Abstract
Digital platforms have an impact on everyday life, changing the organisation of markets, work, consumption patterns, urban governance, local welfare measures and citizen participation.
Urban digital platform (UDP), like Commonfare, might promote exchange of welfare measures vary from solidarity buying groups, cohabitation experiences, FabLabs, time banks, co-working spaces, self-managed creches, social cooperatives, ethic banks, urban gardens, popular gyms, initiatives related to free and open-source software.
To distinguish UDP from the notorious ones is relevant to observe analytical categories such as, a) discourse and allocation: the capacity to produce and redistribute goods and services for urban communities; b) governance: the level of accessibility, openness, mutualism and internal democratic control for users; c) urban actors and spatialies: the number of users and the type of actors involved, representation, and location of allocated projects.
Conversely, Commonfare and similar type of initiatives, encounter limits in access related to techno-biases, media literacy, namely low number of users and lack of participation, over-representation of certain users, as well as obstacles related to the availability of financial resources, such as subsidies and grants, and more.
Urban digital platform (UDP), like Commonfare, might promote exchange of welfare measures vary from solidarity buying groups, cohabitation experiences, FabLabs, time banks, co-working spaces, self-managed creches, social cooperatives, ethic banks, urban gardens, popular gyms, initiatives related to free and open-source software.
To distinguish UDP from the notorious ones is relevant to observe analytical categories such as, a) discourse and allocation: the capacity to produce and redistribute goods and services for urban communities; b) governance: the level of accessibility, openness, mutualism and internal democratic control for users; c) urban actors and spatialies: the number of users and the type of actors involved, representation, and location of allocated projects.
Conversely, Commonfare and similar type of initiatives, encounter limits in access related to techno-biases, media literacy, namely low number of users and lack of participation, over-representation of certain users, as well as obstacles related to the availability of financial resources, such as subsidies and grants, and more.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 100462 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | City, Culture and Society |
| Volume | 30 |
| Early online date | 24 Apr 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sept 2022 |
| Externally published | Yes |