Building urban commons through action research

Building urban commons through action research

Explaining the research method we used for the Plein ’40-’45 case in Amsterdam

Co-creation session

Since late 2018 AUAS researchers of Urban Governance and Social Innovation are involved in the development of the Zero Waste Lab of the street market on Plein ’40-’45 in Amsterdam Nieuw West. The aim of the Zero Waste Lab is to establish better management of the market and the square, with the reducing of plastic packaging material and litter and the development of a circular waste management system. Our activities as researchers are targeted at supporting the involved stakeholders in their ambition to solve these challenges through cooperation, leading to the collective management that is urban commons. Because action research is an important ingredient of our approach and because we think that this method can contribute to the realization of the cooperation that is needed in cities today, we wrote down our experiences in a chapter for the book Seeing the City of Nanke Verloo and Luca Bertolini.

Unlike more conventional forms of research, action researchers actively participate in the practices they study. Participation not only results in a better and deeper understanding, but action researchers also aim to contribute to change. For instance, action researchers investigate situations where practices are stuck or search for the knowledge that is lacking amongst stakeholders. By directly sharing their results with the people they work with, they enrich these practices and further development. In the case of the Zero Waste Lab we, for example, analyzed the interpersonal relations between different stakeholders to find that there was a lack of collectivity amongst stallholders and that their relationship with the municipality was rather problematic or even conflictual. We, therefore, applied forms of community building and mediation.

Building a collective on the market

In particular action research attempts to contribute to fundamental and systemic change. This means that we have a special eye for the context in which specific problems occur. We investigate to what extent these issues are related to, for example, patterns of thought people have adopted, values people adhere to, the culture they have been brought up in, institutional structures and processes they are part of, or overarching provisions and regulation. We then team up with involved stakeholders to help them reflect on their own behavior and that of others. And we work on reflexivity, i.e. creating an understanding of how thoughts and behavior are shaped and oriented by this systemic context. The insights arrived at through reflexivity are then the starting point to explore the possibilities for systemic innovation and, possibly, realizing this transition step by step. In the case of the Zero Waste Lab we have found that, amongst other things, central policies are frustrating the process of self-organization, such as standardized levies for waste disposal. Possibilities to implement variable levies following the ‘polluter pays principle’ would allow local stakeholders to develop an own waste disposal system that stimulates reduction, but moreover, it highlights important questions concerning the relationship between a central government and local governance arrangements around places and practices in the city. The goal is to develop governance that allows local stakeholders to develop practices fitting the local context of users and other circumstances in a collaborative and constructive relationship with overarching institutions, for example through acknowledging the principle of equality, striving for inclusivity, and taking into account the conflicting interests of others and by coordinating logistic and organizational elements with other practices.

Visit of Professor Christian Iaione

Our action research method elaborates on the conclusion of Sheila Foster and Christian Iaione in ‘The City as a Commons’ that urban commons require collaborative governance. The method aims to develop and enhance such governance arrangements and is shored by a conceptual model that can be used to analyze and value practices in terms of collaborative governance used for the collective management of common resources by the community of stakeholders. Collaborative governance is a dynamic and ongoing process of interaction between different stakeholders to come to policy choices. Policy thereby becomes a fluid phenomenon, the flexibility and adaptivity of which suit the complexity and contingency of the urban reality. Precisely because action research is relating to the continuous development and change within the practices it investigates and because it holds an interactive and iterative working method, it is an outstanding method to be used for policy analysis within settings of collaborative governance. Thereby it is also a valuable instrument for researchers and practitioners who are committed to realizing urban commons.

The book chapter elaborates on the activities action researchers perform in their work and the attitudes and routines they need to adhere to. It also gives insight into the role and function of a conceptual model for action researchers and how systemic is strived after, illustrated by examples of the Zero Waste Lab case. Nanke Verloo’s and Luca Bertolini’s book Seeing the City offers a rich collection of innovative research methods that have been particularly developed for use with the urban context. Our research is part of the Future Proof Equilibrium project that is supported by SIA-RAAK. It is also part of the Interreg Europe ABCitiEs programma.

