IIIEE Thesis 2014:22
The Rise of the Sharing City
Examining Origins and Futures of Urban Sharing
Patrycja Maria Długosz
Supervisors
Professor Oksana Mont
International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University
&
Ms Susanne Salz
Project Manager, Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP)
Thesis for the fulfilment of the
Master of Science in Environmental Management and Policy
Lund, Sweden, September 2014
© You may use the contents of the IIIEE publications for informational purposes only. You may not copy, lend, hire, transmit or redistribute these
materials for commercial purposes or for compensation of any kind without written permission from IIIEE. When using IIIEE material you must include
the following copyright notice: ‘Copyright © Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University. All rights reserved’ in any copy that you make in a clearly
visible position. You may not modify the materials without the permission of the author.
Published in 2014 by IIIEE, Lund University, P.O. Box 196, S-221 00 LUND, Sweden,
Tel: +46 – 46 222 02 00, Fax: +46 – 46 222 02 10, e-mail: iiiee@iiiee.lu.se.
ISSN 1401-9191
The Rise of the Sharing City
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Oksana Mont and Ms Susanne Salz for their
dedication, thoughtful guidance, and constructive feedback throughout this thesis process. I
also extend my gratitude towards all my interviewees and discussants for their generosity in
sharing their time, expertise and thoughts.
A big thank you to all the faculty and staff at the IIIEE for their enthusiasm, and passion. A
special thank you to Birgitta, who is the greatest student coordinator there is. Thank you for
untiredly replying to my emails.
A warm thank you to Mallory and Tilmann for reading over this thesis, and for their great
comments and thoughts!
Last but definitely not least, my gratitude goes to my Family: To Fabian for being my greatest
source of inspiration and enthusiasm: Thank you for always being there for me, for your
unfading patience, for all the positive motivation, and hours of discussions and proof reading!
To my Parents and Brother: Mamo, Tato i Piotrze dziękuję za to, że zawsze jesteście ze mną i
we mnie wierzycie! To Marie and Bisi – dies wäre nicht ohne euch möglich – Thank you so
much!
I
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Abstract
With more than half the world’s population living in ever more economically productive cities,
and urbanisation continuing apace, large-scale environmental problems resulting from
unsustainable, excessively consumption-focussed life styles are doomed to happen. Meanwhile
large amounts of equipment and infrastructure are barely used. The recently emerged Sharing
City concept combines the benefits of Sharing Economy and Collaborative Consumption with
urban development and community building, and promises to address at least some of those
issues. This study seeks to gain a better understanding of the concept, and to offer an insight
into its (partial) implementation. A literature analysis, qualitative interviews, and three case
studies allow identifying major reasons for and enablers of the Sharing City’s emergence,
driving forces, obstacles to implementation, and its potential. Structurally, the underlying
changes in the global economy enabled it, as well as the recent economic crisis, changes in
attitudes towards consumption and ownership, and the development and improvement of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Driving forces behind the emergence of
the Sharing City are identified in good access to ICT infrastructure, the presence of an
energetic civil society and an accommodating city administration. Other drivers include a
vibrant sharing business scene (as in San Francisco), an active municipality (like Seoul’s), and a
sharing-enthusiastic population (as Berlin’s). Obstacles to the implementation and its
dissemination are largely found in the legal frameworks governing four priority sectors for
cities: food, transportation, housing, and jobs. Deficits are in both regulation that inhibits
sharing but also a lack of regulation specifically for sharing. Sharing Cities can benefit the
economic, environmental, social, and democratic dimensions of an urban community. One
major criticism is levelled against the commercial expansion of sharing, which may be seen as
an excessive marketisation of previously ‘private’ life spheres, subjecting ever-greater areas of
life to the logic of commercial exchange.
Keywords: Sharing City, Sharing Economy, Collaborative Consumption & Production,
Sustainable Urban Development
II
The Rise of the Sharing City
Executive Summary
More than half of today’s world population lives in cities, and the number of urban residents
grows by 60 million each year. Major urban areas are economic giants: the top 600 cities are
predicted to generate 60 percent of global GDP growth by 2025, while top 100 alone will
contribute 35 percent. Besides the economic benefits urbanisation promises, it also threatens
to produce large-scale environmental problems amid an excessively consumption-focused
lifestyle of urban residents. Meanwhile, the amount of equipment and infrastructure that
surrounds us, but is barely used is astonishing when its potential is considered. For example 29
million personally owned vehicles are used on average one hour per day.
Collaborative Consumption and Sharing Economy have come to greater salience over the last
years. The Sharing City is a concept that recently started to emerge, and combines the benefits
of Sharing Economy and Collaborative Consumption with urban development and
community building.
This study seeks to gain a better understanding of this newly emerged concept, and to offer an
insight into its (partial) implementation. In particular, it asks:
I.
a) Why do the Sharing Cities emerge, and b) what are the driving forces behind their
emergence?
II.
a) What are the obstacles to the (successful) implementation and dissemination of the Sharing
City concept on a wider scale, and b) what is its potential?
In order to answer these research questions, this thesis uses a comprehensive literature
analysis as well as applies a case study approach alongside qualitative semi-structured
interviews.
The literature review identifies the vast scope of sharing within and beyond cities. Virtually
anything can be shared by virtually anyone. There are different approaches to describing what
can be shared. The Sharing Spectrum for example divides sharing options from the most
tangible, material assets via products, services, to the least tangible such as capacity sharing.
And while peer-to-peer sharing is the most discussed model, there are also business-toconsumer, business-to-business, consumer-to-business, and public administration-based
examples. While not a physical place, the Internet is where sharing is happening and where
transactions can be conducted. Initiatives in a local context are another locus of sharing.
Three case studies outline how the implementation of the Sharing City plays out empirically.
Out of them, only one is a designed Sharing City. The municipal government of Seoul
implemented it as a policy that offers an alternative way of tackling sustainability issues. In the
other two, Berlin and San Francisco, the origins of sharing are arguably more organic. Both
share a population that is more open to alternative movements such as Sharing initiatives.
Their residents thus proved eager to engage in such projects. Berlin however, seems to
currently lack an administration supporting the notion of Sharing whereas the strong Sharing
business presence in San Francisco influences the visibility of Sharing. Located on three
different continents, all three cities have the potential to become regional role models for the
Sharing City.
In addressing the reasons for the Sharing City’s emergence, four enablers were identified: the
underlying changes in the global economy are a major structural factor. The recent economic
crisis which motivated many people to reassess how they sustain their standard of life was an
important impetus. Changes in attitudes towards consumption and ownership have changed,
III
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
and the development and improvement of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) have opened possibilities for individuals to coordinate their engagement in sharing
resources which were previously unthinkable.
The driving forces behind the emergence of the Sharing City have consequently been
identified in good access to ICT infrastructure, the presence of an energetic civil society and
an accommodating city administration. Other drivers include a vibrant sharing business scene
(as in San Francisco), an active municipality (like Seoul’s), and a sharing-enthusiastic
population (as Berlin’s).
Obstacles to the implementation of the Sharing City and its dissemination are largely found in
the legal frameworks governing four priority sectors for cities: food, transportation, housing,
and jobs. They were identified in both regulation that inhibits sharing but also a lack of
regulation specifically for sharing.
Sharing Cities can benefit the economic, environmental, social, and democratic dimensions of
an urban community. Hence this is where the main potential of the concept lies. It should be
noted however that these benefits are highly contingent on the kind of sharing implemented
in cities. Depending on this implementation, sharing may lead not only to benefits but even
have detrimental effects on employees, businesses, and other stakeholders.
Much of the sympathy for sharing and businesses engaged in it comes from its perception as a
challenger to established forms of consumption and production. A major criticism is that this
picture is built on a misrepresentation. Companies like Uber and AirBnB may be more closely
attached to their investors on which they depend financially than to their users who generate
the added value. More fundamentally, the commercial expansion of sharing may be seen as an
excessive marketisation of previously ‘private’ life spheres, subjecting ever-greater areas of life
(such as hospitality and favours towards strangers) to neoliberal logic of commercial exchange.
The above suggests two avenues for future research. On the practical side, more knowledge
on the obstacles and facilitators to implementation, especially regarding regulation and its
absence, could be a helpful source of information for policy-makers. From a Social Science
point of view (which is not to say that this would not also be of value for policy), the
disruptive effects of the Sharing City on a wider scale would merit further study.
IV
The Rise of the Sharing City
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... I
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... VI
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................. VII
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................................1
1.2
AIM OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................................................................2
1.2.1
Research Questions ................................................................................................................................................2
1.3
LIMITATION AND SCOPE ..........................................................................................................................................2
1.4
AUDIENCE ..................................................................................................................................................................3
1.5
DISPOSITION ..............................................................................................................................................................3
2
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................5
2.1
GENERAL OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................................................5
2.2
LITERATURE REVIEW METHOD ..............................................................................................................................5
2.3
CASE STUDIES METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................6
3
LITERATURE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................9
3.1
WHEN? THE BACKGROUND OF SHARING ............................................................................................................9
3.2
WHY THE SHARING CITY? .................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1
Urbanisation ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2
Information and Communication Technology ....................................................................................................... 11
3.2.3
Social Inclusion & Collaboration ....................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.4
Economic Crisis & Economic Considerations ..................................................................................................... 13
3.2.5
Other Factors ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.3
WHAT IS BEING SHARED? ...................................................................................................................................... 15
3.4
WHO IS SHARING? .................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.5
WHERE IS SHARING HAPPENING? ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.5.1
Internet .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
3.5.2
Local initiatives .................................................................................................................................................. 22
3.5.3
Snapshot cases .................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.6
HOW IS SHARING PERCEIVED? A CRITICAL NOTE ............................................................................................ 24
4
CASE STUDIES................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
SAN FRANCISCO ...................................................................................................................................................... 26
BERLIN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29
SEOUL ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32
CASE STUDIES: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 34
5
ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 36
5.1
ANALYSIS BASED ON LITERATURE REVIEW & CASE STUDIES ....................................................................... 36
5.1.1
Why do Sharing Cities emerge? ........................................................................................................................... 36
5.1.2
Driving Forces .................................................................................................................................................... 37
5.1.3
Obstacles ............................................................................................................................................................ 38
5.1.4
Potentials ........................................................................................................................................................... 38
5.2
ANALYSIS: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 40
6
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 41
V
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
RESEARCH AIMS & QUESTIONS LEGITIMACY ................................................................................................... 41
APPROPRIATENESS AND VALIDITY OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES.......................................................... 41
GENERALIZABILITY OF THE FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 42
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 43
7
CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................................... 45
7.1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ADDRESSED .................................................................................................................. 45
7.2
CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD & FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 46
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................... 47
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. 59
APPENDIX B............................................................................................................................................. 60
APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................................. 64
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Criteria for Case Studies .....................................................................................................6
Figure 3-1. Snapshot Cases Map ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-2. Imagining the Future of Sharing (excerpt) by Susie Cagle (2014) ............................. 25
Figure 4-1. Case Studies Map .............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 5-1. The Sharing City Analysis Wheel ................................................................................... 36
Figure 5-2. Participation in the Collaborative Economy: Recent and Projected (Crowd
Companies & Vision Critical, 2014).......................................................................................... 39
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Criteria & Cases .....................................................................................................................8
Table 3-1. Collaborative Economy Honeycomb Framework adapted from Owyang
(2014)… ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3-2. Shared goods typology adapted from Lamberton and Rose (2012) ........................... 18
Table 3-3. The Sharing Spectrum as proposed in Friends of the Earth Briefing on
Sharing Cities (Agyeman et al., 2013)........................................................................................ 21
VI
The Rise of the Sharing City
Abbreviations
B2B – Business-to-Business
B2C – Business-to-Consumer
C2B – Consumer-to-Business
CC – Collaborative Consumption
CCK – Creative Commons Korea
CL – Collaborative Lifestyles
EC – European Commission
EU – European Union
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
ICT – Information and Communication Technology
NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation
P2P – Peer-to-Peer
PPP – Public-Private Partnership
PSS – Product-Service System
RMs – Redistribution Markets
SC – Sharing City
SCF – Seoul City Farmers
SCP – Sustainable Consumption and Production
SE – Sharing Economy
SME – Small and Medium Enterprises
WG – Wohngemeinschaft
VTL – Vancouver Tool Library
VII
The Rise of the Sharing City
1 Introduction
“Now is the age of sharing.”
Creative Commons Korea, 2014
1.1 Background and Problem Definition
Two hundred years ago only three percent of the world’s entire population lived in cities.
Today, more than half of all people call cities their home, with the number of urban residents
growing by almost 60 million a year. If this trend, which is driven by rapid industrialisation,
rural-urban migration, and globalisation, continues at its current pace, by 2050 over 70 percent
of people will live in cities (United Nations, 2012; WHO, n.d.).
Because of their scale and complexity, the problems of managing cities and urban regions will
be increasingly severe (Carley, Jenkins, & Smith, 2001). Today, major urban areas in developed
regions are economic giants: Just the top 1001 cities ranked by their contribution to global
GDP growth in the next fifteen years are expected to contribute around 35 percent of GDP
growth to 2025. Over the same period of time, the top 600 will generate 60 percent of global
GDP growth (Dobbs et al., 2011). This very fact of higher levels of economic activity means
that people tend to consume more resources per capita and to produce more waste than their
counterparts in rural areas (Carley et al., 2001).
Growing urbanisation paired with western lifestyles, which represent the least sustainable ones
in the world, is a recipe for environmental disaster2. For decades, keeping up with the Joneses
- a social pressure not to be worse off than the others – was the norm for most families. As
the Joneses’ lifestyle choices went beyond what is needed for a comfortable life, others too
started to acquire things that are not really necessary (c.f. Skidelsky & Skidelsky, 2012). Homes
became a stage for displaying material possessions and status symbols.
Just one example of the unused economic potential – the idling capacity of home appliances,
such as drills is enormous. In American homes alone there are approximately 50 million drills
being rarely used (Botsman & Rogers, 2010b). The amount of rarely used equipment and
infrastructure that surrounds us in our everyday life is astonishing: 29 million personally
owned vehicles are used on average one hour per day; roads that are used primarily in peak
times; extra belongings that are packed into storage units (ibid.). In the UK and the USA the
items that people own and are used less than once a month amount to 80 percent of all items
owned (ibid.).
For over fifty years hyper-consumerism was at centre stage and seen as the endpoint of
development models (Rostow, 1990). Ironically, keeping up with the Joneses might today aid
1
The top 100 cities as well as the top 600 cities were compiled by the McKinsey Global Institute in 2011. The full list is
available from McKinsey Global Institute (Dobbs et al., 2011).
2
Some examples of major problems in four sectors identified as crucial later in this thesis could be: for the food sector – e.g.
food systems are industrialised and disjoined, and can be vulnerable to contamination and climate change; for the
transportation sector – e.g. car-based transportation systems are inefficient, and polluting (CO2, NOx, and Ozone); for the
housing sector – e.g. the urban sprawl has been condemned as unsustainable and inefficient; for jobs – e.g. unemployment
and income inequality and their implications etc. (c.f. Agyeman et al., 2013; Dubois et al., 2014; European Environmental
Agency, 2006). – The author would like to thank Mallory Anderson for inspiring this note.
1
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
another trend, that of sharing instead of buying (Botsman & Rogers, 2010b). Collaborative
Consumption (CC) and Sharing Economy (SE), terms often used interchangeably, have
developed over time and came to a greater salience within the past years.3
CC and SE are relevant for cities for a number of reasons. Socially, evidence suggests that the
experience of sharing builds trust and community cohesion. Economically, it holds a potential
to utilise valuable resources more efficiently and more sustainably, a constant challenge for
many cities. It should be no surprise that many of the recent Sharing Economy models took
off between 2008 and 2012 – in the aftermath of the worst economic recession in the OECD
countries since the Great Depression (Blundell-Wignall, Atkinson, & Lee, 2008).
The Sharing City (SC) is a concept that recently started to emerge and combines the benefits
of SE and CC with urban development and community building. The SC is a liveable city – a
place where citizens can share infrastructure, utilise idle (public) resources, gain more access to
data, establish and participate in sharing enterprises, advance community interaction, and
more. The goal of the SC is to create jobs and increase (relative) incomes, address
environmental issues, reduce unnecessary consumption and waste, to recover trust-based
relationships between people and between people and institutions, and to address urban
problems in innovative ways (Chesky, n.d.; Johnson, 2013; Stone, 2013).
1.2 Aim of the Study
This study seeks to gain a better understanding of the newly emerged concept of the Sharing
City.
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate why Sharing Cities emerge, to identify the
driving forces behind the concept, to recognise obstacles to its dissemination, and to
investigate its potential.
The secondary aim is to present case studies from across the globe, and offer an insight
into the (partial) implementation of the Sharing City concept.
1.2.1 Research Questions
Considering the primary and secondary aims of the study, two research questions will be
examined in this paper:
I.
a) Why do the Sharing Cities emerge, and b) what are the driving forces behind their
emergence?
II.
a) What are the obstacles to the (successful) implementation and dissemination of the Sharing
City concept on a wider scale, and b) what is its potential?
In order to answer the above questions, a comprehensive literature review was conducted, and
the case study approach applied alongside qualitative semi-structured interviews. Details of
methodology used in this thesis will be outlined in Chapter 3.
1.3 Limitation and Scope
Several limiting factors arose during the preparation and research process for this paper.
3
2
While it can be argued that the Sharing Economy focuses on the micro level, and Collaborative Consumption emphasises
the role of the individual consumer, in this thesis both terms will be used interchangeably.
The Rise of the Sharing City
The novelty of the Sharing City concept was a significant limitation. Although the concepts of
Sharing Economy, Collaborative Consumption and sustainable urban development are
relatively well-researched, new forms of integrating them into the city landscape are constantly
emerging. The author acknowledges that due to the extremely dynamic and rapid evolution of
this field, the case examples presented in the study may have changed, and new potentially
better suited cases, which did not exist at the time of writing, could be emerging.
Difficulties in finding availability and scheduling of interviews proved to be a challenge,
especially given the time-zone differences between Europe, North America, and Asia. The
number of primary data sources was hence limited.
The language barrier of case studies presented a minor problem both for the primary and
secondary data collection. The interviews were conduced in English, which was discouraging
for some potential interviewees. Much of the literature related to the Seoul case study was
inaccessible due to being published in Korean. The Berlin case study was also affected by the
language barrier but to a lesser extent.
The scope of the study was relatively wide, focusing on the SC concept in general and with
case studies from around the world. Such a wide geographic scope was chosen in order to
better depict applicability of the concept as well as diversity of initiatives that can be
undertaken in particular contexts across the globe.
As there is no established definition of SC, this paper uses quite a wide range and includes a
variety of aspects as part of SC. Nevertheless, for the purpose of gaining a structured overview
of SC, when presenting the case studies, four segments – most commonly present in SC –
were established: Transportation, Food, Housing, and Jobs.
1.4 Audience
This thesis is principally intended for academic review and was completed in partial fulfilment
of the requirements of the Master of Science programme in Environmental Management and
Policy at the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund
University.
Secondly, it has been guided by and shaped to contribute to the research conducted by the
Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP).
Further, interested stakeholders could benefit from the information and concepts discussed in
this thesis, along with other actors involved in or considering engaging with SC ideas.
Policymakers and regulators (local/municipal, regional, national) not least related to the case
studies (San Francisco, Berlin, and Seoul) may gain a clearer picture of what a SC is or could
be, and how can it be used to aid sustainable urban development in their cities.
Finally, people living in cities can get a better understanding of what options beyond
traditional economic growth focused models are available to them in an urban setting.
1.5 Disposition
In Chapter Two the methodological approaches used in this thesis are outlined and explained.
