Co-governing urban commons with context sensitive technology

Presentation of my PhD research project at the III International Conference
URBAN E-PLANNING, Lisbon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Transcript

1. Co-governing Urban Commons with Context Sensitive Technology Federico Piovesan III International Conference URBAN E-PLANNING Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, University of Lisbon & International Journal of E-Planning Research DIST, Polytechnic of Turin Lisbon, Portugal 3-4 April 2018
2. I. Urban commons II. Co-governance III. Context sensitive technology IV. Case study Outline 1
3. I. Urban commons II. Co-governance III. Context sensitive technology IV. Case study Outline Work in Progress 1
4. I. Urban commons Urban spaces as common pool resources Situating urban commons in Turin
5. Urban spaces as common pool resources ¦ Common pool resources (Ostrom) Ostrom (1990), Hess (2006) ¦ Urban commons Hess and Ostrom (2007), Ostrom (2008) ¦ Commoning Harvey (2013), Biondini (2017) 2
6. 2018 2016 Turin approves its Commons Charter [ref] Situating urban commons in Turin... 2010 LOCAL GLOCAL 3
7. LOCAL GLOCAL 2018 2016 Turin approves its Commons Charter [ref] Water referendum Bologna Charter of the Commons Situating urban commons in Turin... 2014 2011 2010 3
8. LOCAL GLOCAL 1980 2018 2016 Turin approves its Commons Charter [ref] Situating urban commons in Turin... 2014 2004 1990 2010 Water referendum Bologna Charter of the Commons 3 - Post-industrial era - New wave of urban vacants - From manufacturing to services and innovation - Good real estate market - Modernize the city to compete in global markets Saccomani (2000) Andres (2013), Hentilä & Lindborg (2003), Tonkiss (2013) and Wilkinson (2011)
9. LOCAL GLOCAL 1980 1995 U.D.P. approved requalification ≠ regeneration Situating urban commons in Turin... 1990 2000 2018 2016 Turin approves its Commons Charter [ref] 2014 2004 2010 1987 U.D.P. w.i.p. Water referendum Bologna Charter of the Commons 3 - Post-industrial era - New wave of urban vacants - From manufacturing to services and innovation - Good real estate market - Modernize the city to compete in global markets Saccomani (2000) Andres (2013), Hentilä & Lindborg (2003), Tonkiss (2013) and Wilkinson (2011) Local economic crisis (Bighi, 2016)
10. LOCAL GLOCAL 1980 1987 1995 1997 U.D.P. w.i.p. U.D.P. approved “Local development actions” requalification ⧎regeneration Situating urban commons in Turin... 1990 2000 requalification ≠regeneration 2018 2016 Turin approves its Commons Charter 2004 Water referendum Bologna Charter of the Commons 3 - Post-industrial era - New wave of urban vacants - From manufacturing to services and innovation - Good real estate market - Modernize the city to compete in global markets Saccomani (2000) Andres (2013), Hentilä & Lindborg (2003), Tonkiss (2013) and Wilkinson (2011) Local economic crisis (Bighi, 2016) 2010
11. LOCAL GLOCAL 1980 1987 1995 2008 1997 2018 2016 Turin approves its Commons Charter - Post-industrial era - New wave of urban vacants U.D.P. w.i.p. U.D.P. approved “Local development actions” Bighi (2016) - From manufacturing to services and innovation - Good real estate market - Modernize the city to compete in global markets Saccomani (2000) Local economic crisis (Bighi, 2016) - Financial crisis - Fiscal austerity (reduces decision-power at city level) → Doing more with less - Regeneration more necessary than ever: both social justice a economics needs Balbo (2017) Situating urban commons in Turin... 2014 2004 requalification ⧎regeneration 1990 2000 2010 Andres (2013), Hentilä & Lindborg (2003), Tonkiss (2013) and Wilkinson (2011) requalification ≠regeneration Water referendum Bologna Charter of the Commons 3
12. II. Co-Governance Co-governing urban commons in Turin Co-governance and urban planning
13. Co-governing urban commons (in Turin) Urban commons are buildings/spaces that support the well-being of the local community and whose control is shared between the local administration (owner) and other stakeholders. 4
14. Co-governing urban commons (in Turin) Urban commons are buildings/spaces that support the well-being of the local community and whose control is shared between the local administration (owner) and other stakeholders. 4
15. Co-governing urban commons (in Turin) Urban commons are buildings/spaces that support the well-being of the local community and whose control is shared between the local administration (owner) and other stakeholders. 4
16. Co-governing urban commons (in Turin) Urban commons are buildings/spaces that support the well-being of the local community and whose control is shared between the local administration (owner) and other stakeholders. 4
17. Citizen control Delegated power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Manipulation NON PARTICIPATION DEGREE OF TOKENISM DEGREE OF CITIZEN POWER Co-governance ¦ Essentially contested concept: “untidy body of literature plagued by definition problem” Day (1997) ¦ “Unusual grammar” between co-optation and liberation Kelty (2016) ¦ Diverse array of “trends” affected by local history and power relations Susskind et al. (1999), Silva (2010), Mouffe (2000) Co-governance and participation Arnstein (1969) 5
18. Context sensitive technology Action research and context sensitive knowledge Context sensitive technology
19. Context sensitivity “Researchers produce knowledge within a well defined time and spatial frames, and should employ it to affect that frame.” Flyvbjerg (1998) 6 Approach to inquiry that “approach to inquiry that "[addresses] knowledge production and [social] changes at the same time.” Reason & Bradbury (2011), Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, & Maguire (2016), Saija (2014), Estacio (2012)