A Commons approach to urban collectives

A Commons approach to urban collectives

How Area Based Collaborative Enterprises are a strategy for economic, social and ecologic vitality in a city

ABCitiEs descended on Athens to gather for the second interregional meeting. In a city that is recovering from a devastating crisis with the help of a tourism boom and the influx of international financial capital, we asked ourselves if collectives of entrepreneurs can play a role in maintaining the liveability and economic vitality of cities for its citizens. And what role is there for governments? We used the concept of urban commons to think of some answers, comparing the Athens cases with Plein ’40-’45 in Amsterdam.

In the margins of our interregional meeting in Athens of the Interreg ABCitiEs project we found some spare time to allow ourselves to give in to the touristic tendencies we can’t deny. We decided to pay a visit to the Acropolis. We were not the only ones. As one could expect, the archaeological site, the cradle of European civilisation and the birthplace of mathematics, theatre, medicine, democracy and what more, was completely overrun by visitors from all over the globe, busy taking photo’s of themselves with the Parthenon, Propylaia, the Erechtheion or the Temple of Nike as the background of choice. To make matters worse, it was International Museum Day.

Touristification: a blessing or a curse?

The phenomenon we were confronted with had frequently been the subject of our conversations during the days we spend together in Athens. The touristification of the city is one of the dominant background dynamics against which we considered the value and ambitions of collectives of entrepreneurs. In the last two years, so we are told, a rapid increase in the amount of visitors from abroad has emerged as both the lifeline and potential deathblow for a city that has hardly recovered from the consequences of a cruel crisis.

Tourism is the sparse source of optimism for an economic resurrection. The spendings of the city-hopping adventurers are not only opening up all kinds of opportunities for businesses and creating new jobs, albeit low-paid ones, it is also reviving the value of property and real estate. At the same time it is transforming the inner city in a centre for leisure and entertainment, where sites of historical and cultural conservation and learning are changed into human ant-hills and selfie sticks magnets, where housing is replaced by short stay apartments that thrive on the widespread popularity and appeal of AirBnB, and where quotidian shops are substituted by bars, restaurants and gift shops, not seldom owned and run by international companies. While residents are estranged of their habitat international companies and wealthy individuals are rapidly buying up land and real estate, already reserving the largest chunk of the economic gain for foreign investors and depriving local actors of the resources that are the fundamental building bricks of sustainable prosperity. In the distance a city abandoned by its citizens and parasitising the local economy for global profit is revealing itself, terrifyingly resembling Saskia Sassen’s expulsions. [1]

The role of collectives

Are then Area Based Collaborative Enterprises (ABCE’s) an adequate answer to the destructive side effects of the global financial economy? At Aiolou Street we discussed this question with Dimitris Markantonis, entrepreneur and initiator of a collective in development. The street, an area in fact, is at the frontier of the touristification, marked by the gradually increasing share of bars and restaurants in the streetscape. Shopkeepers and other entrepreneurs in the area form a network Dimitris describes as “a family”.[2] Historically they have clustered together in the area as collections of branches, one street offering predominantly sanitary ware shops, another haberdasheries and the third specialised as a street for cooking utensils. Shops cater both individual consumers and other companies as a whole sale. Coagulating in specific streets did not only play a role in attracting business as a marketing strategy, it also resulted in light forms of collaboration and mutual support, as entrepreneurs recognize an interdependency and grow familial relationships. But as businesses, and the area at large, are now under pressure, the question is if this network is strong enough to develop collective resilience and sustainability.

Why are these businesses threatened? In this regard there is a fine line between the sound functioning of the logic of the market and the intrusive and exploitative excrescences of a gentrifying global economy. One might argue that the shops and their offer concerned are out-dated and their evanescence is a sign of a valid economic evolution. On the other hand, how fair and responsible is it to give free reign to competition that is not only too big to battle, but also hardly has an interest nor stake in fostering the liveability and economic vitality of the area? In his presentation ABCitiEs partner and director of the Institute of Place Management Steve Millington reformulated this dilemma as the challenge for any city to move from an economy that exploits the local to profit the external, to one that is local and contributes to the welfare and prosperity of the local. A complex challenge, as matters are not black and white. I argue that we need to find a balance between offering space to external capital to flow in and building a local resilience and capability to spur local liveability and vitality. Preserving and retaining resources appears to be crucial in this regard. Collectives, in many cases including or supported by (local) authorities, might well offer plausible strategies to this goal. In the end, the logic of the market develops within the boundaries of the law and policy, and is thus up for political debate. ABCE’s can very well be part of that debate and steer it in a particular direction.

