2019): 557–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1624701.&lt;/ref&gt;; whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. In such instances data collection not only fails to tackle unsustainable and unjust processes, but rather helps uphold them in the long term. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data collection rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data collection to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data collection will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> ICT platforms: ICT (internet communication technology) platforms can help with more efficient and easily analysable digital data exchange. For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and thus predict how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to Andrea Cominola, and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a difference in consumption of between 5 and 20 percent. Castelletti argues that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.” <br /> <br /> <br /> Smart cities: On a broader scale is the project Smart Impact&lt;ref&gt;https://smartimpact-project.eu/&lt;/ref&gt;. They aimed to create new ways of working so cities are more liveable and sustainable. It is a partnership of 10 cities, led by Manchester, and they share and work together. The project has 5 key components: data governance, organisational development, smart financing, regulations and incentives, and local innovation ecosystems. The cities all made action plans, strategies, data management plans, encouraged citizen involvement and helped start-ups. <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Crowdsourcing]]<br /> <br /> [[Energy and Mobility solutions]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=604 2019-10-10T14:57:43Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Data Collection]]<br /> <br /> [[Democratic innovation through recognition]]<br /> <br /> [[Experimentation labs]]<br /> <br /> [[Governance and participation processes]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=603 2019-10-10T14:43:53Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Data Collection]]<br /> <br /> [[Democratic innovation through recognition]]<br /> <br /> [[Experimentation labs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=602 2019-10-10T14:32:09Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a a certain product.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive or joining &lt;ref&gt;https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing&lt;/ref&gt; - or sometimes by the different materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, abLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Experimentation labs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=601 2019-10-10T14:30:47Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Data Collection]]<br /> <br /> [[Democratic innovation through recognition]]<br /> <br /> [[Experimentation labs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=600 2019-10-10T14:28:58Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* General introduction of approach */</p> <hr /> <div>Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a a certain product.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive or joining &lt;ref&gt;https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-vs-subtractive-manufacturing&lt;/ref&gt; - or sometimes by the different materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, abLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=599 2019-10-10T14:26:00Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Specific Approaches and/or Instances==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Data Collection]]<br /> <br /> [[Democratic innovation through recognition]]<br /> <br /> [[Experimentation labs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=598 2019-10-10T14:25:13Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Specific Approaches and/or Instances==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Data Collection]]<br /> <br /> [[Democratic Innovation through Recognition]]<br /> <br /> [[Experimentation Labs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=597 2019-10-10T14:23:33Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Specific Approaches and/or Instances==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> [[Data Collection]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=596 2019-10-10T14:23:17Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Specific Approaches and/or Instances==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> [[Data_Collection| Data Collection]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=595 2019-10-10T14:22:06Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Specific Approaches and/or Instances==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==Links to other approaches==<br /> <br /> [[Data_Collection]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=594 2019-10-10T14:17:29Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Specific Approaches and/or Instances==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=593 2019-10-10T14:15:22Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Transformative potential */</p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=592 2019-10-10T14:14:47Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Transformative potential */</p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=591 2019-10-10T12:58:09Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic &lt;ref&gt;https://www.wired.com/2013/11/stereopublic-an-app-to-help-you-find-peace-and-quiet/&lt;/ref&gt;, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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 crowscopuring 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=470 2019-09-13T17:51:32Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Shapes, sizes and applications */</p> <hr /> <div>Data is collected via electronic