Chapter Three offers a literature analysis, and gives a general overview of the SC concept: a
background to its emergence, basic principles and working definition are outlined. The
3
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
chapter also presents three snapshot-cases of cities, all of which are aimed at exhibiting the
variety of different projects possible in diverse contexts.
In Chapter Four three case studies are presented: San Francisco, Berlin, and Seoul. It
summaries the findings from primary and secondary data collection related to the cases.
Chapter Five analyses the findings from the previous chapter in comparison to the literature
review. It identifies reasons for the emergence of the Sharing City, driving forces behind it,
obstacles to its implementation and dissemination, and the potential it offers.
In Chapter Six a broader discussion is undertaken. In this chapter the author takes a step back
from the findings, discusses the design of the research, choices of methodology and analysis,
and generalizability of the findings before embarking on an overall discussion.
Finally, answers to the research questions and concluding remarks are presented in Chapter
Seven. Recommendations for further research are also highlighted in this chapter.
4
The Rise of the Sharing City
2 Methodology
2.1 General Overview
Given the novelty of the research area this thesis adopted an exploratory methodology with a
qualitative case study approach.
The research methodology entailed triangulation approach, which encompasses different
methods for data collection and analysis (Denzin, 1978). Therefore, the research process was
undertaken in the following steps:
Firstly, consolidation of existing knowledge, research, literature, and policy recommendations
through secondary (desk) research and literature analysis was conducted. The latter was aimed
at identify overarching themes and ideas, and to develop a working definition of SC. The
Kipling Method, described below, was used to organise the findings in a coherent manner. In
order to complement literature findings, the author participated in the International
CleanTech Network (ICN) Summit 2014: Creating Smarter Solutions in Copenhagen,
Denmark.
The second step of the research involved identifying case studies, and choosing interviewees
from selected cities: San Francisco, Berlin, and Seoul. The cities were chosen according to
criteria designed by the researcher, and presented in Figure 3-1. Robert K. Yin’s works served
as a guidance for the case study design (2003, 2014).
The sampling of the interviewees was determined based on their expertise in SC field. Next,
in-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with five individuals (see Appendix A). A
standardised peer-reviewed questionnaire was used, but room for more open discussion was
also available. Interviews were carried out with one or two persons at a time, and based on
interviewee availability two means of communications were used: four interviews were
conducted via telephone/Skype, and one via email. If required, the interview questionnaires
(see Appendix B for the interview guide) were sent to the interview partner in advance or after
the interview for clarification. The research was also discussed with a number of individuals,
who contributed to the final outcome (see Appendix B). Every participant was offered
anonymisation of his/her contribution, however only one chose this option (European
Commission Official).
Thirdly, a consolidation of the results from the first two steps was conducted in the analysis
presented in Chapter Five. It evaluates the reasons for the emergence of the Sharing City,
driving forces underlining it, obstacles to its implementation and dissemination, and its
potential.
2.2 Literature Review Method
For the literature review the Kipling Method (named after Rudyard Kipling) also known as
5W+1H questions was chosen as a tool for organising the data, and presenting it in a coherent
fashion. The 5W+1H questions are what, where, when, who, why and how (Kipling, 1902).
They are useful in collecting information or grasp the situation and correctly define it (Reid &
Smyth-Renshaw, 2012; Srivastava, 2013). This approach probes the fundamental aspects of
the issue at hand by asking those general questions (Lewis & Elaver, 2014).
In this study the questions were adjusted and formulated specifically to aid the literature
review.
5
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Chapter Three sections are divided following the logic of the Kipling Method:
Section 3.1 gives a background to sharing and will answer the question when did
sharing become part of urban landscape.
Section 3.2 focuses on why sharing happens in cities, what are the reasons for it, and
what sharing opportunities exist.
Section 3.3 explores the question of what is there to be shared in a city.
Section 3.4 describes who shares in a city.
Section 3.5 focuses on where sharing happens within a city
Section 3.6 highlights the critique of SC as it stands at the moment, and hence asks the
question how has SC been perceived until now.
2.3 Case Studies Methodology
The Case Studies presented in the Chapter Four were chosen based on criteria presented in
Figure 2-1. It was decided that with space in this paper allowing no more than three cases,
which should nevertheless reflect a global overview, there should be no more than one case
Figure 2-1. Criteria for Case Studies
6
The Rise of the Sharing City
per continent. Furthermore, in order to account for the impact of city size, three different
population size brackets were established. It is assumed that city size and city location can be
assessed separately, i.e. that the size of the city has the same or similar effect on the prevalence
of sharing initiatives independent of the city’s location in terms of geographical location. This
assumption is based on observations of other size dependent city features such as per capita
productivity and market diversity due to, amongst others, increasing economies of scale
(Glaeser, 2011).
Finally, since the Sharing City label can hardly be assigned on the basis of single-sectoral
initiatives alone, a further requirement for inclusion was the presence of initiatives in at least
four sectors. Globally, priority sectors for cities are transportation, food, housing, and jobs
(Shareable & SELC’s Policies for Shareable Cities, 2013). Their potential and background is
thus elaborated upon below, also as a background for the cases studies later in this paper.
With regard to the transportation sector, privately owned vehicles in the US sit idle for more
than 90% of the time (Hampshire & Gaites, 2011). Consequently there is a great potential for
improvement, which could bring noteworthy economic, time, public health, and
environmental costs savings (ibid.). “In the sharing economy, transportation is about
accessibility, not ownership” (Shareable & SELC’s Policies for Shareable Cities, 2013). Some
cities, for example have introduced cards with which users can access shared cars, bikes and
public transport – such “intermodal integration” is very convenient, and can be economical
too (Bus et Car & Intermodes, 2013). Therefore, with this approach, cities can reduce not only
road congestion and air pollution, but also reduce parking demand, enhance mobility for those
not owning a car, and increase use of alternative modes of transport, simply by facilitating
access to car sharing, ridesharing, and public bike sharing (Shareable & SELC’s Policies for
Shareable Cities, 2013).
Sharing food, both in terms of production as well as consumption is a way of promoting
health, local jobs, and community interaction. At the same time it also reduces environmental
degradation, food insecurity and unequal access associated with industrial agriculture and
disjoined food systems. However, currently legal barriers are still in the way of the transition
to community-based food production (Shareable & SELC’s Policies for Shareable Cities,
2013).
As for the housing sector, studies suggest that flat-share or housing cooperatives provide
many benefits beyond cost sharing (Moore, 2014). They can foster greater social support,
reduce crime, increase civic engagement, lower carbon footprints, enhance resident stability,
and maintenance of premises. Moreover, they can reduce repossessions by offering larger
savings and sharing the financial burden between a number of people. In the US alone,
housing cooperatives in 2013 served 1.5 million households (Shareable & SELC’s Policies for
Shareable Cities, 2013).
The Sharing Economy offers an immense potential for job creation. Cities can support
innovations such as shared workspaces, shared commercial kitchens, community-financed
start-ups, community-owned commercial centres as well as spaces for “pop-up” business, by
simply lowering the cost of starting businesses. Supporting the growth of such cooperatively
owned enterprises may be one of the most important things that a city can do to foster stable,
fair paying, and local job creation (Shareable & SELC’s Policies for Shareable Cities, 2013).
7
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Table 2-1. Criteria & Cases
Criteria
San Francisco
Berlin
Seoul
Location
North America
Europe
Asia
Population size
~ 825,000
~ 3.5 million
~ 9.7 million
Variety of initiatives
Present
Present
Present
Sources: CIA (2014d, 2014e); World Population Statistics (2013)
Table 2-1 shows that all the cases to be presented – San Francisco, Berlin, and Seoul did fulfil
the criteria for selection. More detailed evaluation is presented next following the Kipling
Method. The Method was chosen once again as in this context it is a useful way of organising
data in a coherent manner.
Therefore, for each case the following sections will be presented:
When & Why? The background of sharing in each case
What, Who & Where? Overview of initiatives with special focus on transportation,
food, housing and job & skills sectors
How is sharing perceived? A note on critique
8
The Rise of the Sharing City
3 Literature Analysis
This chapter introduces the reader to the concept of sharing, and in particular to sharing in
cities, with an aim of depicting diversity of sharing in general. As mentioned in Chapter Two
the Kipling Method was chosen as a tool for organising the data.
3.1 When? The Background of Sharing
According to Price (1975) “[sharing is] the most universal form of human economic
behaviour, distinct from and more fundamental than reciprocity (…) Sharing has probably
been the most basic form of economic distribution in hominid societies for several hundred
thousand years” (as cited in Russell Belk, 2010, p. 715). All cultures across the globe share and
have socially accepted codes for sharing (Agyeman, Mclaren, & Schaefer-Borrego, 2013).
On the 20th of June 2012, a first National Sharing Day was organised in the UK. It engaged
over 1 million people and was trending at #2 on Twitter globally by lunchtime. Based on this
success the organisers ThePeopleWhoShare are now organising an annual Global Sharing Day
on the 14th of November in the US, Australia, Chile, and 15 European countries (Opinium
Research & Marke2ing, 2012). During the decades of welfare gains, private ownership of
resources was a widely shared aim. The above shows that today, sharing is gaining
momentum, but it is also gaining different narratives than its historic predecessors. Many
definitions can be found in literature to describe sharing and how its meaning underwent
changes. Some suggest that “sharing is an alternative form of distribution to commodity
exchange and gift giving” (R. Belk, 2007, p. 126) or view “sharing as a sustainable, profitable
alternative to ownership (R. Belk, 2007; Botsman & Rogers, 2010b; Lamberton & Rose, 2012,
p. 3). Others note that sharing is simply “a way to live well on less money or to earn money
with assets” already owned (Dubois, Schor, & Carfanga, 2014, p. 52). Goel claims that
“sharing is the most effective tool for generating more value” (2014, p. 1). While others still
underline that “sharing is practiced as form of oppressing the over-dependency of money in
society” (Gorenflo, 2013a; Korobar, 2013, p. 15). More cynical observers state that “’sharing’
is just a fancy word for ‘rental’” (Fournier, Eckhardt, & Bardhi, 2013, p. 126).
These changes in interpretation of sharing can be attributed to the fact that in the recent years
it became much more than just an act of redistribution of goods, services and experiences. It
also emerged as a business model (Benkler, 2004; Botsman & Rogers, 2010a; Dervojeda et al.,
2013; Hughes, Lang, & Vragov, 2008; Kaplansky, Segal, & Wei, 2014).
This study uses the definition of sharing proposed by Belk (2010) who defines it as the “act
and process of distributing what is ours to others for their use and/or the act and process of
receiving or taking from others for our use” (as cited in Agyeman et al., 2013, p. 4). However,
for the purposes of this research, the definition shall be broadened to include aspects of coproduction and collaborative (or co-)consumption4.
At this point it is also worthwhile to mention two other concepts, which are tightly
intertwined with sharing, namely the Sharing Economy, and the Access Economy.
The Sharing Economy5 is “is a socio-economic ecosystem built around the sharing of human
and physical resources. It includes the shared creation, production, distribution, trade and
4
Collaborative (co-)consumption will be described in more detail in Chapter 3.3, pp. 16-17.
5
According to Koch (2014) the Sharing Economy in the UK alone is already worth 1.3% of the country’s GDP.
9
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
consumption of goods and services by different people and organisations”6 (Benita Matofska,
n.d.).
The Access Economy “seeks to minimise the demand for materials”, and it “is focused on
designing systems that facilitate more efficient, cost effective, and in many cases, community
enhancing ways of enabling people to meet their needs by tapping what is already available
and levering idle resources” (Ede, 2014).
Regarding sharing in the urban setting more specifically, it has always been essential to cities’
existence, and it has always been part of urban landscape albeit to different degrees and in
different contexts. Cities have continually been places where space was shared, interactions
and the exchange of goods and services through marketplaces and money lending took place.
But cities are not simply venues for sharing, they are also shared entities themselves; the
product of shared creation and co-production (Agyeman et al., 2013).
In the beginning of the 21st century new models of collective consumption and co-production
that are both less commercial and more deliberately collective are emerging across the globe.
Today, sharing in cities is gaining importance and is prodded as an ever more attractive
opportunity to not only redistribute goods, services or experiences, but also a way to reduce
the negative impacts of ever growing urbanisation in our world dominated by materialism
(Agyeman et al., 2013).
While there is no commonly accepted definition of the newly emerged Sharing City concept,
Neal Gorenflo, the co-founder of Shareable 7 defines it as “a city where the commons
dominates. There are three main ways to manage resources, through government, markets and
the commons. The commons is the space where citizens self-provision with minimal reliance
on market or government. There is no central intermediary between peers thus it’s a resource
management regime that is more democratic, resilient, and resistant to corruption” (personal
communication, 2014).
3.2 Why the Sharing City?
Urbanisation, information and communication technology, the desire for more social
connection and collaboration, the economic crisis and other factors have all played a role in
the shift towards sharing economies. The following section of this chapter explores the
reasons for the emergence or revival of sharing in cities, and will elaborate on those factors in
more detail.
3.2.1 Urbanisation
In the Age of Urbanisation, the rapid raise in the number of people living in cities is a cause
for concern as the receiving municipalities are all but unprepared for an influx of masses of
people adding to their populations in terms of e.g. infrastructure and public services (Haapio,
2012; Kunst, 2013). By 2050 two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities, a fact that
already poses unique challenges. This process will overwhelmingly take place in the developing
world as 90% of future urban growth is predicted to take place in Asia and Africa (Anderson
& Galatsidas, 2014).
6
For more information on the Sharing Economy refer to e.g. Matofska (n.d.); Dervojeda et al. (2013); World Economic
Forum (2013).
7
Shareable is an award winning not-for-profit “news, action and connection hub for the sharing transformation” (Shareable,
n.d.-a)
10
The Rise of the Sharing City
In Europe on the other hand, around 75% of the population is already living in urban areas,
and the prediction is that this number will increase to 80% by 2020 (European Environmental
Agency, 2006). The European Union in its General Union Environment Action Programme
to 2020 notes the significance of raising awareness of the importance of the natural
environment in urban areas as well as the importance of achieving long-term sustainable
development (European Union, 2014).
Highlighting the salience of urban development, John Wilmoth, director of the UN's
population division has recently stated that "Managing urban areas has become one of the
most important development challenges of the 21st century," and that "Our success or failure
in building sustainable cities will be a major factor in the success of the post-2015 UN
development agenda" (as cited in Anderson & Galatsidas, 2014).
But given their density of population cities can be remarkably efficient8. After all, it is easier to
provide water and sanitation to people living in closer proximity. Access to health, education
as well as other social and cultural services is also much more convenient in cities.
Nevertheless, as cities grow, meeting basic needs of its residents is a problematic task. It
causes a strain on the environment and natural resources. Poverty and resource depletion are
another two of the many defining challenges that urbanisation is causing (The World Bank,
2014; World Economic Forum, 2013).
Sharing is one way of trying to address these challenges. It is, in a way, a systemic fix that can
address those challenges simultaneously (Gorenflo, 2013b).
With urbanisation continuing, cities have an enormous opportunity to mitigate its negative
impacts by implementing Sharing Economy principles. Some cities are already seizing this
chance, and lately as many as 15 major cities signed a Shareable Cities Resolution, in which
they promise to advance the Sharing Economy. Mayor Edwin Lewis of San Francisco and
Mayor Park Won-soon of Seoul have been leading the way with their initiatives already
underway (CO-UP/Share, 2013; Gorenflo, 2013b; Heinberg, 2013; Johnson, 2013; Schifferes,
2013b; Silver, 2013; Stone, 2013).
3.2.2 Information and Communication Technology
The increased availability of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) plays a
crucial role in the contemporary re-emergence of urban sharing. Thanks to this advance in
technologies, especially the growing access to the Internet, real-time applications, and the ease
of their use – via, for example smart phones – sharing can flourish (Gaskins, 2010) (Shareable
and Sustainable Economies Law Center Team, 2013). People of all ages are empowered by
this development, and are able to unlock the idling capacity of various resources such as real
estate, cars and tools. But the potential of sharing goes beyond the more efficient employment
of resources. People also begin to realise that a different relationship to their material
possessions is possible (especially those expensive to maintain or those used seldom etc.): they
start to move away from a must-own mentality to one based on access (World Economic
Forum, 2013).
Sharing mainly happens via internet-based sharing platforms, which often case are free or
relatively inexpensive. Those platforms and social media are what makes sharing accessible,
8
This can, however, be challenged. For example, air-conditioning in buildings can prove in-efficient, and pumping water up a
high story building can be wasteful. Questionable is also whether people actually travel less in metropolises. Therefore, this
pint has to be taken with caution and considered in a context. – The author would like to thank Tilmann Vahle for this
remark.
11
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
but it is also how the word can spread about possibilities to share. Websites such as
Shareable.net showcase many sharing initiatives, which can serve as inspirations for others to
follow. Initiatives are plentiful, and for all interested: car-sharers, bike-sharers, those interested
in shared housing, offices and tools, shared jobs, shared ownership of energy generation,
crowdsourcing, shared space for urban gardening or relaxation, they even engage in sharing
dogs. For those who seek to engage in a specific initiative but cannot find one in their area,
websites such as Sharetribe.com serve as platforms for creating an online marketplace easily,
and without the need of engaging with developers or having to be a coding/design expert
(Childs, n.d.; Gorenflo, 2013a; Makkonen, 2014; “Shareable,” 2014, “Sharetribe,” 2014).
The growth of sharing also reflects a wider development of the global economy from the
production of physical goods to the management of “knowledge”. Companies like Uber and
AirBnB, which challenge taxi fleets and hotels do so without assets like cars or rooms. They
instead coordinate data streams about the location of people, cars and bedrooms. The data
technology, and commercial networks are predicted to grow further, and as Mr. Larry Smarr9
of the University of California, points out the commercial networks “will have to grow, if
we’re going to continue what has become our primary basis of wealth creation” (As cited in
Hardy, 2014).
Another aspect is that of geographical distance. Technologies allow sharing amongst diverse
networks of people, often across broad distances. But Internet and other ICT also allow
accessing these untapped resources within a city and moving them from where they are not
needed; often between people situated in close proximity but not knowing each other. This is
a major advantage of sharing within a city, and also a motivation factor for doing so (cf.
Botsman & Rogers, 2010b; Gaskins, 2010; Kneeshaw, 2014; Shareable and Sustainable
Economies Law Center Team, 2013; The Economist, 2013).
Not to forget is another feature of technology advance: new technologies such as 3D printing
create opportunities for shared manufacturing (Childs, n.d.). While important to mention this
particular aspect, it is not going to be elaborated upon in this paper in much more detail.
Sharing in cities is therefore enabled largely by technology, and it is not a stretch at all to state
that without it sharing would not be happening or at least not on such a scale (Fournier et al.,
2013; Schifferes, 2013a; Silver, 2013).
3.2.3 Social Inclusion & Collaboration
That sharing goes beyond a drive for more efficiency in the use of resources has already been
touched upon above. Other features important for the healthy development of cities are
amongst others, integration of different sectors of society and feeling of security (European
Commission Official, personal communication, 2014). In particular, sharing is seen by many
as a great opportunity to increase trust and collaboration between strangers (cf. Botsman &
Rogers, 2010b; CO-UP/Share, 2013; Gaskins, 2010; Schifferes, 2013a; Silver, 2013). It is also
enhancing social contacts, not least with one’s neighbours or within a community, albeit using
the internet (Volker & Flap, 2007).
Sharing Economy models can thrive where there is a positive attitude towards sharing and
collaboration (World Economic Forum, 2013). Still, technology and social media are enablers
of this new way of collaboration in an otherwise highly individualised and relatively
fragmented modern Western society (Opinium Research & Marke2ing, 2012). Some argue that
9
Mr. Smarr is the Director of the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology, at the University
of California, San Diego.