Understanding collectives as urban commons

Collectives such as at Aiolou Street can be explained in terms of urban commons. Dimitris and his colleagues seek to maintain and exploit, in his words, the (business) opportunities of the area. These opportunities, the fertile ground for local businesses, is the common resource the community of stakeholders aims to manage and preserve. The complexity of this ambition is to be found in the above-mentioned interference of different tendencies and interests, such as the important impact of touristification and the influx of financial capital  on the revival of the Athenian economy at large. Answers to address such complex situations are to be developed in the practice of dialogue and collaboration between the entrepreneurs, municipality and other stakeholders, but perceiving it as an urban commons assists in getting the right questions on the table:

  • who are to be viewed as the community of stakeholders and how are they related;
  • what is the shared resource, which functions does it have for the different stakeholders and what kind of qualities do they desire;
  • what policies, institutions and other (market) forces have which kind of effects on the development of the shared resource?

Starting from these kinds of questions we can imagine a more profound and informed debate to emerge on the future of the area. It is the point of departure for developing shared ideas, views and ambitions. It also provides an overview of the interests at stake, helpful for the municipality to formulate their political position and ambition (which agenda to follow?), and to specify the role or relation they want to have in or with the collective.

Building resilient self-organisations together

Aiolou Market is not a unique case. The bigger context of the issues they are dealing with are recognized amongst the partners of the ABCitiEs project. In the Plein ’40-’45 case in Amsterdam the street market is facing the long term challenge to deal with the effects of gentrification in the area and the broader economic strategy for street trade of the municipality. While the street market is turning to better self-organisation to improve its functioning by developing facilities such as a waste recycling system and tackling the problem of litter, the stallholders need to take into account that this self-organisation is deemed to fail if it does not address larger trends in consumer preferences by slowly changing bits and pieces of the character of the market. Not catering to the changing needs of the surrounding population could be an economic threat to the market, but moreover it diminishes the approval and legitimacy of its presence in public space, as it rather becomes a source of annoyance and nuisance.

Moreover, as the economic viability of street markets in general is decreasing, the municipality is developing a top down policy to safeguard their existence on the long term. This policy might very well include measures like cutting back the amount of days a market can be open. For stallholders though, this appears to be more of a threat than a solution. They also argue that the municipality is basing its ideas on general figures rather than on a specific and detailed analysis per market. But if they want to have constructive influence on these kinds of policies the market needs to set up the self-organisation in such a way that it can be the vehicle for collaboration with the municipality and be a co-designing partner.

The municipality recognizes the important function a market has for an area and a society, but is facing a dilemma regarding its responsibilities to other stakeholders. Therefore it needs to find a balance between the different interests. A very practical example of this dilemma is free parking. While free parking is one of the unique selling points for the market, it is believed that introducing taxation would solve issues like shortage of parking space and nuisance of an abundance of visitors. The dilemma becomes even more complex when the presence of markets is considered in relation to (when it interferes with) the value development of real estate or long term planning developments, especially in cities where tourism and international financial capital play such a big role, as is also the case in Amsterdam. Again, which agenda to follow?

Urban commons as a model for collaborative governance

The point here is that approaching cases like Aiolou Street or the market on Plein ’40-’45 as an urban commons does not only entail the collective management of what is considered as the shared resource by the direct users, but almost by definition means including governmental authorities and possibly other (indirect) stakeholders that represent different kinds of interests. Urban commons thus, is the vehicle to design the collaborative governance of such places with the help of the particular vocabulary of shared resources, communities of stakeholders and self-organisation (collective action), taking into consideration, and this point can’t be stressed enough, the broader context, interests and actions of institutions, companies and markets, physical an ecological surroundings and society at large.