and digital technologies and then analysed either within a system or as part of a wider organisational structure. <br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data collection might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. For example, projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementatioan. <br /> <br /> Digital data collection as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. <br /> <br /> For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and thus predict how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to Andrea Cominola, and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a difference in consumption of between 5 and 20 percent. Castelletti suggestions that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.” In regards to other targeted and sector specific initiatives, the OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data collection is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. On an either broader scale is the project Smart Impact&lt;ref&gt;https://smartimpact-project.eu/&lt;/ref&gt;. They aimed to create new ways of working so cities are more liveable and sustainable. It is a partnership of 10 cities, led by Manchester, and they share and work together. The project has 5 key components: data governance, organisational development, smart financing, regulations and incentives, and local innovation ecosystems. The cities all made action plans, strategies, data management plans, encouraged citizen involvement and helped start-ups. <br /> <br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data collection and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data collection approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption &lt;ref&gt;Evans, James, Andrew Karvonen, Andres Luque-Ayala, Chris Martin, Kes McCormick, Rob Raven, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan. ‘Smart and Sustainable Cities? Pipedreams, Practicalities and Possibilities’. Local Environment 24, no. 7 (3 July 2019): 557–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1624701.&lt;/ref&gt;; whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data collection rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data collection to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data collection will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> <br /> Digital data collection approaches can be realised either through particular ICT solutions or scaled up and combined with one another to create 'smart cities'. ICT solutions might relate to energy, transport, water use or many other areas whilst smart cities may be more or less comprehensively realised (indeed it could be argued that the term smart city is troublesomely vague).<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=469 2019-09-13T17:48:27Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Summary of relevant approaches */</p> <hr /> <div>Data is collected via electronic and digital technologies and then analysed either within a system or as part of a wider organisational structure. <br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data collection might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. For example, projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementatioan. <br /> <br /> Digital data collection as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. <br /> <br /> For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and thus predict how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to Andrea Cominola, and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a difference in consumption of between 5 and 20 percent. Castelletti suggestions that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.”<br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data collection is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. In regards to more targeted and sector specific initiatives, the OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data collection and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data collection approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption &lt;ref&gt;Evans, James, Andrew Karvonen, Andres Luque-Ayala, Chris Martin, Kes McCormick, Rob Raven, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan. ‘Smart and Sustainable Cities? Pipedreams, Practicalities and Possibilities’. Local Environment 24, no. 7 (3 July 2019): 557–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1624701.&lt;/ref&gt;; whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data collection rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data collection to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data collection will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> <br /> Digital data collection approaches can be realised either through particular ICT solutions or scaled up and combined with one another to create 'smart cities'. ICT solutions might relate to energy, transport, water use or many other areas whilst smart cities may be more or less comprehensively realised (indeed it could be argued that the term smart city is troublesomely vague).<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=465 2019-09-13T17:02:20Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice */</p> <hr /> <div>Data is collected via electronic and digital technologies and then analysed either within a system or as part of a wider organisational structure. <br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data collection might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. For example, projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementatioan. <br /> <br /> Digital data collection as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. <br /> <br /> For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and thus predict how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to Andrea Cominola, and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a difference in consumption of between 5 and 20 percent. Castelletti suggestions that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.”