12
The Rise of the Sharing City
sharing disturbs the individualistic and materialistic vision of capitalism (Agyeman et al., 2013;
Friends of the Earth, 2013). Sharing between urban residents is considered to be worthy
because it furthers endogenous potentials, local growth, and social integration.
A Sharing Economy study suggests that sharing is a means to build (or re-build) community
(Gaskins, 2010). According to Seoul’s Social Innovation Division Director, Mr. Kim Tae
Kyoon, Sharing City could help citizens to regain some of the community that rapid
urbanisation and industrialisation caused to diminish or disappear altogether (Johnson, 2013).
It can contribute to an increase in interpersonal exchanges and help to restore broken
relations since it promotes a reciprocal economy (CO-UP/Share, 2013).
According to Professor Agyeman (2014), Sharing Cities prioritise social justice. Agyeman
stresses that it can naturally shift cultural values and norms towards trust and collaboration,
when it is done with equity and justice. He then underlines Benkler’s argument that “Both
analytic models and empirical evidence support the proposition that as kind, sharing, and
reciprocal behavior increases in society, so does the tendency to trust others, reciprocate, and
behave pro-socially” (2004, p. 341). This effectively means that by practicing sharing people
learn to appreciate it more, and to trust other participants (ibid.).
For someone with a mind-set recognising the limits to economic growth, who understands the
limitations that the world faces today and who is open to innovation and prioritises resource
efficiency, the Sharing City is an answer to our society’s problems worth supporting. Matofska
(2013) goes as far as to say that as a society we have survived through sharing. Such an attitude
further promotes the concept. Moreover, the sharing approach can be manifested in almost
every sector of society and in every corner of the globe, with examples in Seoul, Medellín and
Berlin, to name a few (World Economic Forum, 2013).
3.2.4 Economic Crisis & Economic Considerations
The business landscape is changing according to the Worldwatch Institute (Niculae, Glyki, &
Campbell, 2013). Corporations today are facing new and growing challenges in conducting
their business-as-usual. The collapse of financial systems and the 2008 global financial crisis, a
complex economic event whose impacts are still being tallied, triggered many changes. The
crisis has not only been indicating the end of the industrial-era model of making business, but
also implied the need for a systemic transformation: one, which will allow both society and the
business world to meet new 21st century global challenges such as population growth and
resource scarcity (Brenner, Marcuse, & Mayer, 2009; Niculae et al., 2013).
In the aftermath of the crisis, certain terms such as Sharing Economy begun to become more
popular (Macaulay, 2012; Zervas, Proserpio, & Byers, 2014). How has this crisis provoked
alternative visions of urban life that point beyond capitalism, which was used as a structuring
principle of political-economic and spatial organisation (Brenner et al., 2009)? The crisis
effectively caused a rethink of materialism and sharing became a post-crisis antidote to
overconsumption (Andersson, Hjalmarsson, & Avital, 2013; Kaplansky et al., 2014). All in all,
the crisis and its consequences gave a way to sharing as it started to spread rapidly (cf. Brenner
et al., 2009; Cohen, 2013; European Union, 2014; Kaplansky et al., 2014; Korobar, 2013;
Mayer, 2009; Niculae et al., 2013; Sørensen & Torfing, 2010).
The financial crisis and the economic recession that followed forced many households to
rethink their consumption pattern as well as how to better utilise their existing physical assets
13
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
(Olson & Connor, 2013). For some, it resulted in simply abstaining from new purchases10, for
others new options such as carsharing begun to become a very agreeable alternative (ibid). For
many the lack of access to funds via traditional sources, such as banks, led to the wider
acceptance of peer-to-peer (P2P) markets for money lending (Opinium Research &
Marke2ing, 2012). These rationales follow the predictions of sharing theory which posits as
one reason for individuals to collectively assume the cost of an item or resource that they
could not afford it otherwise (Volker & Flap, 2007). But there are other reasons too.
The economic recession following the crisis put strains not only on private but also on public
finances and thus available resources. Sharing offers itself as a way of keeping economies local,
and making them more resilient to global change (Childs, n.d.). In “Policies for Shareable
Cities”, Shareable states that “fostering the growth of the sharing economy is the single most
important thing that city governments can do to boost prosperity and resilience in terms of
economic crisis and climate change” (2013, p. 6). Hence, the Sharing City is not only the
economic crisis remedy for private people or businesses, but it is so for the public as a whole,
too (Sørensen & Torfing, 2010). Ideally though, as the Worldwatch Institute points out, the
way forward is that all parts of society should work towards a common future together
(Niculae et al., 2013, p. 8).
3.2.5 Other Factors
Consumption
The role of formal and informal forces shaping consumption and their implications on the
societies also has to be acknowledged. Such forces can be policies designed to accelerate
resource extraction and consumption, or urban planning and construction policies, which are
designed to facilitate consumption growth (Mont & Power, 2010). Others can include
marketing and advertising, which strongly influence shopping patterns, and stimulate or
pressure customers to purchase more goods, which more and more tend to be designed to
have ever-shorter life cycles (ibid.). Consumers encouraged by such advertising and marketing
discard still functioning products (30% of all discarded appliances are still functional) and
replace them with new ones (ibid.). These days, an average consumer spends 38 minutes
shopping for consumer goods per day (Mont & Power, 2009). On a macro level, this results in
unsustainable consumption levels. One of the consequences of this excessive consumerism
culture are that with limited space not least for disposal in cities, municipalities struggle to
cope with waste (City of London, 2014; Fell, 2012). Therefore, the global and local adverse
consequences of (over-)consumption and its particularly severe and immediate implications on
urban areas are most definitely an important reason for cities to engage in sharing.
The Environment
Sharing promises a positive impact on the environment as well as further benefits to urban
areas. However, these have yet to be recognised by cities and its inhabitants as important
drivers for its implementation as economic gains dominate its positive perception (N. Kwon
& D. Jung, personal communication, 2014). Resource efficiency and potential energy savings
are just some of the environmental benefits common to many sharing initiatives (Agyeman et
al., 2013). With products and services shared among a group or a community, less energy is
needed for transportation and production, and less waste is created in the satisfaction of each
consumer’s needs (Russell Belk, 2010). From the more efficient utilisation of urban land by
10
According to Olson & Connor’s study, during the worst of the recession, US car sales fell to their lowest since 1951 (2013,
p. 6).
14
The Rise of the Sharing City
community gardens11 to the reduction of CO2 emissions by using shared transportation to the
sharing of knowledge and increasing awareness, the many already available sharing initiatives
offer diverse means to deal with environmental issues (Agyeman et al., 2013; The World Bank,
2013).
Urban Mining
Building on sharing environmental resources, it is vital to highlight a new approach toward
recycling: Urban Mining. It can be defined as “[t]he process of reclaiming compounds and
elements from products, buildings and waste” (Urban Mining, n.d.), and can also be seen as a
method of sharing and a reason for sharing (c.f. Brunner, 2011; Butterworth, 2012). As cities
are always in the need of resources, urban mining can be attractive, particularly in megacities
as it can produce sufficient amounts of secondary resources for large-scale production of raw
materials. Urban Mining can improve the sustainability of cities by “combining recycling
plants for metals such as iron, aluminium, and copper in cities with utilization of waste energy
from such plant to fuel the city (heating, cooling, electricity)” (Brunner, 2011, p. 339).
3.3 What is being shared?
Earlier in the text a working definition of sharing was established and incorporated in it the
processes of co-production, and co-consumption and of receiving or taking from others four
our own use.
But what is actually being shared in the Sharing City? Many approaches have been taken in
order to depict the diversity of sharing (cf. Agyeman et al., 2013; Botsman & Rogers, 2010b;
Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Owyang, 2014). The subsequent section outlines conceptual
approaches to sharing, especially in cities, and expands on examples of resources that fall
within the scope of urban sharing.
Collaborative Economy Honeycomb Framework
In his Collaborative Economy Honeycomb Framework Jeremiah Owyang (2014) depicts a
variety of collaborative economy options, which are in essence a selection sharing possibilities.
He organises them in six main families, and breaks them down further into 14 sub-classes, and
finally presents example companies involved in each one. The whole Honeycomb Framework
can be found in Appendix C, and the simplified framework is presented in Table 3-1 below.
According to Owyang (2014) such an approach depicts how collaborative economy enables
people to efficiently access, share and grow resources among a common group. Allegorically
speaking, the honeycomb structure itself is designed to support the whole by distributing the
load and wasting little (e.g. resources), as well as replicating at scale easily (ibid.).
11
Given the conveyed novelty of sharing in cities, it may be seen as ironic that neoclassical economics’ classic case deals with
the inefficient utilisation of land when organised in a cooperative – sharing – manner as opposed to one based on assigned
property rights. In that sense, the advantages of sharing over other forms of consumption should be seen with some
critical distance given the fact that the new ways of sharing are often limited to exactly assigning property of given
resources and thereby utilising them more efficiently according to neoclassical economic principles. – The author would
like to thank Fabian Stroetges for this observation.
15
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Table 3-1. Collaborative Economy Honeycomb Framework adapted from Owyang (2014)
Family
Goods
Sub-class
Examples
Loaner Products
Pley or RocksBox
Pre-Owned Goods
eBay or Kijiji
Bespoke Goods
Etsy or Quirky
Shared Food
LeftoverSwap or Meal Sharing
Shared Food Preparation
Blue Apron or KitchIt
Personal Services
TaskRabbit or Shyp
Professional Services
crowdSpring or BidWilly
Loaner Vehicles
Car2Go or DriveNow
Transportation Services
BlaBlaCar or Uber
Work Space
ShareDesk or Breather
Place to Stay
Couchsurfing or HomeAway
Crowd-funding
OurCrowd or CircleUp
Moneylending
LendingClub or Zopa
Crypto Currencies
BitCoin or LiteCoin
Food
Services
Transportation
Space
Money
Collaborative Consumption Systems
Another way of classifying Collaborative Consumption, which comprises different mechanism
is that proposed by Botsman and Rogers (2010b). CC is “[a]n economic model based on
sharing, swapping, trading, or renting products and services, enabling access over ownership.
It is reinventing not just what we consume but how we consume” (Botsman, 2014).
They further divide it into three distinct systems:
Product Service Systems (PSS) – “[i]n a PSS, a service enables multiple products
owned by a company to be shared (car sharing, solar power, laundrettes), or products
that are privately owned to be shared or rented peer-to-peer (Zilok, TheHireHub,
Erento). PSSs can also extend the life of a product (repair services offered by Steelcase, or Interface Carpets, for example” (Botsman & Rogers, 2010b, p. 72). In other
words, “[i]n PSS, consumers pay not to buy material goods, but to use them” (Mont &
Power, 2009, p. 53);
16
The Rise of the Sharing City
Redistribution Markets (RMs) – a RM “encourages reusing and reselling old items
rather than throwing them out, and also significantly reduces waste and resources that
go along with new production” (Botsman & Rogers, 2010b, pp. 72–73). In short, it
deals with the redistribution of unwanted or underused goods (Botsman, 2014).
Sometimes, a RM can be based on free exchanges (e.g. Freecycle & Kashless); or
goods can be sold for points (e.g. Barterquest & UISwap) or for cash (e.g. eBay,
Flippid); the markets can also be a mixture of the above (e.g. Gumtree & craigs-list);
goods can be swapped for similar goods (e.g. BigWardrobe & SwapStyle) or for similar
value (e.g. Swap & SwapCycle); they can be conducted between strangers as well as
exclusively between people who know each other (e.g. NeighborGoods & Share Some
Sugar) (Botsman & Rogers, 2010b, p. 72);
Collaborative Lifestyles (CL) – CL happen when “people with similar interests are
banding together to share and exchange less tangible assets such as time, space, skills
and money” (Botsman & Rogers, 2010b, p. 73). They can be arranged on a local level
(e.g. for working spaces – The Cube London; gardens – Edinburgh Garden Share; or
food – Neighborhood Fruit; etc.) or on a wider, worldwide level (e.g. for P2P social
lending – Zopa; or travel – AirBnB (ibid).
The Sharing Spectrum
In order to better picture the above, and incorporate other aspects of sharing Agyeman,
Mclaren & Schaefer-Borrego (2013) designed the Sharing Spectrum (see also Table 3-3) in
their Briefing on Sharing Cities.
The Sharing Spectrum divides sharing options from the most tangible to the most intangible
assets. It further divides them into five categories:
Material (most tangible) – incorporating concepts such as recovery and recycling of
e.g. glass and paper;
Product – focused on Redistribution Markets, for instance flea markets or charity
shops;
Service – which is in essence a Product Service System, like Zipcar or Netflix;
Wellbeing – could be described within the concept of Collaborative Lifestyles for
example peer to peer travel such as AirBnB; and
Capacity (least tangible) – the concept behind this category is one of Collective
Commons, with examples raging from the Internet to participative politics.
Shared Goods Typology
Lamberton and Rose (2012) developed a typology of sharing presented in Table 3-2 (see
below). It distinguishes goods that are shared by the extent to which they are rivalrous,
meaning that one person’s consumption prevents another from consuming the same good,
and/or exclusive meaning that the use is limited to a particular group (Agyeman et al., 2013).
This simple classification allows distinguishing between the ease of access to products and
services, and can be particularly helpful to categorise markets for commercial sharers. Bike
sharing schemes can serve as an example for quadrant 3 type of sharing. They usually
represent relatively low exclusivity (low cost to participate), but rivalry for access to the shared
bike can be high, meaning that usage by one user is depended on the previous user’s return of
a bike on time and in serviceable condition (Lamberton & Rose, 2012).
17
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Table 3-2. Shared goods typology adapted from Lamberton and Rose (2012)
Lower rivalry
Higher rivalry
Lower exclusivity
Higher exclusivity
QUADRANT 1
QUADRANT 2
Public goods, e.g. public parks, open
source software
Club access, e.g. country clubs, gated
communities
QUADRANT 3
QUADRANT 4
Rental and reuse12, e.g. toolbanks,
Freecycle, car sharing
Closed commercial, e.g. frequent flyer
mile sharing schemes
Four Dimensions of Urban Sharing
Additionally to the above, Agyeman et al. (2013) in their report identify four dimensions of
urban sharing, which as they highlight rely on and help to define the Collective Commons in
the city:
Exchange of goods and services – collective and collaborative activities, such as
banking etc. Even though they grew into mostly commercial sharing, nonetheless new
models of collective consumption and co-production are on the rise since the early 21st
century in cities;
The Public Realm – the physical clustering and interaction, and sharing of ideas etc.
Examples could range from cultural events and movement to political reclaiming of
public space as a symbolic means to revolt against unjust power dynamics, such as
those in Tahrir Square of Cairo in 2011 and 2013, and in Gezi Park in Istanbul also in
2013 (c.f. Kuymulu, 2013; Purcell, 2013);
Infrastructure – sharing of the public as well as private infrastructure in a city, such as
childcare, healthcare and various types of cooperatives, raging from retailer
cooperatives (sharing manufacturer discounts) to consumer cooperatives (sharing retail
and financial services) etc.13;
Environmental Resources – resources such as water and air are inevitably shared
everywhere, but in cities sharing process is more intensive than elsewhere. Some
examples of sharing environmental resources are: high rise developments that can be
seen the most effective form of land-sharing, multi-purpose streets and public spaces,
materials used in all sorts of products ranging from buildings to newspapers can also
be shared through recovery and recycling etc. (Agyeman et al., 2013).
In summary, almost any resource of the modern urban economy falls within the scope of the
above sharing concepts, and therefore almost anything can be shared in the Sharing City.
Sharing is relevant to a wide range of actors (as it will be outlined in the next section), and the
above categorisations can help to inform them of their options. Individuals, businesses or
public administrations can identify and engage in all of those sharing options, or could include
only some of them in their activities depending on their objectives and their degree of
creativity.
12
Lamberton and Rose (2012) call these ‘open commercial goods’, but as Agyeman (2013) points out, this category
encompasses much not-for-profit sharing.
13
See for example the case of Medellín (Chapter 2.5.3).
18
The Rise of the Sharing City
3.4 Who is sharing?
As has been alluded to above, the traditional ownership-based model of the economy is
undergoing changes. In a conventional situation, consumers would purchase products and
become the owners in order to use them. As the transition from ownership towards
accessibility is taking place, the manner and agents of commerce are also changing (Dervojeda
et al., 2013).
Peer-to-Peer
Recently, a lot has been written about peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions (c.f. Andersson et al.,
2013; Botsman & Rogers, 2010b; Hampshire & Gaites, 2011). P2P can be considered the
most common model of sharing in collaborative economy. The original P2P marketplace
model first introduced in the 1990s by eBay, Craiglist and Napster allows individuals to share,
sell or give away their goods to another individual directly (Olson & Connor, 2013). It does
not have to involve any middleman other than the website used for the transaction. P2P
economic activity shifts value away from that middleman, and enables consumers as well as
producers to make alternative lifestyles possible (Dubois et al., 2014). To quote Crowd
Companied and Vision Critical (2014): “In this world, the people formerly called “consumers”
are also funders, producers, sellers and distributors. Their stories matter to big brands, because
this movement means that people can get what they need from each other – rather than
buying from [companies]” (As cited in Growth Strategies, 2014, p. 2).
Today, a re-imagination of this original approach is occurring, as a shift in consumer
preferences toward the “asset-light” rental model (as opposed to asset-heavy ownership) is
evident in the growing popularity of services such as Uber, AirBnB and TaskRabbit (Olson &
Connor, 2013).
Business-to-Consumer
Another approach to conducting commerce is a Business-to-Consumer (B2C) model. B2C is
where companies make their products or services available to members of that service
(Shareable & SELC’s Policies for Shareable Cities, 2013). A good example of such service can
be one of car sharing companies that make their fleet of vehicles available to the members of
such service as with for example Car2Go (Steinberg & Vlasic, 2013). While run by commercial
companies (in the case of Car2Go the mother company is Daimler), B2C can make significant
contributions to the efficient use of resources by e.g. taking cars off the streets or allowing
those who do not normally own a car quick access to one (ibid.)
Business-to-Business
The Business-to-Business (B2B)14 model allows one company to provide services to another.
In this setting, the provision of a service happens usually online, and enables companies to
share, for example their inventory. The established example for a company following the B2B
model is Xerox, which has reinvented itself from a company manufacturing and selling
photographic paper and equipment to one that provides the service by lending and servicing
the equipment (Kearns & Nadler, 1995). Even numerous B2B models are already in use for
considerable time, this setting of Collaborative Consumption offers good growth
opportunities, and is currently on the rise (World Economic Forum, 2013).
14
In this context B2B is meant by sharing services such as photocopying etc., and not providing materials or components in a
typical supply chain transactions, such as windscreens for cars, which are needed to manufacture a final product.
19
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Consumer-to-Business
Possibly the most counterintuitive, the Consumer-to-Business (C2B) model is yet another
based on various types of trading partners (Phan, 2003). In C2B approach a consumer makes a
product or service and shares it (for free or for a charge) to a business (Janssen, n.d.). Such
transactions can be seen primarily on blogs or Internet forums, where for instance a
consumer/author offers a link to an online business (e.g. eBay, AirBnB or Uber) thereby
facilitating a purchase or a share opportunity by another consumer/user. This type of business
model offers a valuable opening to access ever more potential customers/users as the Internet
links large groups of people that might be otherwise more difficult to connect to.
Public Administration
Another actor in the sharing city, and one that can relate to all previous ones is the public
administration. It typically interacts with citizens, businesses and other administrations, and
can be a very valuable and influential player in the Sharing Economy (Macaulay, 2012). It
provides the infrastructure via which sharing can happen, and can have a immense impact on
the way all other actors can participate in sharing by implementing regulations or by using
communication and information tools, which can increase awareness about sharing options
(Hansen & Power, 2010). It also faces challenges associated with its role, and has to
continuously adapt to new circumstances that arise, such as the increased significance of
sharing initiatives within a city15 (Macaulay, 2012).