Obstacles for collaboration: conflict

Touristification and the influx of international capital, and contextual circumstances in general, are not the only obstacles managing the city as an urban commons. There are in fact numerous. Those who ever tried to bring about collaboration know that maybe the biggest hurdles are to be found within the community itself. One of these obstacles, and probably the most obvious of all, is conflict. Conflicts come in all shapes and sizes. At Kipseli Market in Athens we have seen with our own eyes how it stands in the way of collaboration, even between people who have the most admirable and altruistic intentions. The former covered municipal market is redeveloped in recent years by the municipality and is now managed by Impact Hub Athens as a market for social entrepreneurship. The building hosts companies that refurbish old computers and donate them to schools, sell organic products of local farmers on a non-profit base, or offer free training and courses for refugees.

The neighbourhood however has a negative image of the new users of the market. People see them as intruders funded by the EU (the same EU that is held responsible for the recent devastating crisis), whom are hard to get in contact with and form a closed community with exclusive activities. Meanwhile the Kipseli crew argues that they did everything they could to connect to the neighbourhood and be as inclusive as possible, but their invitations are structurally rejected and their members receive a lot of disrespect. Witnessing the discussion between the two camps that took place while were there, the truth appeared to be more nuanced to us. Above all, what became clear is that unresolved conflicts of the past, starting with the assignment to Impact Hub of the building itself, continuing with, for example, events behind closed doors, play a continuous disruptive factor for actions in the present. And although they might agree at some point to leave it all behind and start new collaborative projects together, it remains that suppurating wound, slumbering in the background, ready to come the surface at any given time to dash all good intentions and brilliant ideas.

Again this phenomenon resonated strongly in the group and called for associations with the different cases in the participating cities, including our case of Plein ’40-’45. There a history of misconduct, undelivered promises and corruption even forms the scar that is a continuous reminder of the distrust between the different parties. And conflict is also more subtle. By sticking to a traditional way of working, where consultation and participation are the legitimising supplement for a top down process of policy making behind closed doors with unclear agendas, the municipality keeps the distance between themselves and the entrepreneurs in place and is de facto feeding the mutual distrust. Likewise, the unorganised character of the market as a collective and the somewhat churlish and reactionary manners of the average stallholder is also not contributing to building a constructive and cooperative relationship.

Working with/on the community

What is worth naming here is that the concept of urban commons directs us to the necessity to address issues within the community of stakeholders that are the obstacles for fruitful collaboration, and to do that in a thorough way. After all, as urban commons is the collaborative management of shared resources by the community of stakeholders, tackling anything that stands in the way of that collaboration is crucial. Interpersonal relationships, but also the competences and capacities within a community, are thus the backbone of urban commons, which need to be build, fostered and cared for.

In this respect, cases like Kipseli Market and Plein ’40-’45 could profit a lot from taking the time to deal with the conflicts of the past. Methods such as developed by the Public Mediation Program of the University of Amsterdam can be useful. Briefly, the method focuses on creating mutual understanding of what the conflict is and where it originates. Through research and moderated group sessions it establishes a jointly constructed time line that encapsulates all the events that are part of the coming into being of the here and now. These events are told and commented on from the different perspectives of each actor. In the group sessions participants are asked to elucidate their side of the story, but restrained from reacting on, and altering, other participant’s versions. Forced to listen to the perspectives of different actors on the same event it creates a more nuanced insight and understanding of what the conflict is about and how it evolved. Quite often it is found that the origin is trivial and the conflict is the result of accumulating misunderstandings. Public mediation is a method that helps to unravel this complex jumble and normalize relations. Thereby it constructs a new fundament to start building on relationships of trust.

Model for Collaborative Governance Arrangement for the Urban Commons

In more general terms, the urban commons approach is all about identifying where the community is curbed in collaboration and creating interventions to address the causes, just as it is about identifying obstacles in the environment, such as the institutional context, the forces of surrounding or overarching markets or the limitations of the physical and ecological world. As part of the ABCitiEs team and the RaakPro Toekomstbestendig Evenwicht (Future proof balance) project the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences is developing a model to bring this idea into practice and works on building experience and knowhow through the experiments we contribute to. Stay tuned for more information about the model and the experiments.

[1] Saskia Sassen, Expulsions : Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy, 2014.

[2] We were explained that in Greece relationship definitions such as collectives are somewhat problematic. To put it exaggerated, the Greek see themselves associated with their family and others outside the family are distrusted. This explains why Dimitris spoke of a family when describing the network in the area, and one might interpret these relations thus to be strong and valued.