<br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data collection is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. In regards to more targeted and sector specific initiatives, the OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data collection and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data collection approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption &lt;ref&gt;Evans, James, Andrew Karvonen, Andres Luque-Ayala, Chris Martin, Kes McCormick, Rob Raven, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan. ‘Smart and Sustainable Cities? Pipedreams, Practicalities and Possibilities’. Local Environment 24, no. 7 (3 July 2019): 557–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1624701.&lt;/ref&gt;; whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data collection rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data collection to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data collection will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> <br /> Digital data collection approaches can be realised either through particular ICTs or scaled up and combined with one another to create 'smart cities'. ICTs might relate to energy, transport, water use or many other areas whilst smart cities may be more or less comprehensively realised (indeed it could be argued that the term smart city is troublesomely vague).<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=464 2019-09-13T16:56:35Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>Data is collected via electronic and digital technologies and then analysed either within a system or as part of a wider organisational structure. <br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data collection might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. For example, projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementatioan. <br /> <br /> Digital data collection as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. <br /> <br /> For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and thus predict how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to Andrea Cominola, and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a difference in consumption of between 5 and 20 percent. Castelletti suggestions that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.”<br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data collection is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. In regards to more targeted and sector specific initiatives, the OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data collection and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data collection approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption (ref); whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data collection rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data collection to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data collection will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> <br /> Digital data collection approaches can be realised either through particular ICTs or scaled up and combined with one another to create 'smart cities'. ICTs might relate to energy, transport, water use or many other areas whilst smart cities may be more or less comprehensively realised (indeed it could be argued that the term smart city is troublesomely vague).<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Data_collection&diff=461 2019-09-13T16:39:02Z

<p>Ian Cook: Created page with &quot;Provide short introduction here ==General introduction to approach== The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban gove...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Provide short introduction here<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> The creation, use and maintenance of digital infrastructures is increasingly on the agenda for urban governance, with a number of potential implications for sustainability and justice. The exchange of digital data relating to transport, energy or other realms promises to increase efficiency, reduce waste, provide more information, improve decision making and allow for real time updates for both citizens and the state. For example, in terms of transport, digital data exchange might allow for the improvement of local transit planning, operational performance, investment decisions and passenger access to information. For example, projects such as Siade SaaS&lt;ref&gt;https://www.siade.eu/&lt;/ref&gt; aim to create visual systems designed for managing transport networks, utilizing mass data analysis - combining passenger records with geographic information system implementation. <br /> <br /> Digital data exchange as described here is not strictly speaking a collaborative or participatory activity, though it may involve users choosing to share their data. Rather it is an approach in which private companies or other entities are contracted by the state or other organisations to create digital platforms that allow for the collection and analysis of digital data.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> When digital data collection first entered the realms of possibility, it was often presented as a silver bullet solution by large private companies who sought to enter into contractual arrangements with municipalities. However, this idea failed to stick in part due to reluctance of cities with both limited funds and knowledge/experience of vastly expensive past IT projects. Currently, there exist a range of smaller, more experimental and emerging digital data solutions utilized in different ways and in different settings, usually termed ICT (internet communication technology) platforms. These can help with more efficient and easily analysable digital data exchange. <br /> <br /> For instance, the SmartH2O&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; project built an ICT platform that could, in real time, capture and store data on residential water usage, build customer behaviour models, and thus predict how customer behaviour could be influenced by water management strategies. In this way it closed the loop, feeding back the information in a way that affected customer’s water usage. According to Andrea Cominola, and Andrea Castelletti (Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Politecnico di Milano), both of whom worked within the project, there was a difference in consumption of between 5 and 20 percent. Castelletti suggestions that the suggestions are like “a recommendation in an Amazon or Google style... [the system] recognises if the user is interested in certain things to help households reduce water consumption.”