'What If We All Chip In?' Civic Crowdfunding As Alternative Financing For Urban Development Projects

Sedlitzky, Raphael; Franz, Yvonne

doi:10.2148/benv.45.1.26

Cited by 15 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, they expect a certain social impact or simply a noble feeling as a reward (Lehner, 2013). If rewards exist, they should have a symbolic value that is lower than the donation amount (Sedlitzky & Franz, 2019). Brent and Chan (2019) analysed the 'crowding out' phenomenon in civic markets.…”

Section: Backers and Rewardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Civic crowdfunding: A new opportunity for local governments

Crescenzo

Botella-Carrubí

Rodríguez-García

2021

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In civic crowdfunding, local communities are asked to financially contribute to projects aimed at the regeneration of an area. Usually a local government acts as a co-funder. This paper employs a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to discover which conditions are combined and may result in the collection of a significant amount of funds. Five conditions were selected: the nature of project, the number of backers, the number of rewards, the percentage of backers that did not require a reward and the percentage of rewards not required during the fundraising campaign. The study used a sample of 40 Italian successful civic crowdfunding rounds sponsored and match-funded by a local government. The nature of the projects and the presence of rewards seem to emerge as critical influencing factors. These findings open up further investigations on the attitudes of civic backers towards rewards and on the charitable nature of civic fundraising.

show abstract

Section: Backers and Rewardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Civic crowdfunding: A new opportunity for local governments

Crescenzo

Botella-Carrubí

Rodríguez-García

2021

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to citizens or civil society organizations, subnational governments, national governments (Zoellig 2017; Desmoulins and Charbit 2017), and public financial institutions (Wenzlaff 2017) are listed as initiators of civCF campaigns. The theoretical discussions of civCF project initiators focusses on the distinction between governmental civCF (with the initiator being a public agency) and community civCF (with the initiator being a citizen or a non-profit created by citizens) (Sedlitzky and Franz 2019). Governmental civCF can provide many benefits to public entities, which is discussed below.…”

Section: Perspective 3: Ownermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, the civic crowdfunding platform Voorjebuurt takes up to five working days to verify projects before they are being published on the platform (Voorjebuurt 2019). Platforms also facilitate payments, process withdrawal requests, and complaints (Sedlitzky and Franz 2019), and ensure the compliance with regulation (money laundering, investor protection) (Lehner 2013).…”

Section: Perspective 4: Platformmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Civic Crowdfunding: Four Perspectives on the Definition of Civic Crowdfunding

Wenzlaff¹

2020

Advances in Crowdfunding

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Campaigns are also hosted on few equity-based CFPs and lendingbased CFPs (Assenmacher 2017; Catapult 2018; Wenzlaff et al. 2015; Old et al. 2019). The civic equity-based crowdfunding platform "Leih-Deiner-Stadt-Geld" (Lend money to your city) is facilitating equity investments in city property, such as an investment into firearms equipment at the city of Oestrich-Winkel (LeihDeinerStadtGeld GmbH 2012). Civic crowdfunding campaigns can be found on special-purpose CFPs, with Spacehive being the most prominent international example. Italy, France, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, and many other countries have seen platforms dedicated to civic crowdfunding, with a majority of platforms offering donations and pre-sales of rewards. Almost all major international reward-based platforms (like Kickstarter, Indiegogo, GoFundme) and many local reward-based platforms have introduced project categories focussing on civil purposes (Davies 2014). The German platform 'startnext', in its category called 'Community', featured projects such as the funding of a fountain in a Berlin Park or the Pacific Garbage Screening Project (Förderkreis des FEZ-Berlin e.V. 2018; PGS-Team 2018). The Italian platform Produzioni Dal Basso is an all-purpose CFP which features the category of 'Social and Community', making up 1145 projects (of 5771 projects in total) and EUR 3.6m (of 11.4m in total) and thus constituting the biggest category on the platform. It is interesting to reflect on the interaction between all-purpose CFPs and special-purpose CFPs. The history of platform-based crowdfunding cannot be summarized in this chapter, but with regard to civCF, it should be noted that the first reward-based platforms were special-purpose CFPs dedicated to music and film (Sellaband, Artistshare) which gave rise to all-purpose platforms (Kickstarter, Indiegogo). The success of platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo influenced the founding of special-purpose civCF platforms, which in turn motivated the large all-purpose platforms to introduce civCF categories. In equity-based and lending-based crowdfunding, the special-purpose CFPs developed alongside special-purpose CFPs for start-ups, energy projects, or real estate projects. However, international equity-based crowdfunding platforms like OurCrowd do not have a dedicated category to civCF campaigns. Analysing the interaction between civCF platforms and civCF categories on all-purpose CFPs merits further research since it would provide a K. Wenzlaff

show abstract

“…In 2019, 50 years after Arnstein's categorisation, and over 50 years after ideas of public participation gained popularity, government policy embeds public consultation for large urban and infrastructural projects in many countries and is recommended by the United Nations (Brlík & Pelčíková, 2018; Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, 2007;Drazkiewicz, Challies, & Newig, 2015;European Council of Spatial Planners, 2016;Flores, 2005;Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, 2019;NSW Government, 2018). Plenty of creative ideas and innovations have been trialled (Brandt, Messeter, & Binder, 2008;Lauwaert, 2009;Rumore, Schenk, & Susskind, 2016;Sedlitzky & Franz, 2019), yet we remain with a process that the public, planners and other built environment professionals regard as a box-ticking exercise for a foregone conclusion driven by technologyled solutions and returns on investment. This belief is not unfounded.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Playing for the Future: Using Codesign Games to Explore Alternative Sanitation Systems in London

Teh

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public participation is viewed as a best practice in planning, and yet most people who participate in it (planners included) often feel that it is a cynical box-ticking exercise. Citizen participation rates are usually low, implying that they may feel this way too. There are two good reasons for this feeling: On the one hand, public consultation often only occurs when it is a mandatory exercise required by government for development approval; on the other, when public consultation occurs it is after much time and effort has been invested by professionals to develop a scheme therefore change is made reluctantly or not at all. These factors create a reactionary and adversarial atmosphere during consultation. These structural limitations mean that there is no time to find alignment of interests between project developers and the public, or to develop trust and collaborations. This article explores how codesign games as a form of public participation can be done at an early stage of project development to contribute to finding alignment of interests and collaborations between project developers and different public interests. The empirical case study is focussed on the possibilities for the retrofit of sustainable sanitation systems in London. Three future sanitation systems were developed by 14 workshop participants. They demonstrate new alignments of interests, from methods of collection and treatment, to new economies of reuse and production. It also established reasons why the current water-based sanitation systems are obdurate, and the work involved in keeping the status quo.

show abstract

'What If We All Chip In?' Civic Crowdfunding As Alternative Financing For Urban Development Projects

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Civic crowdfunding: A new opportunity for local governments

Civic crowdfunding: A new opportunity for local governments

Civic Crowdfunding: Four Perspectives on the Definition of Civic Crowdfunding

Playing for the Future: Using Codesign Games to Explore Alternative Sanitation Systems in London

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About