20. Context sensitive technology ¦ Tools are usually selected before Simon et al. (2017), Saunders & Mulgan (2017), Fatimah et al. (2017) ¦ Participation as self-organization and design-in-use → expanded urban planning Saad Sulonen (2016), Staffans & Horelli (2014) ¦ Residents as prosumers who approach urban space in terms of creative affirmative action Ferilli et al. (2016) 7
21. Case study Where What | Who | When From individual to collective management of spaces Participatory urban regeneration
22. ±35 km Chieri Turin Where ¦ 36,000 inhabitants ¦ Peri-urban context ¦ 200+ non-profit associations ¦ Charter of the commons in 2014 8
23. What Who When Other stakeholders Me (AR + observant participation) Three parallel processes ¦ Collective use of common spaces in public buildings ¦ Urban regeneration of a former factory ¦ II International Festival of the Commons Launch: July 2017 Start: September 2017 End: 1st July 2018 9
24. Collective use of common spaces in public buildings ¦ 20 associations ◦ Social services ◦ recreational activities ◦ Internal use ¦ Incumbent agreements 2016-2020 ¦ Two lines of action ◦ Building a common identity ◦ Improving the management of common spaces (Charter of the Commons?) 10
28. Urban regeneration ¦ Total surface: 29,000 m2 ◦ Partly reused (public library, cafe, local associations) but mostly unused ¦ Occupies and important position within ◦ Town’s urban fabric ◦ Collective imaginery ¦ Many attempts to requalify in the last 20 years ¦ Not everyone is participating ◦ Young people (16-25) ◦ Those who do not agree with the participatory process 13
30. Going forward... ¦ It would have been impossible to make/choose a tool a priori ¦ Still need to tune tools to available resources (skills, time, etc.) ¦ Engage more citizens ¦ Promote autonomous management ¦ Find comparable experiences 15
31. 13 Bibliography (A-H) Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Balbo, M. (2017). Rigenerazione urbana: competenze cercansi. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from https://www.che-fare.com/rigenerazione-urbana-competenze-cercansi/ Bighi, S. (2016). Le aree dismesse nella riqualificazione e nella rigenerazione urbana a Torino (1990-2015). In E. Armano, C. A. Dondona, & F. Ferlaino (Eds.), Post-Fordismo e Trasformazione Urbana. Turin: IRES. Biondini, P. (2017, December 18). I beni pubblici urbani nella prospettiva dei beni comuni. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://www.labsus.org/2017/12/i-beni-pubblici-urbani-nella-prospettiva-dei-beni-comuni/ Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2016). Why Action Research. Action Research, 1(1), 9–28. Day, D. (1997). Citizen Participation in the Planning Process: An Essentially Contested Concept? Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229701100309 Estacio, E. V. (2012). ‘Playing with Fire and Getting Burned’: The Case of the Naïve Action Researcher: Reflections on participatory action research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2106 Fatimah, S., Christian, M., Nurfadillah, A., Widianti, S., & Rangkuti, Y. R. (2017). Connecting citizens to their governments: lessons from ICT-based governance initiatives in Indonesia. Making All Voices Count. Retrieved from http://www.makingallvoicescount.org/publication/connecting-citizens-governments-lessons-ict-based-governance-initiatives-indonesia/ Ferilli, G., Sacco, P. L., & Tavano Blessi, G. (2016). Beyond the rhetoric of participation: New challenges and prospects for inclusive urban regeneration. City, Culture and Society, 7(2), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2015.09.001 Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harvey, D. (2013). Rebel cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution (Paperback ed). London: Verso.
32. 13 Bibliography (H-Z) Hess, C. (2006). Digital Library Of The Commons. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/contentguidelines Hess, Charlotte. (2008). Mapping the New Commons. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1356835 Hess, Charlotte, & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kelty, C. M. (2016). Too Much Democracy in All the Wrong Places: Toward a Grammar of Participation. Current Anthropology, S000–S000. https://doi.org/10.1086/688705 Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice (2. ed., reprinted). London: SAGE. Saccomani, S. (2000). Torino: le aree industriali dismesse fra strategie di sviluppo e trasformazione immobiliare. In E. Dansero, C. Giaimo, & A. Spaziante, Se i vuoti si Riempiono. Firenze: Alinea. Saija, L. (2014). Writing about engaged scholarship: Misunderstandings and the meaning of “quality” in action research publications. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.904922 Saunders, T., & Mulgan, G. (2017). Governing with Collective Intelligence. Nesta. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/governing_with_collective_intelligence.pdf Simon, J., Bass, T., Boelman, V., & Mulgan, G. (2017). Digital Democracy: The Tools Transforming Political Engagement. Nesta. Staffans, A., & Horelli, L. (n.d.). Expanded Urban Planning as a Vehicle for Understanding and Shaping Smart, Liveable Cities, 18. Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (Eds.). (1999). The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
33. Thank you! Any question? Contacts federico.piovesan@polito.it @federicopvs https://federicopvs.github.io