The nascent commons of Plein ’40-’45

The nascent commons of Plein ’40-’45

Change is at the doorstep for the market on Plein ’40-’45 in the borough New West in Amsterdam. While the market is among the busiest in the city, it also faces some serious challenges, such as street litter, a dysfunctional waste disposal system, its image of offering cheap products of bad quality and the decreasing commercial potential of markets in general. In search of answers to deal with these challenges, stallholders are organising themselves and working towards self-governance of the resource they all depend on: the square and the market. And we are supporting them.

A market full of potential and threats

A visit to the market on Plein ’40-’45 leaves you with an ambiguous impression. The vibrant atmosphere of a busy market coloured with diversity grows a contagious enthusiasm. While stallholders are praising their merchandise at the top of their voice, men, women and families are rummaging the isles in search of vegetables to eat for dinner, a new carpet to decorate their home or just simply to have a chat about recent events in the neighbourhood. The scents of freshly grained spices are battling for attention with that of fish and ever-appealing snacks likes spring rolls or kebab. Plein ’40-’45: a lively and dynamic urban place.

But at the same time you might feel confronted with more negative aspects of modern urbanisation.

The market is dominated by cheap products of poor quality that resemble the way in which these kind of peripheral areas of today’s cities have developed as the conglomeration of the poor. What initially might feel as diversity, could soon be interpreted as a growing monoculture of djellabas, headscarves and Moroccan vendors. Either on the market or in a wider area around it, you find large amounts of plastic bags knocking about and littering public space. Plein ’40-’45: a place in decay for people in need.

Building with co-creation

Improving the liveability and economic vitality of the square and its surrounding area is one of the priorities for the district council, as is the socio economic development of the neighbourhoods around it. Aware of the impossibility to realise this from the plotting board with the municipality as the genius puppeteer, and driven by the long-term trend in Dutch political and public sphere to make space for forms of participative democracy, investigations to start an experiment with co-creation between community initiatives, social entrepreneurs, SME’s, civil society and third sector organisations, and the local government (borough and municipality) has been underway for more than a year already. LabGov Amsterdam, in which AUAS participates through the ABCitiEs project, has been supporting this process to work with a commons approach.

During the past year several projects and initiatives have evolved. Neighbourhood residents, for example, started a coalition under the name Wij Zijn Plein ’40-’45 (We Are Plein ’40-’45) that organises all kinds of community activities and initiated a lively Facebook page where people discuss ideas and complaints. Another example is the cooperation between the municipality, social entrepreneurs and waste disposal organisations to design a circular economy alternative for the waste and cleaning system for the square and especially the market. These kinds of activities amalgamate into a positive and enthusiastic pioneering sphere around the square and creating its future. Important in this regard is the time and effort put in connecting different activities and stakeholders. Not only does this result in synergy, it is also slowly building a network that could become a community and gives people the (rightful) feeling they are seen, heard and acknowledged.

The square as a commons: Zero Waste 4045

As mentioned, litter and waste are two major problems. The use of plastic bags and packaging is exorbitant and a large share of it does not end up at a consumer’s home and bin, but on the street. Also, the market produces an enormous amount of waste each day, mainly cardboard boxes, plastic crates and unsaleable fruits and vegetables. When zooming in on these issues the complexity that constructs them reveals itself: irresponsible behaviour of consumers and stallholders due to ignorance and/or prioritisation, vulnerable businesses and shortage of means for investment in sustainable alternatives, incapability to design tailor-made policies and public services, a history of undelivered promises, misconduct and conflicts, et cetera.

We are teaming up with Redouan Boussaid, area manager Plein ’40-’45 of the Amsterdam municipality, to work towards adequate solutions. He has the task to improve the cleanliness of the public space and develop a fit and functioning waste disposal system. He also has the mandate and freedom to deliver results through an experimental approach. To deal with the complexity of the challenges, we aim to apply a form of collaborative governance, and work from the concept of urban commons to concretize this ambition. We started our cooperation from the mutual recognition of Elinor Ostrom’s finding that regulation enforced top-down is less effective and efficient than developed from within the community of stakeholders. (Ostrom 2010) This idea not only resonates with our personal beliefs and ambitions, but is also fuelled by the lacking capacity of the municipality to enforce regulation and the necessity of a behavioural change that is quite likely outside the reach of rules and enforcement.