Other Ways of Categorisation16
Previously in the text the Sharing Spectrum was mentioned (see Table 3-3 below). In it,
Agyeman et al. (2013) illustrate the usual participants of sharing initiatives. For material goods
recovery and recycling, there are typically many suppliers, and few users, whereas for products
in Redistribution Markets there is a single provider to a single user. A single provider to many
users is a typical setting for sharing services in PSS. In Collaborative Lifestyles where
“wellbeing” is being shared there are typically many single providers to many single users
(P2P), whereas for sharing capabilities collective providers to collective users are the typical
participants.
It is noteworthy acknowledging at this point the differences between the people who
participate in sharing. Different types of sharing enterprises accommodate the needs of
various kinds of people. For some it is imperative that they share within the network of
people they know, or have something in common, e.g. live in the same neighbourhood. Living
in the same area allows them not only to share their resources etc. but also enhance
neighbourly or community values (c.f. Russell Belk, 2010; Sacks, 2011). Other people share
across the spectrum, and are willing to collaborate with anyone as it is for instance with bicycle
sharing or clothing libraries (c.f. Botsman & Rogers, 2010a, 2010b).
15
See for example the case study of San Francisco (Chapter 4), where the city’s administration adjusted regulations to enable a
range of initiatives to function.
16
Only the most fundamental categorisations on sharing participants are presented in this chapter, for more detailed
information on who can participate in sharing see e.g. Belk (2007; 2010, 2014); Botsman & Rogers (2010a, 2010b); Gansky
(2010)
20
The Rise of the Sharing City
Table 3-3. The Sharing Spectrum as proposed in Friends of the Earth Briefing on Sharing Cities (Agyeman
et al., 2013)
What is being shared?
Concept
Examples
Participants (typically)
Material
Recovery and Recycling
Glass and paper banks,
scrapyards
Many suppliers, few users
Product
Redistribution Markets
Flea markets, charity
shops, freecycle
Single provider to single
user
Service
Product Service Systems
Zipcar, Netflix, fashion
and toy rental, libraries
Single provider to many
users
Wellbeing
Collaborative Lifestyles
Errand networks, peer to
peer travel (e.g. AirBnB)
Many single providers to
many single users (P2P)
Collective Commons
The Internet, safe streets,
participative politics
Collective providers to
collective users17
Tangible
Capability
Intangible
Good relations between government, public, private and business spheres in a city are
indispensable when considering the participants of sharing initiatives. In Seoul (see also case
study in Chapter 4.1.3), a city that promotes the concept of the Sharing City vigorously, the
government has acknowledged the importance of cooperating with sharing companies, and
non-profit organisations (NGO) as well as citizens who all constitute sharing partakers
(Johnson, 2013; World Economic Forum, 2013).
In summary, given the right circumstances as well as appropriate infrastructure, and more
recently access to ICT, sharing in a city but also in general can happen between essentially
anyone. Businesses, NGOs, citizens, the public, and governments are all part of sharing, and
the cooperation between them is what makes sharing such an attractive option for cities. On
balance, also in an urban setting “[s]ustainability ultimately is not about individual choices in
the market place, it is about the commons” (Banbury, Stinerock, & Subrahmanyan, 2012, p.
503).
3.5 Where is sharing happening?
What is the most common place for sharing to happen? Cities are far more likely to be places
with initiatives (Botsman & Rogers, 2010b). However, more salient than the question about
the geographic location of sharing is the medium through which it is organised. Therefore,
while not a physical location, it is in the Internet where sharing is happening. Furthermore, in
an urban setting local initiatives as well as organised businesses are gaining in importance (c.f.
Childs, n.d.; Schifferes, 2013b).
3.5.1 Internet
“The Internet is a cornucopia of shared information available to all” (Russell Belk, 2010, p.
715). The Internet is what enables sharing as well as a space where sharing happens or where
transactions can be conducted. A mere search on the Internet and access to nearly infinite
shared resources is possible. When typed into Google, “share Berlin” returns 116,000,000
hints (on the 20th of August 2014), including links to room-share, borrowing shops, coworking opportunities, and car & bike share options to name but a few.
Mont & Power (2009, p. 17) emphasise that “[t]he Internet became a powerful marketing
channel, improved consumer access to information, created a perfect frictionless market with
17
Collective as well as community based (e.g. community street watch or local political/social movements etc.).
21
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
abundant information and close-to-zero transaction costs, which expanded markets in terms
of time and space.” Low transaction costs are one of the reasons why sharing via the Internet
is so prevalent (Andersson et al., 2013). It means that sharing of assets became easier and less
burdensome than previously, and hence more beneficial (c.f. Dervojeda et al., 2013; Eggers &
Goldsmith, 2009). Low transaction costs have for example enabled the establishment of giftbased approaches such as Freecycle where people have the chance to give away their goods
without spending time on finding someone to take them – the website facilitates this part of a
transaction (Agyeman et al., 2013).
The Internet paired with ICT such as portable devices, which allow for instant access to Web
resources as well as offline services, are another reason why sharing is on the rise (c.f.
Botsman & Rogers, 2010b; Schifferes, 2013a, 2013b). Not too long ago it was unimaginable to
access all available information on ride sharing in a city or a specific location via often GPSenabled digital service in a matter of seconds – today it is a standard. Not only information is
available in this digital world, customers can make instant payments with integrated automatic
payment systems available more and more widely, making transactions even easier (Andersson
et al., 2013).
3.5.2 Local initiatives
On a local level an emergence of collaborative markets as well as cooperative economies
shows first steps of moving from selective or basic initiatives to a full-circle economy (Schultz,
2013). From local currencies to the rapid sprouting of local, urban farms cooperatives that use
rooftops, abandoned buildings or unutilised land, new local initiatives are emerging. Those
local initiatives all contribute to tackling down the traditional notion of neoliberal
consumption (Korobar, 2013).
Botsman and Rogers (2010a, p. 30) highlight that in Collaborative Lifestyles, “people with
similar needs or interest band together to share and exchange less-tangible assets such as time,
space, skills and money” and that “[t]hese exchanges happen mostly on a local or
neighbourhood level, as people share working spaces (for example, on Citizen Space or Hub
Culture), gardens (on SharedEarth or Landshare), or parking spots (on ParkatmyHouse).”
A small local community communicating via WhatsApp messenger group, and cooking
takeaway meals for each other was the principle on which Shareyourmeal was founded.
Notably, platforms such as Shareyourmeal that are not solely focused on commercial gains
also help to create local communities and social cohesion. In this particular case, the company
attracted subsidies from local authorities, and several foundations for precisely that reason
(Dervojeda et al., 2013). Toy lending libraries give parents the opportunity to share
communally owned toys in their neighbourhoods, and by doing so reduce their consumption
of new toys (Ozanne & Ballantine, 2010).
Danielle Sacks (2011) in her article “The Sharing Economy” mentions the case of Neal
Gorenflo of Shareable. Gorenflo keeps himself busy sharing: he shares the nanny for his son
with his neighbour, uses P2P banking, rents a car from a not-for-profit version of Zipcar
called City CarShare, and once a week works in a shared office space. He is not alone in this
movement: local sharing attracts ever more people as it becomes easier, and more and more
economically significant (Sacks, 2011).
It becomes increasingly clear that the development of local capacity is desirable, and can serve
as an accelerator for more initiatives emerging as well as growing into a global companies as it
was with for example AirBnB or Zipcar (Opinium Research & Marke2ing, 2012).
22
The Rise of the Sharing City
3.5.3 Snapshot cases
To illustrate the impact of the Sharing Economy on urban economies in broad brushes, a
short presentation of snapshot cases of cities in different parts of the globe (see Figure 3-1)
with considerable amount of sharing initiatives is presented below.
Figure 3-1. Snapshot Cases Map
Source: Adapted from Wikimedia Commons (2006)
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan Gehl (n.d.), a famous Danish architect calls Copenhagen a re-conquered city. The city is
Denmark’s largest, and the area of Greater Copenhagen is home to approximately a quarter of
the country’s entire population of almost 5.6 million (CIA, 2014c). Today, it is known as the
world’s number one biking city with its extensive biking infrastructure, and the world’s first
bicycling superhighway, as well as pedestrian friendly roads (Colville-Andersen, 2014; Gehl,
n.d.). It is also a good example of a city that embraces sharing, and this is in spite of the fact
that traditional Danish social norms tend to be rather reclusive (Agyeman et al., 2013). A
public weekly meal has been shared in city’s two different urban communities since 1970s.
The greater Copenhagen area is considered to be the origin of co-housing, where communities
live separately, but share extensive communal space, which enriches social integration. Even
though no one-size-fits-all solution exists when trying to become a city that enables sharing
and is more sustainable, Copenhagen has already become a model to follow for many (Kalan,
2014).
Medellín, Colombia
“Once notorious for its drug gangs, Medellín is now one of the world’s most innovative
cities” commented economist Joseph Stiglitz (2014). Medellín is Colombia’s second largest
city, and has a population of nearly 3.5 million (CIA, 2014b). The philosophy of urbanismo
social (social civic planning) was encouraged by the Medellín Academy, and in the mid-1990s
the discourse started to be forming by in empowering citizens, and beginning in the poorest
neighbourhoods. The city administration’s plan states “public space and infrastructure must
become the framework where education and culture are cultivated in places of encounter and
23
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
coexistence” (as cited in Agyeman et al., 2013, p. 9). Shared public spaces became the central
point of focus, and were designed in such a way as to fit into and enhance poorer
neighbourhoods. These included the award-winning parque biblioteca (library park), a place
where people can read, use computers or relax. Such public spaces, which were created for the
people and with the people, are very well maintained by both the municipality and by the users
too. Public transport was also re-designed to make it more accessible and as functional as
possible. By re-reconstructing the city in such a way, social and economic barriers between the
different groups in Medellín are successively being broken down, and while all problems have
not yet been erased, the city is on a good track (Agyeman et al., 2013; Stiglitz, 2014).
Vancouver, Canada
Vancouver is Canada’s third largest city with a population of nearly 2.3 million (CIA, 2014a).
In 2011 the Vancouver Tool Library (VTL), a non-profit cooperative dedicated to the lending
and borrowing tools was launched, and as Diplock et al. (n.d.) underline, became part of a
growing group of sharing organizations in the city. Moreover, as a focus group participant of
“The Report on Sharing in Vancouver” stated: “In a place like Vancouver, sharing becomes a
necessity” (Diplock et al., n.d., p. 10). Sharing in the city happens across the spectrum, from
P2P lending or borrowing of physical media such as books, through companies sharing
transportation to borrowing or accessing space or equipment via community organisations
(Diplock et al., n.d.). Vancouver recognises its sharing opportunities18, and is on a good track
to become one of the world’s leading sharing cities. Notably, as of March 2014 it has already
officially became the home of North America’s largest fleet of Car2go smart cars (more than
700 vehicles) (Jackson, 2014).
3.6 How is Sharing perceived? A critical note
Modern type or style of sharing is a popular phenomenon and the interest in it is still growing.
Recently though, alongside many favourable articles about sharing some voicing criticism
towards certain aspects of it have been published (c.f. Bercovici, 2014; c.f. Gorenflo, 2014;
Makkonen, 2014). This section focuses on the recent voices of criticism and will aim mainly at
answering one question: is sharing just another version of consumerism?
“One nation, one solution, one app uber alles is a failed 20th century dream, not the 21st
century reality we need.” – with these words Neal Gorenflo (2014) voiced his criticism
towards concentration of wealth by companies such as Uber that are still a symbol of sharing.
He stresses that the future belongs to enterprises that distribute control and wealth rather than
to those that concentrate it. According to him, in order to attract and keep customers in a zero
marginal cost world19 this is an increasingly practical necessity.
Bercovici (2014) argues that the competitive advantage of companies like Uber and AirBnB
might prove to be unsustainable in the long run as their investment in venture capital puts
them in a similar bind as industries like hospitality and transportation, which they have been
able to disrupt. Furthermore, the criticism expands with regards to the money raised by these
companies, which return to investors rather than users, who – as Bercovici (2014) highlights “by nature of the sharing economy, often feel they’re the ones who created the value in the
first place and deserve to partake in it.” Such a reaction to companies, which are the most
visible in the sharing world, represents the disappointment that some develop as they feel that
18
For the list of opportunities to grow Vancouver’s sharing economy see Diplock et al. (n.d.), pp. 25-27.
19
24
Marginal cost is the cost of producing an additional unit(s) of a good or service, if fixed costs are not accounted for. For
more information on zero marginal cost world see Rifkin (2014a, 2014b).
The Rise of the Sharing City
they are dealing with just another global corporation exploiting its “workers” (Makkonen,
2014).
Susie Cagle (2014) in her publication “Imagining the Future of Sharing” draws attention to
drawbacks of sharing, such as unregulated labour, and the general lack of regulation (see
Figure 3-2 below). These often overlooked aspects of the Sharing Economy can lead to the
above mentioned exploitation, limited access to healthcare or social services including
unemployment benefits etc. With sharing becoming more and more popular also among
younger people (including children), it needs to be regulated as a lack of thereof could leave
some groups/users vulnerable.
Figure 3-2. Imagining the Future of Sharing (excerpt) by Susie Cagle (2014)
On a different note, but also worth addressing is that “sustainable development at local or
regional levels does not necessarily relate to, and translate into, national or global sustainability
and vice versa” (Frantzeskaki, Loorbach, & Meadowcroft, 2012, p. 22). That is to say that if
Sharing proves to be successful in furthering sustainable lifestyle choices locally, this does not
mean that they have large enough a scale to have macro-level impact. However, studies are
being conducted to assess to which degree they can contribute to national and global goals for
a sustainable urban development (Gil & Duarte, 2012).
25
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
4 Case Studies
In this chapter three case studies are presented: San Francisco (4.1), Berlin (4.2), and Seoul
(4.3) (see Figure 4-1). The cities were chosen based on the criteria presented in Chapter Two
(see Figure 2-1 and table 2-1). As stated in Chapter Two the Kipling Method was once again
applied on order to organize the data in a coherent manner.
Figure 4-1. Case Studies Map
Source: Adapted from Wikimedia Commons (2006)
4.1 San Francisco
When & Why? The background of sharing in San Francisco
San Francisco in California, USA with a population estimated at roughly 825,000 “has been a
historical hotspot for alternative cultural movements” (Shareable, n.d.-c) (World Population
Statistics, 2013). Furthermore, it has been described as “a model for sharing economy policy,
innovation and creative grassroots sharing projects that light the way for other cities”
(Shareable, n.d.-c). In 2012 it also became the first city in the US to form The Sharing
Economy Working Group, whose aim it is to "take a comprehensive look at the economic
benefits, innovative companies and emerging policy issues around the growing 'sharing
economy’” (as cited by Gorenflo, 2012). However, sharing was happening in San Francisco
already well before that: Two of the most famous examples for successful sharing businesses –
AirBnB whose concept originally emerged in 2007 in the city, and Uber launched in 2009, are
both San Francisco-based (Bloomberg Businessweek, n.d.; Kaplansky et al., 2014).
What, Who & Where? Overview of initiatives
Transportation
In San Francisco car sharing is very popular, with hundreds of “casual car pooling” stations all
across San Francisco Bay area (Russell Belk, 2014). It is believed that the ridesharing market in
San Francisco Bay area is worth between $150 and $250 million in annual bookings (Olson &
26
The Rise of the Sharing City
Connor, 2013). SideCar, a ridesharing platform, which is an on-demand P2P rideshare service
is just one example of a company present on the market in the city (Andersson et al., 2013).
On another note, in San Francisco ride sharers and many others alike help to build trust and
distrust in particular people offering the service as well as using it, by online ratings. Such a
reputation categorisation method is helpful in establishing reputational economy, which makes
transactions between strangers safer, and less uncertain (Russell Belk, 2014).
With regard to the city side of the transportation issue, San Francisco was quick to act: A
change in the city’s Planning Code requires that newly constructed buildings provide
permanent car share parking spaces. Also, certain non-residential developments must dedicate
five percent of their parking spaces to “short-term, transient use by vehicles from certified car
sharing organisations” or other “co-operative auto programs” (Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, n.d.; SFMTA, n.d.-b) (San Francisco Planning Code § 166(d)(1)).
Bike-sharing programmes are also an integral part of San Francisco’s transport sharing
options. The city’s administration is actively promoting and engaging in bike-sharing via the
Bay Area Bike Share (SFMTA, n.d.-a). Moreover, a website was created where users or
potential users can indicate where they would like the Bay Area Bike Share stations to be
located in San Francisco. Also, in order to improve the programme, the users can comment
on the initial 35 pilot station locations (SFBikeShare, n.d.).
Food
San Francisco food share is thriving. One initiative recognised as one of the most loveable
phenomena in the city called San Francisco Underground Market, is a place where people can
exchange (albeit with money) homemade foods. It created opportunities to get into the market
for many food entrepreneurs, who could not otherwise afford to operate. But it also became a
place where community members could gather, and spend some time together while enjoying
a good meal (SELC, 2011).
There are other platforms for food production and food sharing in San Francisco, with
examples like shared commercial kitchens, such as La Cocina, an incubator kitchen, which
reduces the barrier to entry for small entrepreneurs as well as community marketplaces, which
create space for local products (La Cocina, n.d.; SELC, 2011). The concept of communal
dining where random seating with strangers at refectory tables promotes connectedness is also
being embraced in the city (Jarvis, 2011).
Additionally, some initiatives use social media platforms to operate, such as Food Revolution
San Francisco, which in its mission statement underlines that it “seeks to educate, engage and
connect the communities of San Francisco by promoting a healthful and conscientious
approach to food culture” (The Food Revolution, n.d.). Even though not strictly a sharing
initiative, The Food Revolution helps amongst others to share knowledge about healthy
eating.
The city has also recognised that the land use law could be adjusted to aid sharing, and
introduced a new land use category “Neighbourhood Agriculture”, which permits community
gardens, community-supported agriculture, market gardens, and commercial farms of less than
an acre to sell or donate their produce (Calfee & Weissman, 2012) (San Francisco Planning
Code § 102.35). Moreover, the 2009 directive asks the city to “conduct an audit of unused
land - including empty lots, rooftops, windowsills, and median strips – that could be turned
into community gardens or farms (Harkinson, 2009).
27
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Housing
One of the most famous and successful housing initiatives in San Francisco is the San
Francisco Community Land Trust (SFCLT), which is a limited-equity community non-profit
organisation that develops permanently affordable housing for the community (Johnson,
2014a; Luna, 2010). Flatshare or roomshare is also extremely popular in the city. When typed
into Google, “San Francisco flatshare” 2,170,000 results are shown (on the 25th of August
2014).
One way of helping in creation of more affordable and sustainable housing as well as to
stimulate sharing is to promote the development of smaller dwellings. The city of San
Francisco has recently approved an ordinance, which reduces the minimum size of a dwelling
from 290 square feet to 220 square feet. It also allowed a construction of up to 375 tiny
apartments units (Board of Supervisors, 2012).
Jobs & Skills
Providing grants, loans, and other financial support to cooperatives can reduce the high costs
of starting up a business. The city and county of San Francisco Office of Economic and
Workforce Development in 2012 provided a non-profit organisation – People Organised to
Demand Environmental and Economic Rights (iPODER!), a $76,000 grant to invest in its cooperative development project in the low-income Latino neighbourhoods (People Organizing
to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights, 2014; Shareable & SELC’s Policies for
Shareable Cities, 2013). Such aid from the municipality can reflects on the importance of
initiatives like iPODER!, and could serve as an inspiration for others to follow.
How is sharing perceived? A critical note
As noted by Chelsea Rustrum (personal communication, 2014), a San Francisco-based Sharing
Economy practitioner and interdependence consultant, sharing in San Francisco but also in
general is attractive to people who are more liberal and those who appreciate a sense of
community. On the other hand, its appeal is less for those who are wealthier as the aspect of
saving money by sharing is less attractive to them. Ideally however, it should be attractive to
all, not least because it might make people happier (ibid.). Rustrum underlines that cities
including San Francisco have to engage more, and need to create a framework that will help
the sprouting initiatives organise themselves, and better integrate with the city. She stresses
that it is important to take ownership of the implementation, and such a framework could be a
way to do exactly that. This is not to say however, that the city is to be operating all activities
themselves, but rather to create an enabling framework. Part of the strength of the Sharing
City is its bottom-up nature and opportunities for businesses, which the city could and should
enable are very important, and not to be overshadowed by city’s own actions (S. Salz, personal
communication, 2014).
At the moment, SPEAR and the Mayor’s office are taking part in spreading the word about
sharing, but there is no clear ownership of the Sharing City movement in San Francisco (C.
Rustrum, personal communication, 2014). Also, San Francisco could potentially join another
(ideally US) city, and lead by example. This would make the Sharing City concept itself more
visible as well as give tangible evidence that it is possible to implement. Ali Hart (2012) also
underlines that “[t]his is a momentous opportunity for San Francisco to show the rest of the
country how a shareable city can benefit everyone from the tourists to the residents to the
business owners.”
28
The Rise of the Sharing City
Other issues have to do with aspects such as ethics and labour law omissions by companies
engaging in sharing. The recent near-ban of Airbnb in San Francisco is an example of the
former: some landlords had resorted to evicting their tenants in order to list their properties
on Airbnb where they expected higher returns than from long-term tenants. This has caused
an outrage amongst sharers as well as those not actively engaged in sharing, but who thought
such practices despicable (O’Connor, 2014). By damaging its reputation, such behaviour can
discourage potential sharers from joining initiatives and contributing to the Sharing City.
4.2 Berlin
When & Why? The background of sharing in Berlin
Berlin is Germany’s largest city, and home to nearly 3.5 million inhabitants (CIA, 2014d).
Located in the middle of Europe it is beloved by millions of tourist: in a record year 2010 the
city recorded 20.8 million overnight hotel stays as well as 9.1 million hotel guests (Amt für
Statistik, 2011). Also, aside from being the world's reigning hipster20 capital for years now, it
might become the sharing capital of Europe soon (Müser, 2014; wm, 2013). According to
futurologist Peter Wippermann if Berlin is going to establish itself as the sharing capital of
Europe, this will be a consequence of the distinctive intersection between the alternative green
movement and old industry in the city (Oltermann, 2014).
In this spirit, the Sharing City Berlin Workshop in September 2013 was focused on the
question “How can Berlin become the sharing capital of Europe?”, and gave stimulating
output by its participants21 (wm, 2013). More recently, in June 2014 the Sharing City Berlin
Week together with OuiShare Summit Berlin was organised, and attracted considerable
attention from media, NGOs as well as local communities (Berlin 21, n.d.; OuiShare, n.d.).
While there is no fixed concept of the Sharing City and no overall plan of how to become one,
it seems that the transition to make Berlin a more liveable city by fostering sharing is inevitable
(T. Doennebrink, personal communication, 2014).
What, Who & Where? Overview of initiatives
Transportation
Nowhere in Germany are there more options of carsharing than in Berlin (Rechel, 2012).
Alongside more traditional carsharing options where a vehicle is brought back to a fixed
station, new models are booming in Berlin. There are so many options to choose from that
the easiest way of orientating among them is to have a look at websites like the Federation
Carsharing (original: Bundesverband Carsharing – www.carsharing.de), where most Berlin
providers are listed. Large corporations, such as BMW with its DriveNow or Daimler with
Car2Go offer the one-way mode of driving. Cambio is another example of carshare in the city,
with stations in central locations. But even for those in suburbs or living outside the S-Bahn
network, carshare is more affordable than owing a car (Rechel, 2012).
An alternative, and very popular mode of shared transportation is the Call-a-Bike service, with
stations across the city. Lending can be done quickly and spontaneously, and for about 15 €
per day, or 9 € per day for railcard holders, the service is much used, especially among those
who commute by train and like to bike further on (Rechel, 2012).
20
Oxford Dictionary defines a hipster as “[a] person who follows the latest trends and fashions, especially those regarded as
being outside the cultural mainstream” (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.).
21
For details on the outcome of the workshop as well as ideas presented see for example wm (2013).
29
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
US-based Uber has also tried to gain a foothold in Berlin, but amid protests by taxi drivers the
service has for now been banned by the authorities due to an alleged lack of passenger safety,
particularly in insurance protection. Uber has already taken legal steps against the decision and
announced that it will operate in spite of the ban (Thadeusz, 2014).
Food
Food sharing is trendy as well as relatively easy to organise and access in Berlin. With a wide
variety of initiatives, it attracts people from all social groups.
Websites such as Foodshare Deutschland22 serve as a platform that offers individuals, traders,
and manufacturers the opportunity to exchange excess food. The largest bio-supermarket
chain in Berlin and Brandenburg is fully cooperating with Foodshare, and the organisation
expects to gain more business affiliations in the future. Users can get together to cook and
share their food, and no money is involved as the idea behind it is to restore food’s intrinsic
value beyond mere merchandise (Foodsharing, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).
Raphael Fellmer, a passionate food activist recently created the LebensmittelretterInnen (Food
Rescuers) group, which now has over 150 members in organic supermarkets, bakeries, grocery
stores, etc. who take still edible food, and consume it by themselves or offer it online to other
people, especially those in need. Such an initiative not only reduces the amount of food
wasted, but also encourages, and promotes “the culture of sharing on a very practical level”
(Raphael Fellmer as cited in Wiesmann, 2013).
Share your Food is yet another, and truly alternative model of sharing food. It was created as a
series of events where food was the focus point, with the main idea was to “invite you to share
with us not only our table, but also something you believe could feed our body and soul, in
order to make our world a better place” (Richard, 2011).
Housing
Berlin is currently experiencing an unprecedented surge of co-housing communities, and
communal living groups (Bildungswerk Berlin der Heinrich Böll Stiftung & Heyden, 2007).
The city is known all across Germany for its Wohngemeinschaft or WG communal living
arrangements. Described by Deutsche Welle (Bowen, 2010) as “[p]art socialist throwback, part
progressive social experiment”, a WG usually host from two to 10, sometimes more
occupants. The people who share housing in a WG often need to accept that a good deal of
flexibility is needed when living with more than just immediate family. However, Bowen
(2010) underlines that once forced to adapt and share it “can be a good thing for us natural
egoists”. Moreover, groups tend to create their own dynamics, which creates a sense of being
part of a community (ibid.).
Moreover, members of co-housing groups can obtain a customised, ecologically optimal
house that includes community spaces at the wholesale price (Bildungswerk Berlin der
Heinrich Böll Stiftung & Heyden, 2007). It has to be noted though, that Berlin has an
extraordinarily rich “tradition, culture as well as contemporary scene in the area of selforganised and cooperative planning, constructing, living and working”, which is mainly why
co-housing groups and communities once past the shortfall of available properties, are in a
good position to quickly find advisors, architects, and financiers for their projects (ibid.).
22
For a two-minutes video on foodsharing see Foodsharing ( n.d.-b).
30
The Rise of the Sharing City
Jobs & Skills
Berlin, aspiring to be the world’s start-up capital, is also home to a booming scene of
borrowing shops (Koch, 2014). As an example, the Leila’s borrowing shop, where items can
be borrowed rather than bought, opened in June 2012 and continues to serve as an inspiration
for opening similar shops across the country (Oltermann, 2014). Even though Leila works on
volunteering basis, it is successful in encouraging people to donate their time (and sometimes
money) to a sharing cause.
A good example for a Sharing Economy project with an outlook for the future is located in
the district of Wedding. 80 artists have joined together here to work with recycled materials
and build Berlin’s first “indoor treehouse” that is intended to serve as a “local public
thinktank” (ibid.).
Betahaus, launched in Berlin’s Kreuzberg in 2009, is one of the most well-known co-working
spaces in Germany’s capital. It does not only offer desks and wireless internet access, but also
organises workshops on topics like Do It Yourself, Art and Design, and even weekly
woodworking classes. With those being free to members, and costing only a few Euros for
non-members, Betahous attracts people interested in enhancing or developing new skills.
Also, it is attractive to freelancers and start-ups alike, who can enjoy the opportunity to meet
other often like-minded people, and connect to new businesses (Hackmann, 2014).
How is sharing perceived? A critical note
As with San Francisco, Berlin too faces difficulties implementing the Sharing City ideas. With
no fixed concept at hand, sharing is seen largely as an economic opportunity rather than a
positive motion to improve the city (T. Doennebrink, personal communication, 2014). If
more participants are to be engaged in the future, awareness about the SC possibilities and
potential must be raised in communities as well as on the general city level. Moreover, some
aspects of sharing must be de-stigmatised, like for instance the practice of receiving food,
which still has bad connotations attached to it just as it is in the case of food stamps or welfare
(Wiesmann, 2013).
Thomas Doennebrink (personal communication, 2014), a Berlin-based freelance expert on CC
and connector of OuiShare Berlin also observed the necessity of changes in business
behaviour. In the traditional model of conducting business, good behaviour does not
necessarily produce good (financial) outcomes. To a large extent, the Sharing Economy on the
other hand builds on such good behaviour towards others. At the same time, greed, power
structures, and the unclear direction of money flows are a cause for concern as doubts on
these issues among potential users can impair the uptake of the SC ideas. For Doennebrink,
this must be addressed, and quality must be prioritised over quantity of initiatives in order to
yield better results.
Moreover, in Berlin at the moment there is no organised structure for the creation of the SC.
Thomas Doennebrink seems to be the only person actively engaging in creating one by
working with different groups, developing the city’s capabilities, and trying to engage higher
level politicians in the SC projects. Yet so far, the city’s authorities have not decided to take up
SC in their work23. To Doennebrink in the future the SC must be carried by a mixture of
23
Mr. Doennebrink is currently engaging with high-level politicians in Berlin, and hopes that this might soon change (T.
Doennebrink, personal communication, 2014).
31
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
stable institutions, small enterprises and communities, who all will be responsible for making
the concept work in the city.
4.3 Seoul
When & Why? The background of sharing in Seoul
South Korea’s capital and largest city is Seoul, with about 9.7 million people calling it home
(CIA, 2014e). A relative newcomer to the industrialised world, rapid economic “catch-up”
growth is still a very recent experience in the city. Consequently, overpopulation and
urbanisation, which lead to serious housing, transportation and parking shortages as well as
pollution, and resource overuse, amplified by the density of the city required innovative
changes. Notably, Seoul, led by mayor Park Won-soon, is actively working on solving those
issues by embracing the Sharing Economy (Johnson, 2013; N. Kwon & D. Jung, personal
communication, 2014).
Just as San Francisco, Seoul is a member of the Sharing Cities Network. At the same time, it is
significantly different from other sharing cities (including San Francisco and Berlin) in that it
enjoys remarkably strong support from the city government which attempts to make it a
sharing city (Shareable, n.d.-d). Thus on 20th September 2012, the Seoul Metropolitan
Government has declared the Sharing City as a new city paradigm, and revealed that it plans to
promote the “Sharing City Seoul” project (World Economic Forum, 2013). This project,
which includes 20 sharing programmes and policies, is intended to generate and diffuse
infrastructure in order to promote and enable sharing-based platforms (ibid.). In the process,
the government is reviewing rules and regulations that inhibit or prevent Seoul’s citizens from
sharing and it is delivering its own sharing initiatives (Childs, n.d.). The city is perhaps
uniquely positioned to take advantage of the Sharing City potential, especially given the fact
that it is one of the biggest, densest (10 million people living within 234 square miles), and
most digitally connected cities in the world: 60% of South Koreans own a smartphone, and
97.5% have broadband internet connection (Guerrini, 2014; Johnson, 2013; Stone, 2013).
With such a potential backed by the government’s plan, South Korea’s capital aims at
becoming the very face of urban sharing, and thus has the potential to inspire cities
throughout Asia and beyond to follow suit (Agyeman et al., 2013; Gorenflo, 2013b).
What, Who & Where? Overview of initiatives
Transportation
The Seoul government takes transportation issues seriously. Reflecting a mind set in which
sustainability and not individual transport is prioritised, the slogan of the Seoul Traffic Vision
2030 declares: “Seoul, a city whose advanced transportation network makes private car
ownership unnecessary!” (Seoul, n.d.). Part of this vision according to the authorities is that
one of its core values is “All Sharing Traffic”, and the creation of a joint-ownership traffic
environment (ibid.).
Last year it introduced two car-sharing services under the name Nanum-Car: So-Car and
Green Car, with a 492 vehicle fleet in 292 locations (Nikola, 2013). By 2020 it aims at
expanding this number to 1,200 centres, making it accessible within 5 minutes from anywhere
in the city (Seoul, n.d.). Seoul has also opened select government parking lots, and municipal
buildings to the public during off-hours or idle-days, and is planning to develop a long-term
project for personal car sharing – P2P (Johnson, 2013; Seoul, n.d.).
32
The Rise of the Sharing City
Non-government owned companies also have their say in Seoul, like for example KT car
sharing, a sharing service for electric cars, or tikle, which connects people who want to find
carpool partners 24 (de Villa, 2014). Altogether, in June 2014 there were 564 car-sharing
locations in the city, with over 1,000 cars available (Johnson, 2014b).
Even though still in action, in July 2014, Seoul announced that it plans to ban Uber and in its
place launch an application for official taxis. This was met with mixed responses, ranging from
one by the company itself stating that “…Seoul is in danger of remaining trapped in the past
and getting left behind by the global 'sharing economy' movement" to Neal Gorenflo’s
applauding “bravo Seoul” (Gorenflo, 2014). Gorenflo’s point that a local solution is better
than a globalised economy seems to be one shared by the municipality as well.
Food
Food sharing is not new to Korea: for centuries the tradition of “Pum-a-si” (exchange of
work), where sharing food with neighbours, and exchange of labour at harvest time, was
practiced. Even though with rapid urbanisation and industrialisation such a tradition of
collaboration requires more effort to be cultivated, attempts have been made to restore it in a
modern way (Guerrini, 2014).
Seoul City Farmers (SCF) proclaims itself as a group for all people, and especially those who
are interested in “~ growing food (plants, animals or bees) in the city ~ learning about the
food system ~ cooking and sharing recipes ~ sharing urban-eco resources ~ exploring the
local green community and local farms ~ and much more!” (Seoul City Farmers, n.d.).
Founded in May 2013, the organisation currently connects 465 city farmers, and organised 46
“meetups” (ibid.). SCF is beginning to connect itself better to Seoul’s sustainability
community, and while still relatively small, it is building a recognisable image in the city
(Levenston, n.d.). Another example of foodsharing in the city is ZIPBOB, a social platform,
which helps people instantly to find new friends to share meals with (de Villa, 2014).
Housing
Finding a place to stay in Seoul can be a considerable hassle to organise. Today, when the high
cost of housing is making it unaffordable to many, sharing can offer a solution. Woozoo, a
youth housing cooperative that offers diverse partnership services can serve as one example of
flat-share, which serves an affordable alternative to traditional rental models (de Villa, 2014;
Woozoo, n.d.).
Additionally, the Seoul city government in an attempt to tackle both the problems of aging
population and youth housing shortage developed a project where elders provide housing to
university students. Beyond using living space efficiently, such a house-share allows the
growing number of senior population25 and youth to connect, share experience, and exchange
knowledge between generations (de Villa, 2014; Johnson, 2014b).
Jobs & Skills
Sharing enterprises in Seoul are growing, and some, such as the earlier mentioned Woozoo,
even receive support form the city’s government (Johnson, 2013). The city has subsidised the
expenses of a total of 10 sharing enterprises with 250 million won (equivalent to € 180,000).
24
For more extensive list see de Villa (2014).
25
In Seoul only in the last 10 years the number of seniors living alone increased from 90,000 to 230,000 (Johnson, 2014b).
33
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Such an approach is aimed at giving those selected enterprises a financial breathing room to
focus on building or enhancing their services (ibid.). Seoul is also incubating approximately 20
sharing start-ups by providing office space, consultation, and financial support (ibid.). The city
also engages with communities and helps them to connect with businesses.
Other independent initiatives such as wishket connect corporations with developers and
designers who have skillset appropriate for the respective job. By participating in Ready&Start
professionals can become mentors and share their current work experience with younger job
seekers. Another still organisation Joinuskorea promotes and allows for knowledge exchange
in the community by using a multi-language approach (e.g. English, Korean, Chinese) (de
Villa, 2014).
How is sharing perceived? A critical note
Seoul’s outlook for the future is quite positive: the city is recognising its problems, and seems
to be on a good way to tackle them innovatively. However, Seoul does acknowledge that their
SC project is just one option for increasing sustainability, and not a solution to all its
problems. It is currently seen as an alternative to traditional models of conducting business, a
sort of a lifestyle choice more than anything else (N. Kwon & D. Jung, personal
communication, 2014). Likewise, the majority of people participating in the SC projects do so
not for the environmental benefits, but rather for economic reasons (idle resources can be
profitable if put into use) or as a new way to meet new people and create a sense of
community (ibid.).
Moreover, knowledge about sharing possibilities in Seoul is still thinly spread among its
residents, not least because there are no “super star” businesses that participate in the SC
projects, and serve as well-visible examples. All in all though, despite the low number of
participants, the city is doing a good job trying to spread the word further. Attitudes seem to
changing as well: according to Nanshil Kwon of Creative Commons Korea (CCK) and Share
Hub26 project manager, and Diane DaYe Jung, CCK activist (personal communication, 2014),
people’s reaction to SC Seoul can be viewed as positive, and many agree that the idea is
needed. However, Kwon and Jung also point to the fact that there is a big difference between
agreement and action and that the latter has to be worked on further.
In terms of a potential dispute between traditional businesses and sharing enterprises, Kwon
and Jung underline that the traditional businesses in Seoul are not yet affected by an uptake of
the SC initiatives as those are relatively small. Hence there have been no issues between
businesses, and the SC Seoul projects to date. However, it has been noted that should sharing
enterprises become more competitive, this could have implications for traditional business
companies, and could become a problem in the future. Thus as a matter of precaution the city
is currently in preparation of organising an expert group, which will conduct a study on SC
impact on the city, and hopes that this will enable it to give ideas on what problems might
occur in the future and how to tackle them (N. Kwon & D. Jung, personal communication,
2014).
4.4 Case Studies: Preliminary Conclusions
As was expected, choosing cities of diverse specifications has proven to show that a successful
implementation of the SC concept rests on a variety of factors. The cases studied above
26
Share Hub is a project that spreads information on the sharing culture, and connects individuals as well as groups interested
in sharing. It is powered by CC Korea, and supported by Seoul City according to “Seoul Metropolitan Government Act
for Promoting Sharing” (Share Hub, n.d.).
34
The Rise of the Sharing City
contrast in various aspects. All three cities as well as snapshot cases presented in chapter 2.5.3
face similar or even the same structural changes in an increasingly integrated global economy.
To different degrees, their residents were all faced with the effects of the financial crisis of
2008, and subsequent changes in attitudes towards consumerism and ownership. Yet, they all
met the related challenges from a different background.
Berlin and San Francisco share a population, which is more open to alternative movements
such as sharing initiatives. The residents thus proved eager to engage in such projects. Seoul
and San Francisco share a public administration that, albeit to different extents,
accommodates or even promotes sharing initiatives. Berlin on the other hand is lacking such
enthusiasm on the side of the authorities. In San Francisco the presence of vast business scene
influences the visibility of sharing. All three have the potential to become regional role models
of SC. In fact, Seoul could arguably be already close to being one.
35
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
5 Analysis
This chapter attempts to fill the gaps identified in the literature. Namely, it will address the
lack of a state of the art overview of the Sharing City concept, which incorporates case studies
of cities implementing sharing initiatives. Therefore, this chapter seeks to combine the
findings of the above literature review with the case studies looked at in the previous part into
a comprehensive analysis. It does so by picking up the research questions again and trying to
answer why sharing cities emerge, what their driving forces, obstacles and potentials are
(Figure 5-1).
Figure 5-1. The Sharing City Analysis Wheel
While the literature review has tended to emphasise the structural factors benefitting the
emergence of Sharing Cities, the case studies have added to this by showing that engaged
publics are needed to make use of the potential that structural factors provide.
5.1 Analysis Based on Literature Review & Case Studies
5.1.1 Why do Sharing Cities emerge?
In the literature review, underlying changes in the global economy have been identified as a
major structural factor for the emergence of Sharing Cities. Major shifts have occurred in
where value is produced: during early industrialisation – the time when modern large cities
emerged –wealth had its origin in the physical production of goods. Nowadays, comparatively
more value is derived from the management of knowledge and data streams. As during
industrialisation, cities are however still at the forefront of this process although the processes
underlying this prominent position are all but historic and are mainly based on ‘knowledge
spillovers’ (Marshall, 1890). And while sharing too is not an entirely new phenomenon27, the
27
Indeed, some economists argue that sharing is one of the foundations of urbanisation in the first place. Some amenities of
cities are only viable from a certain population size. The cost of, say, an ice hockey stadium can hardly be covered by a city
36
The Rise of the Sharing City
emergence, development and improvement of ICT has opened possibilities for individuals to
engage in sharing resources that were previously virtually impossible to coordinate.
Beyond this, the recent economic crisis triggered by the financial crisis of 2008 has
motivated many people to consider alternative ways of sustaining their life standard – not only
by saving costs on certain services and goods, but also by generating additional income from
offering their own resources and knowledge to others via sharing platforms.
Another important shift noticed above – which has also been amplified by the economic crisis
– is a change in attitudes towards consumption and ownership. Evidence presented
earlier suggested that “Keeping up with the Joneses” is becoming less important to people,
and thus ownership of material objects plays a lesser role compared to access to required or
desired goods than before. In the same vein, the social benefits of joining sharing initiatives
are an important reason for many people to join them as they create networks of trust.
One could thus summarise the findings on why Sharing Cities emerge so far such that certain
enabling factors, or enablers have to be present for this process to begin. However, many
cities are facing these circumstances and have nevertheless not emerged as the Sharing Cities.
5.1.2 Driving Forces
The development of ICT, changing attitudes to consumption and ownership and economic
considerations have been shown to be important factors contributing to the emergence of
Sharing Cities. But as has been found, by themselves these factors do not seem to initiate any
automatism of moving towards a Sharing City. Rather, the above suggests that beyond the
enablers, an active effort has to be made by individuals and institutions to implement the
Sharing City concept. So what or who are driving forces behind its implementation?
Reviewing the cases of San Francisco, Berlin and Seoul has shown the importance of
individual and collective action through institutions. Practically, in an ideal case, a city would
provide good access to ICT infrastructure, and an energetic civil society would be
responded to by an accommodating, flexible city administration.
None of the three cases fulfil the ideal criteria, as the right mixture of cooperation between the
city administration, its citizens, and businesses is absent. Out of the three, San Francisco may
come closest to it with a vibrant sharing business scene, home to the headquarters of
AirBnB and Uber, population that eagerly engages in sharing, and an administration that
accommodates this development. However, there is still a significant room for improvement.
Seoul on the other hand shows how active a municipality can be in promoting the SC ideas
and actions. Yet, this seems much more necessary in a city where the population is not as
enthusiastic about the concept. Berlin, lastly, prods a sharing-enthusiastic population but
lacks support from the authorities almost entirely. Nevertheless, all three cities have an active
and growing sharing scene. This shows that the impetus can come from both sides:
population and/or city administration. It is hard to say, which would be preferable to the
other. While San Francisco and Berlin show that sharing can function without much active
support on the side of the authorities, Seoul’s case suggests that the government can also be
capable of initiating the movement towards sharing.
of 1000 whereas the individuals of a community of 1 million face lower individual costs (and the likelihood that ice hockey
fans are among them is higher, too).
37
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
5.1.3 Obstacles
In both literature review and case studies, obstacles to the implementation of SC schemes
were identified largely in legal frameworks governing the sectors outlined.
Notably, the obstacles were identified in both directions: a lack of regulation for sharing, and
regulation that inhibits sharing.
In the case of San Francisco both of these apply. Until recently limitations on flat sizes
inhibited the constriction of smaller apartments, making it more difficult for cooperatives to
finance such dwellings. In areas of food and transportation a lack of clear regulation on
liability can discourage people from engaging in sharing initiatives. On a small scale and in
non-commercial alternative setting this may still be tolerable. As soon as it becomes part of a
large-scale business enterprise such gaps are however highly problematic. The case of Uber’s
ban in Berlin, its near-ban in San Francisco, and the plans to ban it is Seoul too shows this
vividly. But it also underlines that fixing such regulatory gaps is theoretically possible. In that
sense, the bans can only be seen as a temporary measure until a proper solution is found to
the challenges of commercial sharing to regulation that is still based on the assumption of
conventional business.
Similar problems can be observed with sharing of food: in a case of food poisoning, could a
sharer be considered customer in legal terms and demand compensation? So far, this question
has been merely circumvented by bilateral agreements or rating systems (c.f. Braw, 2014).
Legislative solutions to such problems are yet to emerge.
Finally, in the area of labour and job sharing, the current state of affairs threatens to leave
people who offer their labour via online platforms unprotected from exploitation. Their
economic exchange with “employers” may effectively reflect all but a conventional form of
employment. However, because the official contractual basis is one of short term freelancing
they enjoy none of the usual legal and social benefits that come with regular employment.28
All in all, it should be noted that such issues could be discouraging to potential new
participants in the Sharing City, and can impair the dissemination of the concept on a wider
scale. This is not least to the fact that changes in legislation tend to be time-consuming and
could be costly. However, given that the (partial) implementation of the concept is just
beginning to take hold, cities have an opportunity to learn from the forerunners and their
experiences.
5.1.4 Potentials
So far there are a few Sharing Cities and the benefits accrued from their implementation are
relatively modest when seen from a global perspective. Agyeman et al. (2013) refers to four
areas in which the implantation of Sharing Cities can have a positive impact. They can benefit
the economic, environmental, social, and democratic factors of an urban community. The
outcomes of the literature analysis and the case studies seem to be backing this notion. The
four areas will be outlined in turn below.
In terms of the economy the cost savings or even earnings for individuals are the main
benefits from sharing. For example carpooling or carsharing offer considerable savings for
commuters, and enterprises such as AirBnB allow households to earn extra money from
28
Similarly, taxation or lack of thereof on sharing initiatives could prove problematic. Also, if all the legally provided
advantages of regular services had to be provided by sharing enterprises, too the implication for them in terms of business
viability could be considerable.
38
The Rise of the Sharing City
renting a spare room. On another level, the interaction produced by sharing may also lead to
more rapid economic growth as opportunities for companies, ranging from start-ups via
small-medium enterprises (SME) to large corporations are vast.29
When it comes to the environment, the benefits accrued are those one would intuitively
expect: carsharing and other transport related sharing initiatives can lead to reductions in CO2
emissions30 as well as traffic congestion, natural resources are also saved due to the extended
life cycle of products reused or used more efficiently though sharing, less food is wasted when
initiatives are successful in promoting food-sharing (e.g. Foodshare in Berlin).
The most tangible social benefit from implementing sharing is enhanced social trust and
cohesion (c.f. Agyeman et al., 2013; Botsman & Rogers, 2010b).
Figure 5-2. Participation in the Collaborative Economy: Recent and Projected (Crowd Companies & Vision
Critical, 2014)
The expected gains for democracy through sharing can only be established somewhat
indirectly. Since Athenian times, citizen’s active involvement in public affairs is seen as a
29
Even if the advantages can be obtained somewhat indirectly. Examples of companies involved: Share a Bike by Deutsche
Bahn or DriveNow by BMW.
30
According to research by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2006) each active car-share user emits 290 kg CO2 less than
when not using such services.
39
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
crucial part of a lively democratic state 31 . Agyeman et al. (2013) argues that the norms
propagated by sharing may eventually lead to increased appraisal by citizens for public affairs
more generally. It also constitutes a pushback against the recent growth of particularism that is
the strict focus on individual demands within a community (Gabriel, 2013).
Sure enough, none of the above potentials has been realised fully anywhere and at any time so
far, and it is unlikely to be so. In all three case studies an alignment of public and private
actors has proven to be illusive. Despite this fact amid the large scale of urbanisation globally
even small changes in behaviour thanks to sharing if implemented in the majority of cities
promise huge benefits in all four areas globally. If these findings are at all generalizable, this
suggests a strong demand for and interest in sharing by populations at least in western
countries. A recent poll conducted on more than 90,000 US, British, and Canadian
respondents forecasts an increase in participation in sharing initiatives across the board (see
Figure 5-2). This shows that an increased pool of potential sharers is emerging.
5.2 Analysis: Preliminary Conclusions
The findings above suggest that a successful implementation of Sharing Cities has significant
potential in making a contribution towards more sustainable, economic, social, and democratic
lifestyles and thus societies globally.
Its origins can be traced to changes in the global economy, the financial crisis’ impact on
people’s economic decision-making as well as attitudes towards consumption and ownership.
However, these structural forces do not lead to the emergence of Sharing Cities by themselves
but rather act as enablers for such a development.
Driving forces for a successful implementation of Sharing Cities have been identified in (civil)
society as well as government. While a certain acceptance of sharing is a useful precondition to
the implementation of SC, the impetus in the case studies of this thesis has come from private
initiative in two cities and public authorities in one case. In both variants, the developments
look promising though ideally cooperation between both actors toward the successful
implementation of SC would take place.
Such cooperation between government and private actors (civil society as well as business)
could usefully be employed to identify and fix gaps and barriers in legislation that have been
identified above as the main barrier for the implementation of sharing in cities.
Thus, Sharing Cities hold a considerable potential in improving lives globally. Their potential
success hinges upon the active participation of citizens, institutions and governments alike.
31
In his well-known Funeral Oration, Pericles describes the Athenian constitution as „democracy because power is in the
hands not of a minority but of the whole people. … Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs, but in
the affairs of the state as well: even those who are mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed
on general politics” (as cited in Held, 2006, pp. 13–14).
40
The Rise of the Sharing City
6 Discussion
This chapter aims at scrutinising the validity of the research aim and questions, and the
appropriateness of the chosen research methods. It also seeks to establish how applicable the
findings are of this thesis in a general perspective. Finally, it will conclude by offering an
additional take on the Sharing City concept.
6.1 Research Aims & Questions Legitimacy
The Sharing City concept is a new phenomenon, which only begins to be systematically
studied. The author of this research has (so far) identified a limited number of publications on
Sharing Cities, and two reports that have been conducted in a more comprehensive manner:
Briefing: Sharing Cities by Agyeman et al. (2013); and Policies for Shareable Cities by
Shareable & SELC's Policies for Shareable Cities (2013), both of which have been used in this
thesis. Further studies are currently being undertaken, and a book by Julian Agyeman &
Duncan McLaren titled “Sharing Cities” is due to published in 2015 (Agyeman, 2014).
With the limited literature currently available on the topic, the author of this thesis has
identified a literature gap, and established that in order to fill this gap the research should offer
a holistic overview of the concept. Therefore, it should aim at: evaluating why Sharing Cities
emerge, identifying the driving forces behind the concept, recognising obstacles to its
dissemination, investigating its potential and providing an insight into the current (partial)
implementation of the concept by presenting case studies.
Two research questions were formulated in order to attain the research aims. The first
question addresses the reasons for the emergence of Sharing Cities, and asks what driving
forces underlying this development can be identified. The second seeks to identify the
obstacles to the (successful) implementation and dissemination of the Sharing City concept,
and examines its potential. While these questions can be assessed as legitimate, both of them
might be compromised by the lack of a clear and accepted definition of the Sharing City. The
author acknowledges this as a strong limitation as it breaks with the classical approach to
research, where a concept is first explicitly defined and only then applied. Nevertheless, in
order to account for the complexity and multiplicity of the contemporary Sharing Cities
understanding, an altered and broadened working definition was established. The RQs
formulation can thus be deemed as valid regardless of this limitation.
Taking the above into consideration it can be concluded that the research aims as well as
research questions were legitimate and valid.
6.2 Appropriateness and Validity of Research Methodologies
Given the novelty of the Sharing City concept the methodology was designed to aid the
exploration of the topic.
First of all, triangulation was chosen as an approach to account for the validity of the collected
data. It involves selection of multiple (usually, at least three) different methods of inquiry that
allow for data cross-checking (Punch, 1998). As a result of this approach three data collection
methods were used: literature review, case studies, and semi-structured in-depth interviews.
Secondly, the Kipling Method was used to organise the gathered data in the literature review
(Chapter Three), and to arrange case studies data (Chapter Four). This approach aims at
asking basic questions When, Why, What, Who, Where, and How in order to gain an
understanding of the issue studied. It has to be noted, however, that with the Kipling Method
41
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
only giving a set of general questions it was up to the author of this thesis to decide how to
suitably modify them to gain the most utility from the Method. By framing the questions as
the author did (see Chapter 2.2), the research was able to achieve the intended outcome of
providing a holistic picture of the Sharing City concept in a context set by the author. Had the
author chosen to formulate the questions in a different fashion, the outcome of the research
could have been different. Therefore, when studying this thesis the reader has to bear in mind
that the research was contextualised, and therefore specific to the perspective used by the
author.
Thirdly, the case studies were chosen based on the criteria established and justified by the
author in Chapter Two. In an attempt to focus the research, the criteria allowed for no more
than three cases, and it was decided that there should be no more than one case per continent.
Also, three size brackets were created, and four priority sectors were included. Nevertheless, it
must be noted that the choice of the criteria has most definitely affected the results of the case
studies. Choosing another set of criteria may have resulted in selection of different case
studies. It would have been interesting to for example contrast and compare case studies in
the same region (e.g. within the same country) or the same size. However, given the holistic
approach and global focus adapted in this thesis, the set of criteria used seems to have been an
appropriate choice.
The author is cognisant of the contextualisation of this research, and therefore relies on the
reader taking this into account.
In summary, the triangulation accounted for the validity of the collected data, the Kipling
Method presented a good basis on which the author was able to build a framework for
arranging and evaluating the data, and the choice of case studies criteria allowed accounting
for the holistic and global approach of the research. Therefore, once the specific contextual
aspects of this research are recognised, the choice of research methodologies can be asserted
as appropriate and valid.
6.3 Generalizability of the findings
This thesis presents a holistic overview of the Sharing City concept and its application.
The study demonstrates that while there is no perfect Sharing City in existence as yet, the
several Sharing City initiatives in various parts of the world are having an impact on the urban
landscape in participant cities. Consequently, it is expectable that 1) similar developments –
assisted by the enablers identified – are taking place elsewhere, and 2) the findings on other
factors contributing to or inhibiting the Sharing Cities’ implementation are generalizable for
other cases, too. This expectation is underfed by the fact that the case selection was relatively
wide with three intensive case studies of different properties and three further snapshot cases,
all of which presented similar developments.
Findings from literature review, interviews and case studies all highlight the influence of the
Sharing City initiatives on the urban economy, infrastructure, politics, lifestyles, and
environment. Nonetheless, the initiatives affect participant cities in various ways and to
different degrees as could be seen particularly well in case studies presented. Moreover, the
findings suggest that there is a significant potential for the Sharing City to make a positive
contribution towards a more sustainable, economical, social, and democratic lifestyles both
locally, and should it spread further – globally. Finally, the study found that the main obstacles
to the (successful) dissemination of the Sharing City concept are the legal frameworks
governing the sectors mentioned in this study. Both lack of regulation for sharing, and
regulation that inhibits sharing were identified as considerably crippling.
42
The Rise of the Sharing City
In sum, the findings suggest that while conditions for the implementation of Sharing Cities
vary considerably across the cases studied, the contributing and inhibiting factors seem to be
the same or similar across the board, suggesting a high level of generalizability of this study’s
findings.
6.4 Discussion
Investigating Sharing Cities was a difficult undertaking, not least because of the fact that due
to its novelty it is a challenging task to define what a Sharing City is. Consequently, the limited
availability of data resulted in a necessity to work with a relatively brad definition of the
concept.
From the very start of the research process it was clear that in order to gain an overview of the
current state of the art of the Sharing City, there is a need for an extensive literature analysis.
Thus the literature analysis (Chapter Three) is a rather lengthy part of this thesis. Many
important aspects of the Sharing City are presented there, and give a good basis for the next
steps in the research.
As with many other new concepts, the Sharing City research presented challenges when it
came to depicting the application of the concept in the real world. At the time of writing, the
author was not aware of any studies that present Sharing City case studies in as a
comprehensive manner32.
The case studies offered a good impression of actions on the ground, but also brought a
couple points to light that are worthy of attention:
Firstly, context is extremely important. In San Francisco for example, the presence of the
business sector, and its involvement in ‘sharing’ can have implications on the availability of
sharing initiatives as well as the participation of different actors. It can be said that although
sharing may be regarded as an alternative to traditional consumption and production patterns,
it is at the same time not as subversive as it sounds, and offers a viable and profitable business
model. Many large companies, such as AirBnB have their headquarters in San Francisco, and
while they emerged in the city as sharing initiatives, some argue that they resemble ‘big
business-as-usual’ much more than civil society initiatives. This can result in different actors
willing to participate in sharing initiatives in the city, as some can view it as simply profitable
business opportunities In Berlin, on the other hand, the process is more driven by people (see
Berlin case study). Notably the presence of the hipster culture, which is interested in decommercialisation of lifestyles, presents a different narrative. As Thomas Doennebrink
(personal communication, 2014) highlighted – as long as sharing is an alternative it will remain
popular in the city33. In Seoul, another context is present – the unusually high number of
people connected to the Internet, and the participation of the city’s administration. The
former offers a remarkably high potential to access prospective sharers and (their) resources.
The latter makes Seoul a unique case, where the Sharing City concept is an actual city policy.
Secondly, commercialisation of sharing is a valid concern. Byung-Chul Han, a Seoul-born
philosophy and cultural studies lecturer at the Universität der Künste Berlin in a recently
published article in the German press claims that the ideology of the community, or
collaborative commons leads to total marketization of society (2014). He brings up the
32
It has to be noted though, that The Sharing Cities Network offers an overview of (some) participating cities (Berlin is not
included) (Shareable, n.d.-b).
33
It of course does not mean that large companies are not active in Berlin, but it might mean that they will not be as visible as
in San Francisco for example.
43
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
example of the many times mentioned in this text, AirBnB, where every home can be turned
into a hotel, and thus making hospitality a mean to achieve economic gains. Han argues that
there is no purposeless friendliness possible any longer as friendliness is being commercialised
(e.g. the friendlier one is the better review he/she receives, the more business is possible).
If Han’s views hold true, the potentials of the Sharing City concept highlighted in the analysis
(Chapter Five) can be substantially diminished, e.g. democratic could be affected. The ideal of
citizens’ engagement in public affairs is built on the assumption that this be altruistic, in the
interest of the community, and not the individual. Han’s analysis of sharing businesses as
‘commercialisers’ of people’s every action puts this conception of citizenship on its head.
Therefore, this rather bold account of the Sharing Economy, and by extension the Sharing
City has to be acknowledged and should be addressed in future research. Empirically, this
could for example focus on the effects that sharing has on people’s perceptions and
conception of the scope of market exchanges34.
Ultimately, the Sharing City is a concept not yet fully developed, and before any judgement is
made about its consequences, it must be studied further. Therefore, the following and final
Chapter is going to provide the answers to the research questions as well as offer final remarks
and future research recommendations.
34
In the private sphere, for example may the globalisation of charging strangers for what could count as a favour spill over to
other relationships like friendships. Concretely, will we start charging our friends via AirBnB when they visit?
44
The Rise of the Sharing City
7 Concluding Remarks
“Now is the age of sharing” – this quote marked the beginning of this thesis. In our everurbanising, increasingly unsustainable world, the role of sharing in modern lifestyles will most
likely continue to grow in importance. As this thesis showed, the evolution of new business
models based on sharing resources, services or lifestyles, and away from ownership is all but
underway already. All developments point to the notion that it is in cities that sharing can
flourish the most.
7.1 Research Questions Addressed
To recap, the two aims of this research were to evaluate why Sharing Cities emerge, to identify
the driving forces behind the concept, to recognise obstacles to its dissemination, and to
investigate its potential; and to present case studies from across the globe, and offer an insight
into the (partial) implementation of the Sharing City concept.
Two research questions were developed in order to fulfil the above aims:
I.
II.
a) Why do the Sharing Cities emerge, and b) what are the driving forces behind their
emergence?
a) What are the obstacles to the (successful) implementation and dissemination of the Sharing
City concept on a wider scale, and b) what is its potential?
Through a process involving literature analysis, qualitative data collection via semi-structured
in-depth interviews and loose discussions, as well as case studies it was possible to gain an
overview of reasons for the Sharing Cities emergence, driving forces behind it, obstacles to its
dissemination, and what is its potential.
RQ I:
a) Why do Sharing Cities emerge? Several reasons or enablers for the emergence of the Sharing
Cities were identified in this thesis (see Chapter 5.1.1). The underlying changes in global
economy have been observed as a major structural factor. The recent economic crisis
motivated people to consider alternative ways of sustaining their life standard. Changes in
attitudes towards consumption and ownership have also been noted as an important factor.
Finally, the development and improvement of ICT has opened possibilities for individuals to
engage in sharing resources that were virtually impossible to coordinate before; and
b) What are the driving forces behind Sharing Cities’ emergence? The driving forces behind the
emergence of Sharing Cities have been recognised in this thesis as good access to ICT
infrastructure, presence of energetic civil society, and flexible city administration (see Chapter
5.1.2). Other drivers include a vibrant sharing business scene (as in San Francisco), an active
municipality (as in Seoul), and a sharing-enthusiastic population (as in Berlin).
RQ II:
a) What are the obstacles to the (successful) implementation and dissemination of the Sharing City concept on a
wider scale? The main obstacles to the implementation and dissemination of the Sharing City
concept on a wider scale were identified in legal frameworks governing the sectors outlined in
the research (see Chapter 5.1.3). The obstacles were identified in both directions: a lack of
regulation for sharing, and regulation that inhibits sharing; and
45
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
b) What is the potential of Sharing Cities? The research indicated that Sharing Cities can benefit the
economic, environmental, social, and democratic dimensions of an urban community, and
hence this is where the main potentials of the concept lie (see Chapter 5.1.4). It should be
noted however that these benefits are highly contingent on the kind of sharing implemented
in cities. Depending on this implementation, sharing may lead not only to benefits but even
have detrimental effects on employees, businesses, and other stakeholders.
7.2 Contribution to the Field & Future Research Recommendations
This research offered an overview of the Sharing City concept, and gave examples of its
implementation. It contributed into the body of literature by offering a comprehensive
approach for a systematic assessment of the Sharing City concept, and presentation of
implementation examples. If this research is contextualised to the specific circumstances and
requirements of the assessment, this approach can be applied to other case studies, and hence
be generally applicable. Since it was the first attempt to analyse the Sharing City in such a
manner, the results should be always perceived in context, and in order for the approach to be
applied in other cases – further refined.
Therefore, this study could be considered an opening phase in Sharing City research. New
avenues for further research have surfaced, and thus a selection of future research
recommendations will be presented below.
A policy analysis of the Sharing City in terms of its effectiveness towards different policy goals
could be useful. A thorough analysis of the sustainability of the Sharing City initiatives could
be particularly relevant in establishing conclusively to what extend it contributes to national
and global sustainability goals (e.g. by European Union, 2014). Also, an analysis of which
legislative changes would be necessary to aid dissemination of the concept could be desirable
and useful not least to potential participant cities.
As this thesis was an exploratory study of a new phenomenon, the focus was global. A regionor country-focused study could help to understand and map regional trends in the Sharing
City concept implementation.
The final recommendation has to deal with the disruptive aspects of implementation of the
Sharing City concept on a wider scale. While it was mentioned in this thesis, the disruption to
traditional businesses was not discussed in great detail. However, future implications may be
considerable, and should be investigated further. Also, as pointed out above, Seoul is already
in the process of creating an expert group, which is going to research potential problems that
their Sharing City implementation might cause in the future (not only for traditional
businesses, but also a host of other stakeholders). It would be worthwhile for other cities to
note this investigation’s results as well as to conduct similar studies themselves. Once again,
this highlights the need for further inquiry into Sharing Cities, to which this thesis has
attempted to contribute.
46
The Rise of the Sharing City
Bibliography
Agyeman, J. (2014). Moving Beyond the Sharing Economy: The Case for “Sharing Cities.” Just Sustainabilities.
Retrieved July 31, 2014, from http://julianagyeman.com/2014/07/beyond-sharing-economy-case-sharingcities/
Agyeman, J., Mclaren, D., & Schaefer-Borrego, A. (2013). Briefing: Sharing Cities. Friends of the Earth,
(September), 1–32.
Amt für Statistik. (2011). Pressemitteilung Nr. 47 vom 18. Februar 2011. Berlin.
Anderson, M., & Galatsidas, A. (2014). Urban population boom poses massive challenges for Africa and Asia.
The
Guardian.
Retrieved
August
02,
2014,
from
http://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment/2014/jul/10/urban-population-growth-africa-asia-united-nations?CMP=twt_gu
Andersson, M., Hjalmarsson, A., & Avital, M. (2013). Peer-to-Peer Service Sharing Platforms: Driving Share and
Share Alike on a Mass-Scale. In 34th International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–15).
Banbury, C., Stinerock, R., & Subrahmanyan, S. (2012). Sustainable consumption: Introspecting across multiple
lived cultures. Journal of Business Research, 65(4), 497–503. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.028
Belk, R. (2007). Why Not Share Rather Than Own? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
611(1), 126–140. doi:10.1177/0002716206298483
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734. doi:10.1086/612649
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business
Research, 67(8), 1595–1600. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001
Benita Matofska. (n.d.). What is the Sharing Economy? The People Who Share. Retrieved September 11, 2014, from
http://www.thepeoplewhoshare.com/blog/what-is-the-sharing-economy/
Benkler, Y. (2004). Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of
Economic Production. The Yale Law Journal, 114(2), 273–358.
Bercovici, J. (2014). Why Uber And Airbnb Might Be In Big Trouble. Forbes. Retrieved August 21, 2014, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/05/13/why-uber-and-airbnb-might-be-in-big-trouble/
Berlin
21. (n.d.). Sharing City Berlin Week. Berlin 21.
http://www.berlin21.net/termin/sharing-city-berlin-week
Retrieved
August
26,
2014,
from
Bildungswerk Berlin der Heinrich Böll Stiftung, & Heyden, M. (2007). Berlin - Wohnen in Eigener Regie.
Wohnportal Berlin. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from http://wohnportal-berlin.de/berlin-wohnen-in-eigenerregie
Bloomberg Businessweek. (n.d.). Best Young Tech Entrepreneurs 2009: AirBnB. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved
August
24,
2014,
from
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0421_best_young_entrepreneurs/9.htm
Blundell-Wignall, A., Atkinson, P., & Lee, S. H. (2008). The Current Financial Crisis: Causes and Policy Issues. OECD.
Board of Supervisors. Planning Code - Efficiency Dwelling Units - Numerical Cap and Open/Common Space
Requirements (2012). San Francisco.
47
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Botsman, R. (2014). The Sharing Economy Lacks A Shared Definition. Co.Exist. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-definition
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010a). Beyond Zipcar : Harvard Business Review, (October).
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010b). What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. London: Harper
Collins.
Bowen, K. (2010). Communal living becomes a social experiment in Berlin. Deutsche Welle. Retrieved August 26,
2014, from http://www.dw.de/communal-living-becomes-a-social-experiment-in-berlin/a-6092980
Braw, E. (2014). Free lunch, anyone? Foodsharing sites and apps stop leftovers going to waste. The Guardian.
Retrieved August 27, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/free-food-sharingleftovers-surplus-local-popular
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., & Mayer, M. (2009). Cities for people, not for profit. City, 13(2-3), 176–184.
doi:10.1080/13604810903020548
Brunner, P. H. (2011). Urban Mining: A Contribution to Reindustrializing the City. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
15(3), 339–341. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00345.x
Bus
et Car, & Intermodes. (2013). Intermodality: The Norwegian Model.
http://www.busetcar.com/outils/upload/transport/BC932-intermodalite/index.html
Retrieved
from
Butterworth, T. (2012). Welcome To The Age Of Urban Mining. Forbes. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/07/17/welcome-to-the-age-of-urban-mining/
Cagle, S. (2014). Imagining the Future of Sharing. The Nib — Medium. Retrieved August 02, 2014, from
https://medium.com/the-nib/imagining-the-future-of-sharing-3fc2a6564a08
Calfee, C., & Weissman, E. (2012). Permission to Transition: Zoning and the Transition Movement. Planning &
Environmental Law, 64(5), 3–10. doi:10.1080/15480755.2012.683689
Carley, M., Jenkins, P., & Smith, H. (2001). Urban Development and Civil Society: The Role of Communities in Sustainable
Cities
(Vol.
5).
Routledge.
Retrieved
from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ycT9AQAAQBAJ&pgis=1
Chesky, B. (n.d.). Shared City. Medium. Retrieved July 12, 2014, from https://medium.com/@bchesky/sharedcity-db9746750a3a
Childs, M. (n.d.). Seoul: Can a “sharing culture” make cities more sustainable? European Sustainable Cities Platform.
Retrieved August 02, 2014, from http://www.sustainablecities.eu/local-stories/seoul-city/
CIA.
(2014a).
CIA
World
Factbook.
Canada.
Retrieved
August
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html
2014,
from
CIA.
(2014b).
CIA
World
Factbook.
Colombia.
Retrieved
August
21,
2014,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/countrytemplate_co.html
from
CIA.
(2014c).
CIA
World
Factbook.
Denmark.
Retrieved
August
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html
22,
2014,
from
CIA.
(2014d).
CIA
World
Factbook.
Germany.
Retrieved
August
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html
22,
2014,
from
48
22,
The Rise of the Sharing City
CIA.
(2014e). CIA World Factbook. South Korea. Retrieved August
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html
22,
2014,
from
City of London. (2014). Planning a sustainable future for the City of London. Waste strategy 2013-2020. Retrieved from
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/waste-andrecycling/Documents/city-of-london-waste-strategy.pdf
CO-UP/Share. (2013). “The Sharing City, Seoul” Project. Retrieved August 02, 2014, from http://coup.com/share/archives/32498
Cohen, M. J. (2013). Collective dissonance and the transition to post-consumerism. Futures, 52, 42–51.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.07.001
Colville-Andersen, M. (2014). Bicycle Urbanism by Design. In ICN SUmmit 2014. Creating Smarter Solutions.
Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Retrieved
from
https://www.eiseverywhere.com/file_uploads/c33dd404d0dd9d6be6863f06a2434d80_ColvilleAndersenBicycleCultureByDesign.pdf
Crowd Companies, & Vision Critical. (2014). Sharing is the New Buying: How to Win in the Collaborative Economy.
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/jeremiah_owyang/sharingnewbuying/1
De Villa, M. (2014). City Guide: Seoul. Collaborative Consumption. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from
http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/2014/03/13/city-guide-seoul/
Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (Second.). McGraw-Hill Book.
Dervojeda, K., Verzijl, D., Nagegaal, F., Lengton, M., Rouwmaat, E., Monfardini, E., & Frideres, L. (2013). The
Sharing Economy. Accessibility Based Business Models for Peer-to-Peer Markets. Business Innovation
Observatory.
Diplock, C., Easton, C., Craib, K., Luna, F., Kurbis, D., Milne, G., … Bock, M. (n.d.). A Report on Sharing in
Vancouver. The Sahring Project.
Dobbs, R., Smit, S., Remes, J., Manyika, J., Roxburgh, C., & Restrepo, A. (2011). Urban world: Mapping the
economic
power
of
cities.
McKinsey
Global
Institute,
(March).
Retrieved
from
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/urbanization/urban_world
Doennebrink, T. (2014). Personal Communication, 10 July 2014.
Dubois, E., Schor, J., & Carfanga, L. (2014). Connected Consumption: A Sharing Economy Takes Hold. Rotman
Management.
Ede, S. (2014). The Circular Economy meets The Access Economy. Post Growth Institute. Retrieved August 03,
2014,
from
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-08-01/the-circular-economy-meets-the-accesseconomy
Eggers, W. D., & Goldsmith, S. (2009). The Public Innovator’s Playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government. Deloitte
Research.
Retrieved
from
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Portugal/Local
Assets/Documents/pt(en)_pslshc_innovatorsplaybook.pdf
European Environmental Agency. (2006). Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored challenge. Report No 10/2006.
European Union. (2014). General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020. Living well, within the limits of our planet.
Luxemburg. doi:10.2779/66315
49
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Fell, D. (2012). Why waste is still a built environment concern for sustainable cities. The Guardian. Retrieved
September 04, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/waste-built-environmentsustainable-cities
Foodsharing. (n.d.-a). Share food instead of throwing it away. Foodsharing Deutschland. Retrieved August 26, 2014,
from http://foodsharing.de/
Foodsharing. (n.d.-b). What is foodsharing? Foodsharing Deutschland. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from
http://foodsharing.de/was-ist
Fournier, S., Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2013, July). Learning to Play in the New “ Share Economy .” Harvard
Business Review, (August), 125–129.
Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., & Meadowcroft, J. (2012). Governing societal transitions to sustainability.
International Journal Of Sustainable Development, 15(1/2), 19–36.
Friends of the Earth. (2013). Big Idea 2: Sharing - a political force to be reckoned with? Friends of the Earth.
Friends
of
the
Earth.
Retrieved
August
02,
2014,
from
http://www.foe.co.uk/bigideas/think_piece_cities_sharing_41208.html
Gabriel, R. (2013). Why I buy: Self, taste, and consumer society in America. University of Chicago Press.
Gansky, L. (2010). The Mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. Penguin.
Gaskins, K. (2010). Shareable / Latitude 42: The New Sharing Economy Study. Latitude Research°. Retrieved
August 02, 2014, from http://latd.com/2010/06/01/shareable-latitude-42-the-new-sharing-economy/
Gehl,
J. (n.d.). Public Spaces - Public Life - for the 21st Century. Retrieved from
http://www.uirs.si/Portals/_default/predavanja/080528_UI_lecture_Jan_Gehl_Urban_Design_for_Peop
le.pdf
Gil, J., & Duarte, J. P. (2012). Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design : a review. Urban Design and Planning.
Retrieved
from
https://www.academia.edu/2613229/Tools_for_evaluating_the_sustainability_of_urban_design_a_review
Goel, S. (2014). Capitalism Versus the Sharing Economy. University of California Berkeley. Retrieved from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8xd4m19w#page-1
Gorenflo, N. (2012). San Francisco Announces Sharing Economy Working Group. Shareable. Retrieved August
24, 2014, from http://co-up.com/share/archives/32498
Gorenflo, N. (2013a). Collaborative consumption is dead, long live the real sharing economy. PandoDaily.
Retrieved July 12, 2014, from http://pando.com/2013/03/19/collaborative-consumption-is-dead-longlive-the-real-sharing-economy/
Gorenflo, N. (2013b). What’s Next for the Sharing Movement? Shareable. Retrieved August 02, 2014, from
http://www.shareable.net/blog/whats-next-for-the-sharing-movement
Gorenflo, N. (2014). Why Banning Uber Makes Seoul Even More of a Sharing City - Shareable. Shareable.
Retrieved August 02, 2014, from http://www.shareable.net/blog/why-banning-uber-makes-seoul-evenmore-of-a-sharing-city
Growth Strategies. (2014). Are we becoming a collaborative economy? Possibly. Growth Strategies, (1083), 2–4.
50
The Rise of the Sharing City
Guerrini, F. (2014). How Seoul Became One Of The World’s Sharing Capitals. Forbes. Retrieved August 26, 2014,
from http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2014/05/25/how-seoul-became-one-of-the-worldssharing-capitals/
Haapio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32, 165–169.
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.08.002
Hackmann, F. (2014). Betahaus, Berlin’s most known coworking space, turns five. VentureVillage. Retrieved
August 26, 2014, from http://venturevillage.eu/betahaus-berlins-most-known-coworking-space-turns-five
Hampshire, R. C., & Gaites, C. (2011). Peer-to-Peer Carsharing: Market Analysis and Potential Growth. Journal of
the
Transportation
Research
Board,
2(2217),
119–126.
Retrieved
from
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1093048
Han, B.-C. (2014). Neoliberales Herrschaftssystem - Kommunismus als Ware, das ist das Ende der Revolution.
Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/neoliberalesherrschaftssystem-warum-heute-keine-revolution-moeglich-ist-1.2110256-2
Hansen, M. S., & Power, K. (2010). Evaluation of tools to promote sustainable consumption and green lifestyles.
Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Retrieved
from
http://cri.dk/files/dokumenter/artikler/backgroundpapercsessions456.pdf
Hardy, Q. (2014, August 12). What cars did for today’s world, data may do for the world of the future.
International New York Times.
Hart, A. (2012). How San Francisco Can Lead the Sharing Economy. Shareable. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from
http://www.shareable.net/blog/how-san-francisco-can-lead-the-sharing-economy
Heinberg, R. (2013). Who knew that Seoul was a leader in the sharing economy? Post Carbon Institute. Retrieved
August 02, 2014, from http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/1949822-who-knew-that-seoul-was-a
Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy (Third.). Cambridge: Polity.
Hughes, J., Lang, K. R., & Vragov, R. (2008). An analytical framework for evaluating peer-to-peer business
models. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(1), 105–118. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.01.001
Jackson, E. (2014). Is Vancouver the car sharing capital of North America? Metro. Retrieved August 22, 2014,
from
http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/986202/is-vancouver-the-car-sharing-capital-of-northamerica/
Janssen, C. (n.d.). Consumer-to-Business (C2B) Definition. Techopedia. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.techopedia.com/definition/23258/consumer-to-business-c2b
Jarvis, H. (2011). Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and
Planning A, 43(3), 560–577. doi:10.1068/a43296
Johnson, C. (2013). Is Seoul the next Great Sharing City? Our World. Retrieved July 12, 2014, from
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/is-seoul-the-next-great-sharing-city
Johnson, C. (2014a). 11 Affordable Housing Alternatives for City Dwellers. Shareable. Retrieved August 25, 2014,
from http://www.shareable.net/blog/11-affordable-housing-alternatives-for-city-dwellers
Johnson, C. (2014b). Sharing City Seoul: a Model for the World. Shareable. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from
http://www.shareable.net/blog/sharing-city-seoul-a-model-for-the-world
51
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Kalan, J. (2014). 10 Million Sardines in a Sea of Skyscrapers. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/08/think_again_sprawling_megacities_lagos_mumbai_u
rbanization
Kaplansky, D., Segal, B., & Wei, Z. (2014). Prepare to Share. Management Today, 34–38.
Kearns, D. T., & Nadler, D. A. (1995). Prophets in the Dark: How Xerox Reinvented Itself and Beat Back the
Japanese. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(7), 914–915.
Kipling, R. (1902). Just So Stories. Macmillan & Co. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2781/2781h/2781-h.htm
Kneeshaw, S. (2014). The Sharing Economy: What’s In It For Cities? URBACT The blog. Retrieved July 12, 2014,
from http://www.blog.urbact.eu/2014/05/the-sharing-economy-whats-in-it-for-cities/
Koch, C. (2014). Ready to join the sharing economy? Director, 66.
Korobar, V. (2013). The Interconnection of Sustainability and Collaborative Consumption - A case study of clothing libraries.
Lund
University.
Retrieved
from
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=3800323&fileOId=3800324
Kunst, F. (2013). Challenges and Answers: The Berlin Transport Strategy 19 June 2013 (pp. 1–39). Berlin. Retrieved from
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3708kunst.pdf
Kuymulu, M. B. (2013). Reclaiming the right to the city: Reflections on the urban uprisings in Turkey. City, 17(3),
274–278. doi:10.1080/13604813.2013.815450
Kwon, N., & Jung, D. (2014). Personal Communication, 14 July 2014.
La Cocina. (n.d.). La Cocina. Cultivating Food Enterpreneurs. La Cocina. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from
http://www.lacocinasf.org/
Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is Ours Better than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and
Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems. Journal of Marketing, (July), 1–51. Retrieved from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1939289
Levenston, M. (n.d.). Seoul City Farmers – Korea. City Farmer News. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from
http://www.cityfarmer.info/2014/04/08/seoul-city-farmers-korea/
Lewis, M. O., & Elaver, R. (2014). Managing and fostering creativity: An integrated approach. The International
Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 235–247. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.009
Luna, M. (2010). How to Start a Housing Co-op. Shareable.
Macaulay, L. A. (2012). Case Studies in Service Innovation. (I. Miles & B. Ilby, JenniferAn, Yin LengHao,
Lipingheodoulidis, Eds.). New York: Springer New York.
Makkonen, J. (2014). The collaborative economy is for everyone. OuiShare. Retrieved August 02, 2014, from
http://magazine.ouishare.net/2014/07/the-collaborative-economy-is-for-everyone/
Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
Matofska, B. (2013). Facing the future: share to survive. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved August 02, 2014, from
https://www.foe.co.uk/news/thepeoplewhoshare_38689
52
The Rise of the Sharing City
Mayer, M. (2009). The “Right to the City” in the context of shifting mottos of urban social movements. City,
13(2-3), 362–374. doi:10.1080/13604810902982755
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (n.d.). Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smarth Growth.
Toolbox/Handbbok: Parking Best Practices & Strategies For Supporting Transit Oriented Development in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smarth Growth.
Mont,
O., & Power, K. (2009). Understanding factors that shape
http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/wp2013_1/wp/wp2013_1
consumption.
Retrieved
from
Mont, O., & Power, K. (2010). The Role of Formal and Informal Forces in Shaping Consumption and
Implications for a Sustainable Society. Part I. Sustainability, 2(7), 2232–2252. doi:10.3390/su2072232
Moore, R. (2014). Copper Lane review – an appealing, harmonious, cost-effective model for communal living.
The
Observer.
Retrieved
September
03,
2014,
from
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/31/copper-lane-review-cohousing-stokenewington-henley-halebrown-rorrison
Müser, K. (2014). How to become a hipster and why no one wants to. Deutsche Welle. Retrieved August 26, 2014,
from http://www.dw.de/how-to-become-a-hipster-and-why-no-one-wants-to/a-17568441
Niculae, E., Glyki, E., & Campbell, J. (2013). Business Innovation in a Living Economy. (D. Yeow & B. Normander,
Eds.). Copenhagen, Denmark: Worldwatch Institute Europe.
Nikola. (2013). Overview of Seoul’s Car-Sharing Services. Kojects. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from
http://kojects.com/2013/04/18/overview-of-seoul-car-sharing-services/
O’Connor, L. (2014). Airbnb Faces Near-Ban In San Francisco. Huffington Post. Retrieved August 02, 2014, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/airbnb-laws-san-francisco_n_5235820.html
Olson, M. J., & Connor, A. D. (2013). The Distruption of Sharing: An Overview of the New Peer-to-Peer
“Sharing Economy” and The Impact on Established Internet Companies. Piper Jaffray, (November), 72–75.
Retrieved from https://piper2.bluematrix.com/docs/pdf/35ef1fcc-a07b-48cf-ab80-04d80e5665c4.pdf
Oltermann, P. (2014). Berlin “borrowing shop” promotes the benefits of sharing. The Guardian. Retrieved August
22, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/berlin-borrowing-shop-benefits-shareleila
Opinium
Research,
&
Marke2ing.
(2012).
The
Sharing
Economy.
Retrieved
http://opinium.co.uk/sites/default/files/Opinium_Marke2ing_Sharing_economy_Report.pdf
from
OuiShare. (n.d.). OuiShare Summit Berlin.
http://ouisharesummitberlin.strikingly.com/
from
Strikingly.
Retrieved
August
26,
2014,
Owyang, J. (2014). Framework: Collaborative Economy Honeycomb. Jeremiah Owyang Blog. Retrieved August 19,
2014,
from
http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2014/05/05/framework-collaborative-economyhoneycomb-osfest14/
Oxford
Dictionary.
(n.d.).
Hipster:
definition.
Retrieved
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hipster
September
11,
2014,
from
Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-consumption ? An examination of toy library
users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 498(9), 485–498. doi:10.1002/cb
53
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights. (2014). People Organizing to Demand
Environmental & Economic Rights |. Retrieved June 22, 2014, from http://www.podersf.org/
Phan, D. D. (2003). E-business development for competitive advantages: a case study. Informantion & Management,
40, 581–590.
Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. SAGE Publications.
Purcell, M. (2013). The right to the city: the struggle for democracy in the urban public realm. Policy & Politics,
43(3), 311–327.
Rechel, U. (2012). Carsharing - Modelle in Berlin. Tip Berlin. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from http://www.tipberlin.de/kultur-und-freizeit-stadtleben-und-leute/vergleich-carsharing-modelle-berlin
Reid, I., & Smyth-Renshaw, J. (2012). Exploring the Fundamentals of Root Cause Analysis: Are We Asking the
Right Questions in Defining the Problem? Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 28(5), 535–545.
doi:10.1002/qre.1435
Richard, C. (2011). Share your Food: A Holistic Approach. Berlin Art Link. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from
http://www.berlinartlink.com/2011/04/14/share-your-food-a-holistic-approach-2/
Rifkin, J. (2014a). The End of the Capitalist Era, and What Comes Next. Huffington Post. Retrieved August 21,
2014, from http://www.shareable.net/blog/why-banning-uber-makes-seoul-even-more-of-a-sharing-city
Rifkin, J. (2014b). The Zero Marginal Cost Society | Authors at Google. Talks at Google. Retrieved September 04,
2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-iDUcETjvo
Rostow, W. W. (1990). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (Revised.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sacks,
D. (2011). The Sharing Economy. Fast Company.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1747551/sharing-economy
Retrieved
July
09,
2014,
from
Schifferes, J. (2013a). Profiting from sharing (Part 2). RSA. Action and Research Centre. Retrieved June 05, 2014,
from http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2013/social-economy/profiting-sharing/
Schifferes, J. (2013b). Sharing our way to prosperity (Part 1). RSA. Action and Research Centre. Retrieved June 05,
2014, from http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2013/social-economy/sharing-prosperity/
Schultz, R. (2013). Adjacent opportunities: the collaboration economy. E:CO, 15(4), 144–146.
SELC. (2011). The Shareable Food Movement Meets the Law. Shareable. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from
http://www.shareable.net/blog/the-shareable-food-movement-meets-the-law
Seoul. (n.d.). Seoul Traffic Vision 2030. The Official Website of Seoul Metropolitan Government. Retrieved August 26,
2014, from http://english.seoul.go.kr/policy-information/traffic/seoul-traffic-vision-2030/
Seoul
City Farmers. (n.d.). Seoul City Farmers.
http://www.meetup.com/Seoul-City-Farmers/
Meetup.
Retrieved
August
26,
2014,
from
SFBikeShare. (n.d.). About SFBikeShare. SF Bike Share Sites. Retrieved September 04, 2014, from
http://sfbikeshare.sfmta.com/page/about
54
The Rise of the Sharing City
SFMTA. (n.d.-a). Bike Sharing. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. Retrieved September 04, 2014, from
http://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/bike-sharing
SFMTA. (n.d.-b). Car Sharing Policy and Pilot Project. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency - Projects.
Retrieved June 22, 2014, from http://sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/car-sharing-policy-and-pilotproject
Share Hub. (n.d.). Meet Share Hub. Share Hub. Retrieved August 27, 2014, from http://sharehub.kr/english
Shareable. (n.d.-a). About - Shareable. Retrieved September 08, 2014, from http://www.shareable.net/about
Shareable.
(n.d.-b).
Sharing
Cities
Network.
http://www.shareable.net/sharing-cities
Retrieved
September
10,
2014,
from
Shareable. (n.d.-c). Sharing Cities Network. San Francisco, CA, USA. Shareable. Retrieved August 24, 2014, from
http://www.shareable.net/cities/san-francisco-ca-usa
Shareable. (n.d.-d). Sharing Cities Network. Seoul, South Korea. Shareable. Retrieved August 24, 2014, from
http://www.shareable.net/cities/seoul-south-korea
Shareable. (2014). Retrieved August 03, 2014, from http://www.shareable.net/
Shareable and Sustainable Economies Law Center Team. (2013). Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing
Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders. Shareable. Retrieved August 02, 2014, from
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-09-11/policies-for-shareable-cities-a-sharing-economy-policyprimer-for-urban-leaders
Shareable, & SELC’s Policies for Shareable Cities. (2013). Policies for Shareable Cities. A Sharing Economy Policy Primer
for Urban Leaders.
Sharetribe. (2014). Retrieved August 03, 2014, from https://www.sharetribe.com/
Silver, J. (2013). The sharing economy: a whole new way of living | Technology | The Observer. The Guardian.
Retrieved May 05, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/04/internettechnology-fon-taskrabbit-blablacar
Skidelsky, R., & Skidelsky, E. (2012). How Much is Enough? The Love of Money, and the Case for the Good Life. London:
Penguin.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2010). Working paper series : Studies in Collaborative Innovation (pp. 1–23). Retrieved from
www.ruc.dk/?eID=push&docID=5617
Srivastava, M. (2013). A Comprehensive Study of Corporate Scial Responsibility with the Help of Rudyard
Kipling’s Model. AIMA Journal of Management & Research, 7(1/4).
Steinberg, S., & Vlasic, B. (2013). Car-Sharing Services Grow, and Expand Options. New York Times. Retrieved
August 19, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/business/car-sharing-services-grow-andexpand-options.html?ref=technology&_r=1&
Stiglitz, J. (2014). Medellín: A Light Unto Cities. Carnegie Council: Policy Innovations. Retrieved August 02, 2014,
from http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000262
Stone, Z. (2013). Why The Sharing Economy Is Taking Off In Seoul. Co.Exist. Retrieved July 12, 2014, from
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682623/why-the-sharing-economy-is-taking-off-in-seoul
55
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Swiss Federal Office for Energy. (2006). Evaluation Car-Sharing. Bern.
Thadeusz, J. (2014). “Uber” macht weiter - trotz Verbot. rbb Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg. Retrieved August 26,
2014, from http://www.rbb-online.de/wirtschaft/beitrag/2014/08/berliner-behoerde-verbietet-uberapp.html
The Economist. (2013). Peer-to-peer rental. The rise of the sharing economy. The Economist. Retrieved May 02,
2014, from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise-sharingeconomy
The Food Revolution. (n.d.). Food Revolution San Francisco. The Food Revolution Facebook Page. Retrieved August
25, 2014, from https://www.facebook.com/FoodRevolutionSF/info
The World Bank. (2013). Learning To Be More Energy Efficient in Europe and Central Asia: Lessons from
Success
Stories.
Retrieved
September
05,
2014,
from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/06/25/energy-efficiency-lessons-learned-europe-andcentral-asia
The
World Bank. (2014). Urban Development |
http://data.worldbank.org/topic/urban-development
Data.
Retrieved
August
02,
2014,
from
United Nations. (2012). World Urbanization Prospects. The 2011 Revision.
Urban Mining. (n.d.). About Urban Mining. Retrieved September 05, 2014, from http://urbanmining.org/
Volker, B., & Flap, H. (2007). Sixteen Million Neighbors: A Multilevel Study of the Role of Neighbors in the Personal
Networks of the Dutch. Urban Affairs Review (Vol. 43, pp. 256–284). doi:10.1177/1078087407302001
WHO. (n.d.). WHO | Urban population growth. Global Health Observatory. World Health Organization. Retrieved
August
27,
2014,
from
http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/
Wiesmann, T. (2013). Living by the Principle of Sharing – an interview with Raphael Fellmer. OuiShare. Retrieved
July 30, 2014, from http://magazine.ouishare.net/2013/06/raphael-fellmer-sharing-food-waste/
Wikimedia Commons. (2006). Blank Politic World Map. Retrieved August 11, 2014, from
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommo
ns%2Fe%2Fec%2FWorld_Map_Blank.svg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwi
ki%2FFile%3AWorld_Map_Blank.svg&h=1537&w=2752&tbnid=KGq3SSZc8eNJnM%3A&zoom=1&d
ocid=5EjpnowFxeRFNM&ei=B9YRVNrzIIKaygOVl4DgBg&tbm=isch&client=safari&iact=rc&uact=3
&dur=1269&page=1&start=0&ndsp=13&ved=0CCIQrQMwAA
wm. (2013). Sharing City Berlin – Workshop 2013-09-27. Social Foresight Network. Retrieved August 26, 2014,
from http://socialforesight.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/sharing-city-berlin-workshop-2013-09-27/
Woozoo. (n.d.). Woozoo guide for foreigners. Retrieved from http://woozoo.kr
World Economic Forum. (2013). Circular Economy, Innovation & New Business Models Dialogue. Young
Global Leaders Sharing Economy Dialogue Position Paper 2013. Young Global Leaders.
World Population Statistics. (2013). San Francisco Population 2013. Retrieved August 22, 2014, from
http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/san-francisco-population-2013/
Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
56
The Rise of the Sharing City
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods (5th ed.). London: SAGE.
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2014). The Rise of the Sharing Economy : Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on
the Hotel Industry. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2366898
57
The Rise of the Sharing City
Appendix A
INTERVIEW GUIDE I
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
Thomas Doennebrink, a Berlin-based freelance expert on Collaborative Consumption and
connector of OuiShare Berlin was interviewed on the 10th of July 2014 via telephone call.
Neal Gorenflo, the co-founder of Shareable was interviewed on the 15th of July 2014 via
email.
Nanshil Kwon, the Creative Commons Korea and Share Hub project manager
& Diane DaYe Jung, the Creative Commons Korea activist were interviewed on the 14th of
July 2014 via Skype.
Chelsea Rustrum, a San Francisco-based sharing economy practitioner
interdependence consultant was interviewed on the 30th of July 2014 via Skype.
and
LIST OF DISCUSSANTS
European Commission Official was consulted in-person in Brussels, Belgium on the 28th
of February 2014.
Eva Heiskanen, a Visiting Professor at the IIIEE and an Associate Professor at the
Helsinki School of Economics was consulted in-person in Lund, Sweden in the early stages
of this research.
Kes McCormick, a Docent at the IIIEE was consulted in-person in Lund, Sweden in the
early stages of this research.
Philip Peck, an Associate Professor at the IIIEE was consulted in-person in Lund, Sweden
in the early stages of this research.
Susanne Salz, a Project Manager at the Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption
and Production (CSCP) in Wuppertal, Germany was consulted throughout the research
period.
Åke Thidell, an Assistant Professor at the IIIEE was consulted in-person in Lund, Sweden
in the early stages of this research.
59
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Appendix B
INTERVIEW GUIDE II
Questionnaire 1/2
The following questionnaire including an introductory statement was used for semistructured interviews in three out of four interviews.
Questionnaire for semi-structured interviews:
The research investigates the concept of a sharing city, attempts to identify opportunities as
well as barriers to its dissemination, and presents case studies from across the globe: Berlin,
San Francisco, and Seoul.
Main questions
Additional questions
Clarifying questions
•
How did you learn about a
sharing city?
•
Can you expand a little
on this?
•
Or what is your role in it?
•
Can you tell me
anything else?
•
Can you give me some
examples?
1. DESCRIPTION:
•
Can you tell me about a sharing
city?
Or
•
What is a sharing city?
Or
•
How would you define a sharing
city?
2. EXPLANATION:
•
Why a sharing city?
•
Does it (Sharing City)
happen?
•
What do you think were the
reasons for its emergence?
•
What is the history behind
sharing city?
•
Were there specific interests
groups/people who initiated it?
•
Was there a formal decision or
has it evolved naturally?
Or
•
Why did/does it (sharing city)
happen?
•
How did the idea emerge and
develop, and over what period of
60
The Rise of the Sharing City
time?
3. UNDERSTANDING AND
INTERPRETATION:
•
Could you describe how the
sharing city looks like, what
activities comprise it, and how it
changed over time?
•
What does it mean for
you/business/etc.?
Or
•
What does it mean for a city?
•
What is the contribution of
sharing city to a city?
•
In what way does a city or people
benefit from Sharing Economy:
economic, environmental or social
sustainability?
4. PREDICTION:
•
What is to be expected?
•
Why?
•
(this question is still to be
expanded and developed: focus
areas: specific contributions)
•
What about the potential of
SCity to develop; expand;
increase quality of life or
social justice?
•
How can a sharing city
contribute to economic
prosperity or social cohesion
of a city or its citizens,
•
How can it reduce
environmental impacts by
reusing or producing
products and services?
•
…for a
city/you/business/etc.?
5. ATTRACTIVENESS:
•
What is it that makes a sharing
city attractive?
Or
•
What are the main benefits of a
sharing city?
61
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
6. CRITIQUE:
•
What problems, challenges and
barriers have the movement
encountered during establishment
of Sharing Economy?
•
Are there different in challenges
between different activities, e.g.
growing food, sharing cars or
exchanging goods and services?
•
How can they be overcome?
•
How can these assumptions
be challenged/interrupted?
•
Do you think it is feasible?
•
What do you think is needed
for it to be feasible?
Or
•
What are the main obstacles to
dissemination and scaling up of
the sharing city idea?
7. DISTRUPTION:
•
Are there limitations of/to a
sharing city?
Or
Can you think of any threats
caused by the larger uptake of
sharing city?
8. PRESCRIPTION, CHANGE
AND EMANTICIPATION:
•
How do you imagine a sharing
city of the future (ideal/optimal
SC)?
Or
•
62
How can it be transformed for the
better?
The Rise of the Sharing City
Questionnaire 2/2
The following questionnaire including an introductory statement was used for semistructured interviews in one (Neal Gorenflo) out of four interviews.
Simplified Questionnaire:
The research investigates the concept of a Sharing City, attempts to identify opportunities as
well as barriers to its dissemination, and presents case studies from across the globe: Berlin,
San Francisco, and Seoul.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
How would you define a Sharing City?
What do you think were the reasons for the emergence of Sharing City?
What is the contribution of Sharing City to a city?
How can a Sharing City contribute to economic prosperity or social cohesion of a
city or its citizens?
What is it that makes a Sharing City attractive?
What are the main obstacles to dissemination and scaling up of the Sharing City idea?
Are there limitations (or threats) of/to a sharing city?
How do you imagine a Sharing City of the future (ideal/optimal SC)?
63
Patrycja M. Długosz, IIIEE, Lund University
Appendix C
COLLABORATIVE ECONOMY HONEY COMB as designed by Jeremiah Owyang
(2014)
64