<br /> <br /> In its most comprehensive form, digital data exchange is part of the move towards creating ‘smart cities’ - urban conglomerations built around the ‘internet of things’ where networked systems collect, share and analyse data at the municipal level. One example of this is the FINEST Twins project&lt;ref&gt;https://forumvirium.fi/en/finest-smart-city/&lt;/ref&gt; in which a Smart City Center of Excellence (CoE) based in Estonia will utilize the experiences of nearby Helsinki and further combine knowledge from academia, the public sector and companies in the creation of a hub for guiding smart city futures in the cross-border region. In regards to more targeted and sector specific initiatives, the OPTIMISM project&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/100160/reporting/en&lt;/ref&gt; identified a number of best practices including car sharing schemes, personalised travel information services, mobile payment devices, and online route planners.<br /> <br /> As with many digital technologies, their transferability is wide if a) the local state has the resources to invest; or b) private companies see the possibility for profit.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital data exchange and analysis works well in urban settings because the quantity of data produced should provide the possibilities for a more detailed analysis. Digital data exchange approaches, especially in their smart city form, are bound up with urban utopian dreaming - often talking of technologically saturated futures in which cities function seamlessly. However, concerning the justice and sustainability of such data driven approaches, it is difficult disentangle initiatives from a closed concept of urban development that aligns governments with private industries and thus, for the most part, suggest solutions which are economically profitable. For instance, in terms of energy it might be the setting up of a smart grid to make consumption more efficient, rather than developing community energy provision; in terms of the management of urban waste it might mean a reframing the issue as the optimisation of collection, rather than the reduction of consumption (ref); whilst in terms of transport it might mean diverting resources to the downtown at the expense of isolated neighbourhoods that may have fewer potential passengers, but also less car ownership. The challenge, then, is to harness the potentials found within digital data exchange platforms for social and environmental justice or, if it is not possible within existing platforms, redesign or re-purpose the technology for more progressive aims. Such a move might improve marginalised communities access to energy, transport or other utilities and thus allow them the security, space and time to flourish in data saturated cities.<br /> <br /> This might mean more openness and transparency. As, Timo Ruohomäki, an engineer working as a project manager of mySMARTLife&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; at Forum Virium Helsinki argues,<br /> “in many cases it seems like smart cities are about adding cameras and sensors and collecting data... [but] this is not how we see it... We don't want to have that type of Orwell approach, that the city is monitoring you all the time… “In order to improve the ways citizens can participate, we need to be very transparent... and also there has to be a [noticeable] benefit for the person… Very often a single source of data is not valuable by itself, it should be combined with other data... [and] data should be open unless there is a specific reason not to... if people want to, they can track what is happening and participate in a meaningful way”<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Cities are often inefficient, produce waste and under-utilize capacities. Intelligent use of digital data generated by sensors or citizens can allow for more efficient, less wasteful and capacity-maximising cities. This could have potentially positive consequences for sustainability and justice if the data is gathered and analyzed in ways that forefront such concerns.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> The transformative potential of digital data exchange rests to a great degree on whether it is used within the prevalent exclusionary and environment-damaging processes of urban change, or if it can be used to create new urban cultures. The digital is pregnant with promise, but the utopian proclamations about how digital data can improve our cities are based, for the most part, within paradigms that place economic development at the fore. This casts questions about justice and sustainability within discussions about profit and a system which is predicated on growth. Their transformative potential is further neutered by the expense of many data exchange platforms or initiatives, or their reliance on a population with personal devices. As such, for power relations to be challenged and data exchange to be used for justice and sustainability, first of all, questions have to be asked not only about implementation but also design. According to Andrea Cominola, Junior Professor of Smart Water Networks at the Einstein Center Digital Future and Technische Universität Berlin, who researched within the SmartH20 project&lt;ref&gt;https://sw4eu.com/sh2o-the-smarth2o-project/&lt;/ref&gt; there is a tension between calls for open data sets and commercial concerns, as well as the need to balance user privacy with a desire for high resolution data. How public, private, community and state interests operationalize digital data exchange will set the contours of the approach’s transformative potential.