We define urban commons as the collective management of the square (the shared urban resource) by the community of stakeholders, through the practices and rules that are developed, operated and maintained by that same community. To make this concrete, we are working on self-organising the push back of litter and unnecessary use of plastic, and a new system for waste disposal. In practice we have been frequenting the market to create a close understanding of the current practices of the stallholders and the underlying aspects of the problems, to search for and mobilize the ambition and energy to bring about change amongst stallholders and to stimulate and facilitate the building of a community as the basis of a self-organisation. At the same time, interventions and experiments have been implemented to already test out some of the ideas that popped up and to create visibility of the potentiality of our approach. On another territory we have dived into the rules, policies and institutional organisation that forms the context within which the market operates and that already fills in, from a top-down and centralized logic, some of the functions that the self-organisation could take over.

First lesson: support self-organisation

Aware of the fact that a self-organisation should and could not be something that is carried by ourselves, but needs to be owned, supported and driven by the community at large, we have retained as much as possible from initiating and directing the community building process and instead dedicated ourselves to bring inspiration, reflection and support to the ideas and activities that stem from the community. Obviously this is a fine line. A crucial question is also if we can or should be part of the community. In our experience, awareness of this dilemma is already good enough as a starting point to work from.

What catches the eye is the surplus of enthusiasm and ideas for change amongst the stallholders and the sense of responsibility regarding themselves as part of the problem. This is accompanied by many complaints directed at the municipality and a reflex to stare at that same institution awaiting solutions to descend on them. By thematising the problem and making it a subject of discussion we see this attitude slowly altering towards a recognition of the necessity and potential of organising themselves and creating alternative solutions. Salient is the need for support, both strategically and operational, because communities like this quite often lack the skills and experience to build a coalition and to constructively position themselves in the process of policy reform, let alone the time that is needed to do all this. Important, thus, is to work on a manner of support that boosts the process and keeps it going, but remains serving to the self-organisation of the community.

Second lesson: create experimental spaces to deviate from central policies

The promise of self-organisation loses its value when its practices are not given the chance to actually bring about change. In other words, if and when the ideas and plans of a self-organisation, for example the self-regulation of waste disposal, are overruled by the policies of institutions, in this case the municipality, trust is broken, motivation is gone and the awakening community will soon fall apart. This threat is showing itself on Plein ’40-’45 in the policies for waste disposal that are developed and put in place by the central bureau for markets of the municipality. In the past, stallholders on all markets in Amsterdam were responsible themselves for taking care of their waste, but dissatisfied with the way this functioned, the market bureau developed a one-size-fits-all policy that prescribes all stallholders to pay a levy, uniform and independent of the actual waste a stallholder does or does not produce, and the municipality to take care of disposal.

This policy doesn’t only seem to fail, it also leaves many opportunities unexploited. The growing sentiment of the policy to have unjust consequences and is not contributing to improvement, is the breeding ground for the ideas and motivation for self-organisation. This self-organisation opens up the possibility to design solutions contextualized to the circumstances and possibilities of each individual market. To create space for this it needs to become possible to deviate from central policies, but in real life this is the moment the restraining effect of a central bureaucratic institution to deal with this complexity comes to the surface. An important lesson, then, is that the ambition of self-organisation needs to be accompanied by a mandate to deviate and experiment on the short term, and a strategy to develop a synergetic relation between local solutions of self-organisations and coordinating central policies on the long term.

To be continued…

We are still only in the starting phase of developing the commons of Plein ’40-’45. As a matter of fact, this process is continuous and everlasting. To begin, working on a firm base will demand a lot of effort and perseverance in the upcoming period. Many questions are still left open and answers need to be discovered in the practice of our experiments. What kind of support and interventions, for example, are needed to build and secure the community? To what extent can or need civil servants or divisions of the municipality be part of the self-organising community? How can co-creation between the self-organisation and other parties such as central institutions or waste disposal organisations come about and be made successful? Does the self-organisation need to be institutionalized and how can it develop, operate and preserve its own regulatory system? Many more questions like these will continue to evolve. We will keep you updated !

Joachim Meerkerk, researcher and PhD candidate at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS)