Co-governing urban commons with context sensitive technology

Presentation of my PhD research project at AESOP 2018, Goteborg.
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 Supervisors 11 July 2018 Giancarlo Cotella Grazia Brunetta
2. Test whether ICT tools can be integrated in an ongoing participatory process (i.e. co-governance of urban commons) and reflect upon relevant costs and benefits through direct involvement. Research Objective Research Questions 1. What are the obstacles, opportunities, and risks of integrating digital tools in ongoing participatory process? 2. Do digital tools significantly impact different aspects of the participatory process? If so, how? 1
3. I. METHODOLOGY Action Research Actor-Network Theory Epistemological (Dis)Similarities Opportunities and Risks
4. Address knowledge production and social changes at the same time by combining action and reflection to understand a social system, try to change some aspects of it, and pursue practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to the community of co-researchers. (Saija, 2014) (Elden & Chisholm, 1993), (Reason & Bradbury, 2011) Action Research 2
5. Address knowledge production and social changes at the same time by combining action and reflection to understand a social system, try to change some aspects of it, and pursue practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to the community of co-researchers. (Saija, 2014) (Elden & Chisholm, 1993), (Reason & Bradbury, 2011) Action Research 2 1. Direct involvement of non-academics as co-researchers in the process of knowledge production; 2. Immediate application of the produced knowledge; 3. Collective evaluation of its helpfulness; 4. Eventual adjustments of ideas and strategies of action.
6. Address knowledge production and social changes at the same time by combining action and reflection to understand a social system, try to change some aspects of it, and pursue practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to the community of co-researchers. (Saija, 2014) (Elden & Chisholm, 1993), (Reason & Bradbury, 2011) Action Research 1. Direct involvement of non-academics as co-researchers in the process of knowledge production; 2. Immediate application of the produced knowledge; 3. Collective evaluation of its helpfulness; 4. Eventual adjustments of ideas and strategies of action. Image: Cédric Villain from the Noun Project REFLECTION ACTION REFLECTION ACTION REFLECTION 2
7. Actor (or actants): human or non-human entities that occupy time-space and whose existence defined by their associations with other actants. Network: informal way of associating actants together, made of ever changing associations. Zoom into an actant to study it as an actor-network. Zoom out of an actor-network to study it as an actant in a bigger actor-network. Goal: study how associations form and persist. Actor-Network Theory 3
8. Both favor qualitative methods that produce context sensitive knowledge and force researchers to give up some control, though to different extents, over all phases of the research project: Epistemological (Dis)Similarities 4
9. Both favor qualitative methods that produce context sensitive knowledge and force researchers to give up some control, though to different extents, over all phases of the research project: Epistemological (Dis)Similarities ON THE GROUND Set up a collective inquiry together with co-researchers to decide together what to investigate and how to go about it. “Follow the actors” to observe how they unfold associations that make the actor-network in which they operate. ADDRESSING POSITIONALITY Encourages researchers to embrace their bias in an open and transparent way, contribute w/ skills and training. Cognitive relativism to nullify researchers' bias. FORMALIZING KNOWLEDGE Active participation also in the creation of research accounts and formalization (posters, reports, communication material, etc.) Let the concepts of the actants permeate through the writing more than those of the researchers. ACTION RESEARCH ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY 4
10. Opportunities Risks and “Predicting” the beginning and end of the research project Whom are we writing for? Navigate better the actor-network where researchers operate How long will the project take? (And how long can it take?) Build a common vocabulary with co-researchers PRACTICAL ANALYTICAL ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 5
11. II. LITERATURE REVIEW Urban spaces as common pool resources Ambivalent merits of participation Research scope
12. 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) ¦ Is co-governance a commoning practice? 6
13. Citizen control Delegated power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Manipulation NON PARTICIPATION DEGREE OF TOKENISM DEGREE OF CITIZEN POWER Co-governance Arnstein (1969) 7
14. Arnstein (1969) ¦ 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) Ambivalent merits of participation 7
15. COMMONING CO- GOVERNANCE PROCESSES VACANT SPACES AS URBAN COMMONS 8
16. COMMONING CO- GOVERNANCE PROCESSES VACANT SPACES AS URBAN COMMONS AMBIVALENT MERITS OF PARTICIPATIO N ADMINISTERED SUBSIDIARITY 8
17. AMBIVALENT MERITS OF PARTICIPATIO N DIGITAL PARTICIPATIO N COMMONING CO- GOVERNANCE PROCESSES ADMINISTERED SUBSIDIARITY VACANT SPACES AS URBAN COMMONS CONTEXT SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY ACTION RESEARCH 8
18. AMBIVALENT MERITS OF PARTICIPATION DIGITAL PARTICIPATION COMMONING CO- GOVERNANCE PROCESSES ADMINISTERED SUBSIDIARITY VACANT SPACES AS URBAN COMMONS CONTEXT SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY ACTION RESEARCH ACTOR- NETWORK THEORY 8
19. III. CASE STUDY Where What | Who | When Opportunities and risks
20. 9 ±35 km Chieri Turin Where ¦ 36,000 inhabitants ¦ Peri-urban context ¦ 200+ non-profit associations ¦ Charter of the commons in 2014
21. What Who When Other stakeholders Me (AR + participant observation) 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 10
22. What Who When Other stakeholders Me (AR + participant observation) 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 10
23. ¦ 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 imaginary ¦ 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 Urban Regeneration 11
24. DEMO 12
25. DEMO
26. 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. 13
27. 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. 13
28. Thank you! Any question? Contacts federico.piovesan@polito.it @federicopvs federicopvs.info
29. Digital Participation: why the interest ¦ Enlarge participation ¦ Facilitate debate and mutual learning ¦ Crowd-source knowledge and skills ¦ Diverse array of experiments ◦ Signal problems (e.g. urban maintenance), participatory budgeting, participatory legislation, and many more... 4
30. ¦ Digital divide ¦ Participation divide ¦ By whom and for whom? ◦ Who develops? Who pays? Who manages? ◦ How to integrate with consolidated practices ◦ No guarantees → no trust ◦ Low autonomy as users depend on developers ¦ Strangely familiar dream? Kelty (2017) 10 ...and fallbacks
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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. Are we really talking about commons?
36. 2018 2016 Turin approves its Commons Charter [ref] Situating urban commons in Turin... 2010 LOCAL GLOCAL 3
37. 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
38. 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)
39. 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)
40. 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
41. 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
42. 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