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> <br /> Digital data exchange approaches can be realised either through particular ICTs or scaled up and combined with one another to create 'smart cities'. ICTs might relate to energy, transport, water use or many other areas whilst smart cities may be more or less comprehensively realised (indeed it could be argued that the term smart city is troublesomely vague).<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Database_of_approaches&diff=460 2019-09-13T16:38:55Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Clusters of substantial approaches */</p> <hr /> <div>==Templates==<br /> *[[Template for substantive clusters]]<br /> *[[Template for methodological clusters]]<br /> ==Clusters of substantial approaches==<br /> *[[Nature-based solutions]]<br /> **[[Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]<br /> **[[Nature-based solutions for health and equality]]<br /> *[[Children as change agents]]<br /> *[[Experimentation labs]]<br /> *[[Cooperatives/commons]]<br /> *[[Sharing/co-living/co-working]]<br /> *[[Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy]]<br /> *[[Learning and knowledge brokerage]]<br /> *[[Social security and rights]] <br /> *[[Disadvantaged groups/inclusion and inequality]]<br /> *[[Alternative indicators]]<br /> *[[Sustainability solutions and tools]]<br /> *[[Community gardens and food]]<br /> *[[Soil and land regeneration]]<br /> *[[Biodiversity]]<br /> *[[Sustainable Households]]<br /> *[[Energy and Mobility solutions]]<br /> *[[Alternative conceptual framings]]<br /> *[[Financial and value models]]<br /> *[[Financial policies]]<br /> *[[Social food movements]]<br /> *[[Ecovillages]]<br /> *[[Transition towns]]<br /> *[[Crowdsourcing]]<br /> *[[Data Collection]]<br /> *[[Digital fabrication]]<br /> *[[Democratic innovation]]<br /> *[[Governance and participation processes]]<br /> *[[Cultural heritage as urban regeneration and culture-led place rejuvination]]<br /> *[[Culture for empowerment]]<br /> *[[Regeneration of disused urban space]]<br /> <br /> ==Clusters of methodological approaches==<br /> *[[Pathways and scenarios]]<br /> *[[(Impact) evaluation and assessment framework]]<br /> *[[Business models for just and sustainable cities]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Database_of_approaches&diff=459 2019-09-13T16:38:02Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Clusters of substantial approaches */</p> <hr /> <div>==Templates==<br /> *[[Template for substantive clusters]]<br /> *[[Template for methodological clusters]]<br /> ==Clusters of substantial approaches==<br /> *[[Nature-based solutions]]<br /> **[[Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]<br /> **[[Nature-based solutions for health and equality]]<br /> *[[Children as change agents]]<br /> *[[Experimentation labs]]<br /> *[[Cooperatives/commons]]<br /> *[[Sharing/co-living/co-working]]<br /> *[[Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy]]<br /> *[[Learning and knowledge brokerage]]<br /> *[[Social security and rights]] <br /> *[[Disadvantaged groups/inclusion and inequality]]<br /> *[[Alternative indicators]]<br /> *[[Sustainability solutions and tools]]<br /> *[[Community gardens and food]]<br /> *[[Soil and land regeneration]]<br /> *[[Biodiversity]]<br /> *[[Sustainable Households]]<br /> *[[Energy and Mobility solutions]]<br /> *[[Alternative conceptual framings]]<br /> *[[Financial and value models]]<br /> *[[Financial policies]]<br /> *[[Social food movements]]<br /> *[[Ecovillages]]<br /> *[[Transition towns]]<br /> *[[Crowdsourcing]]<br /> *[[Digital Data Exchange]]<br /> *[[Digital fabrication]]<br /> *[[Democratic innovation]]<br /> *[[Governance and participation processes]]<br /> *[[Cultural heritage as urban regeneration and culture-led place rejuvination]]<br /> *[[Culture for empowerment]]<br /> *[[Regeneration of disused urban space]]<br /> <br /> ==Clusters of methodological approaches==<br /> *[[Pathways and scenarios]]<br /> *[[(Impact) evaluation and assessment framework]]<br /> *[[Business models for just and sustainable cities]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Database_of_approaches&diff=458 2019-09-13T16:36:30Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Clusters of substantial approaches */</p> <hr /> <div>==Templates==<br /> *[[Template for substantive clusters]]<br /> *[[Template for methodological clusters]]<br /> ==Clusters of substantial approaches==<br /> *[[Nature-based solutions]]<br /> **[[Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation]]<br /> **[[Nature-based solutions for health and equality]]<br /> *[[Children as change agents]]<br /> *[[Experimentation labs]]<br /> *[[Cooperatives/commons]]<br /> *[[Sharing/co-living/co-working]]<br /> *[[Multi-stakeholder partnership - policy]]<br /> *[[Learning and knowledge brokerage]]<br /> *[[Social security and rights]] <br /> *[[Disadvantaged groups/inclusion and inequality]]<br /> *[[Alternative indicators]]<br /> *[[Sustainability solutions and tools]]<br /> *[[Community gardens and food]]<br /> *[[Soil and land regeneration]]<br /> *[[Biodiversity]]<br /> *[[Sustainable Households]]<br /> *[[Energy and Mobility solutions]]<br /> *[[Alternative conceptual framings]]<br /> *[[Financial and value models]]<br /> *[[Financial policies]]<br /> *[[Social food movements]]<br /> *[[Ecovillages]]<br /> *[[Transition towns]]<br /> *[[Crowdsourcing]]<br /> *[[Data Collection]]<br /> *[[Digital fabrication]]<br /> *[[Democratic innovation]]<br /> *[[Governance and participation processes]]<br /> *[[Cultural heritage as urban regeneration and culture-led place rejuvination]]<br /> *[[Culture for empowerment]]<br /> *[[Regeneration of disused urban space]]<br /> <br /> ==Clusters of methodological approaches==<br /> *[[Pathways and scenarios]]<br /> *[[(Impact) evaluation and assessment framework]]<br /> *[[Business models for just and sustainable cities]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Crowdsourcing&diff=457 2019-09-13T16:30:15Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>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.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction to approach==<br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing might involve gathering data from engaged people, might be based on data gathered from sensors, or might be based on a combination of the two. Furthermore, crowdsourcing might involve quite 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 i) vote on which local park or other green space they think is most in need of renovation; ii) then suggest and discuss possible new designs or features of the park, before; iii) voting again on a list of final suggestions. <br /> <br /> Crowdsourcing is one way in which complex problems can be solved by pooling the skills and resources of large numbers of people. If a particular project has many component parts, then it can be divided up with different groups of people tasked with working on the different elements. 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 rather passive manner, but can also allow citizens to shape the very grounds for discussion about their cities and environment. 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. <br /> <br /> There are multiple examples of different realisations of crowdsourcing projects, including: Collideoscope&lt;ref&gt;https://www.collideoscope.org.uk/&lt;/ref&gt; which utilizes participant generated data on collisions to make cycling safer in Europe. Stereopublic, a crowdsourced app that helps people find quiet spots in cities; EveryAware&lt;ref&gt;http://www.everyaware.eu&lt;/ref&gt; 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; which uses ‘citizen mobility kits’ as participative tools for designing mobility innovations in different European cities; and COBWEB&lt;ref&gt;https://cobwebproject.eu&lt;/ref&gt;, 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.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> <br /> 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?)&lt;ref&gt;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.&lt;/ref&gt; . 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.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Crowdsourcing uses internet communication technologies to tackle the problem of minimal or non-existing participation in decision making or challenge 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 make work together in the future.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> 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, 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. 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&lt;ref&gt;https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/209171/en&lt;/ref&gt;, 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 crowscopuring 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&lt;ref&gt;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&lt;/ref&gt;. 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.<br /> <br /> ==Summary of relevant approaches==<br /> The Citizen Mobility Kit&lt;ref&gt;https://cities4people.eu/citizen-mobility-kit/&lt;/ref&gt; 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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&lt;ref&gt;https://www.mysmartlife.eu/mysmartlife/&lt;/ref&gt; 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...”<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=455 2019-09-13T16:28:41Z

<p>Ian Cook: </p> <hr /> <div>Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make a a certain product.<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive formative or joining - or sometimes by the difference materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, abLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=454 2019-09-13T16:28:12Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* General introduction of approach */</p> <hr /> <div>Introduction Digital fabrication<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive formative or joining - or sometimes by the difference materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, abLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=441 2019-09-13T14:12:35Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Illustrations of approaches */</p> <hr /> <div>Introduction Digital fabrication<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make something. Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive formative or joining - or sometimes by the difference materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> As mentioned above, the use of digital fabrication depends very much upon the context in which it was embedded. For instance, as detailed in the TRASNIT project, abLab Amersfoort is an illustrative example of how digital fabrication tools can be tied into locally sustainable and socially just initiatives,<br /> <br /> “At FabLab Amersfoort, and particularly in the projects of De War, the emphasis is in using the tools of the Lab for the purposes of social change. The facilities are used to make objects such as monitoring systems and beehives. But really it is the organisation of these activities, and how they connect to bigger ideas and community building that is important. De War at FabLab Amersfoort is seeking to put into practice ideas about open design, peer--‐to--‐peer production, and local sustainability. They want to expand the old factory site, including the FabLab, into a hub for local social change networks, and that they are involved in and helping to build. So for FabLab Amersfoort, the way they are trying to insert the innovative possibilities of FabLabs into Transition Town activities and in other directions of change they seek (such as citizen science, and an open, collaborative and sustainable society generally) is by embedding the Lab into networks of local activity that are working in similar directions. Transformation rests in the new relationships built through these networking activities.&lt;ref&gt;Smith, A., Hielscher, S. and Fressoli, M. (2015) Transformative social innovation narrative : Fablabs. TRANSIT: EU SHH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=440 2019-09-13T14:10:53Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Transformative potential */</p> <hr /> <div>Introduction Digital fabrication<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make something. Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive formative or joining - or sometimes by the difference materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> Though it might seem like an obvious point to make, the transformative potential of digital fabrication depends very much on the purposes for which it is used. For instance, people might print guns on 3D printers to form militias and stop poor people entering the city once the climate apocalypse has destroyed most of the world. Moreover, FabLabs might be used for personal transformation projects (e.g. budding entrepreneurs) rather than socially transformative projects. Digital fabrication could be used for decentralised democratised production, or increasingly individualised, neoliberal endeavours.<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook https://wiki.sustainablejustcities.eu/index.php?title=Digital_fabrication&diff=439 2019-09-13T14:09:10Z

<p>Ian Cook: /* Narrative of change */</p> <hr /> <div>Introduction Digital fabrication<br /> <br /> ==General introduction of approach==<br /> Digital fabrication is a manufacturing process in which a machine is operated by a computer to make something. Sometimes digital fabrication is classed by the processes used - subtractive, additive formative or joining - or sometimes by the difference materials used. Generally it involves technologies such as CNC milling (computer numerical control milling where shapes are cut from sheets), laser cutting (where materials are burnt or melted by a laser beam) or 3D printing (where objects are built up from layers). Sometimes referred to as ‘rapid prototyping’, it allows for one-off designs to be produced at a relatively low costs, for experimentation, and for those not usually involved in design and manufacture the possibility to create. Larger companies have also begun to use digital fabrication processes.<br /> <br /> ==Shapes, sizes and applications==<br /> One of the most widely known approaches that utilizes digital fabrication are Fablabs (digital fabrication laboratories). They provide wider access to the means for digital fabrication, or invention more generally, and began as an outreach initiative at MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms. It has since grown into a global network. Fablabs are open to the public and provide people with access to training, tools and designs associated with digital fabrication. Typically they will have a number of flexible computer-controlled tools, and are aligned in certain respects with open-source, DIY, and maker cultures/movements. The approach has been written about in-depth by the TRANSIT project&lt;ref&gt;http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transformative-social-innovation-narrative-fablabs&lt;/ref&gt;. A more explicitly urban and sustainability focussed approach is the idea of the Fab City. It is an international initiative started by the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia, and the above mentioned MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, Barcelona City Council and the FabFoundation. The idea is to develop self-sufficient cities, in which produce locally as part of a circular chain, whilst information on how to produce locally is spread globally. In essence, it is about scaling up the FabLab approach to a city and adopting an explicitly sustainable approach.<br /> <br /> ==Relation to UrbanA themes: Urban, sustainability, and justice==<br /> Digital fabrication can take place wherever the tools (and expertise) are available. However, Fab Labs are almost exclusively located in cities, due to the concentration of interest and capital. The Fab City idea, is clearly urban in focus. Indeed, if the availability of digital fabrication tools grows, then it is possible to imagine how it might instigate a return of (certain types of) manufacturing to cities in Europe as urban areas move towards self-sufficiency. Localised production is clearly beneficial to the environment due to reduced transportation, whilst production on demand reduces waste. However, there appear to be no in built justice mechanisms within such approaches. It depends upon what local groups choose to do within the wider ‘movement’ (if it can be classed as a movement).<br /> <br /> ==Narrative of change==<br /> Digital fabrication is a disruptive technology-enabled innovation that re-aligns supply chains, turns consumers into producers and thus has the potential to democratise production and consumption. It is a digital technological innovation that is localised, yet linked to global networks. As such, it is possible to learn from global flows of knowledge and innovation, whilst rooting production and creation in local needs and desires. It can shorten supply chains, open up production and lead to new and unforeseen creations.<br /> <br /> ==Transformative potential==<br /> <br /> ==Illustrations of approaches==<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Clusters of approaches]]<br /> [[Category: Approaches]]</div>

Ian Cook