Urban sharing in smart cities: the cases of Berlin and London

Abstract

Addressing urban sustainability challenges requires changes in the way systems of provision and services are designed, organised and delivered. In this context, two promising phenomena have gained interest from the academia, the public sector and the media: "smart cities" and "urban sharing". Smart cities rely on the extensive use of information and communications technology (ICT) to increase efficiencies in urban areas, while urban sharing builds on the collaborative use of idling resources enabled by ICT in densely populated cities. The concepts have many similar features and share common goals, yet cities with smart city agendas often fail to take a stance on urban sharing. Thus, its potentials are going largely unnoticed by local governments. This article addresses this issue by exploring cases of London and Berlintwo ICT-dense cities with clearly articulated smart city agendas and an abundance of sharing platforms. Drawing on urban governance literature, we develop a conceptual framework that specifies the roles that cities assume when governing urban sharing: city as regulator, city as provider, city as enabler and city as consumer. We find that both cities indirectly support urban sharing through smart agenda programmes, which aim to facilitate ICT-enabled technical innovation and emergence of start-ups. However, programmes, strategies, support schemes and regulations aimed directly at urban sharing initiatives are few. We also find that Berlin is sceptical towards urban sharing organisations, while London took more of a collaborative approach. Implications for policy-makers are discussed in the end.

Smart and sustainable cities? Pipedreams, practicalities and possibilities

“…At the same time, there are synergies in smart-sustainable cities that either go beyond or could potentially go beyond broadly neoliberal 'business as usual'. Making urban data widely available, developing a city-scale 'Internet of Things' and mobilising smart and digital technologies has the potential to enhance social well-being, empower communities, reveal previously hidden urban environmental processes, enable resource and skills sharing, include citizens in co-creative governance processes, generate novel solutions to mundane urban problems, and underpin new models for more efficient use of idle assets (see Zvolska et al 2019;Menny, Voytenko Palgan, and McCormick 2018;McLaren and Agyeman 2015;Martin, Evans, and Karvonen 2018). But this also requires the careful application of ICT technologies to avoid empowering corporate interests within urban visioning and management and further excluding those already marginalised by prevailing technocratic and entrepreneurial forms of urban governance (Vanolo 2014;Söderström, Paasche, and Klauser 2014;Hollands 2016).…”

The Role of Cities in the Sharing Economy: Exploring Modes of Governance in Urban Sharing Practices

“…This is also recognised by Davidson and Infranca [26] when discussing the sharing economy as an urban governance challenge, pointing to the intrinsic dependences between sharing activities and specific urban conditions. Indeed, local or "city governments around the world are increasingly adopting policies to regulate some forms of sharing" [14]. Building upon a framework for urban climate governance developed by Bulkeley and Kern [12], Zvolska et al [14] suggested the different roles that cities assume when governing urban sharing are: governing by regulation, governing by provision, governing by enabling, and governing by consumption.…”

“…Indeed, local or "city governments around the world are increasingly adopting policies to regulate some forms of sharing" [14]. Building upon a framework for urban climate governance developed by Bulkeley and Kern [12], Zvolska et al [14] suggested the different roles that cities assume when governing urban sharing are: governing by regulation, governing by provision, governing by enabling, and governing by consumption. We will come back to this next, when discussing our analytical framework.…”

“…To be able to discuss city engagement in the sharing economy, we develop an analytical framework that can help with this examination. The framework is inspired by Bulkeley and Kern [12] and Zvolska et al [14]. The extended typology includes five different modes of governing based on the type of capacity cities can have or take in different settings:…”

“…On the other hand, in countries like Sweden, where the voluntary sector has traditionally focused on sports and leisure, this means the sharing economy might never take off [6]. Yet, the sharing economy could have many benefits for municipal development and democratisation [14]. May et al [15], for example, argue that digital sharing platforms could be a way for cities to pursue a more attractive image.…”