THEDSP-FRAMEWORK:COMPARING SHARING PLATTFORMSFORSOCIALLY INCLUSIVE NEIGHBOURHOODSTrondHalvorsen

Exploring the Aspects of the CollaboativeEconomy,Zagreb15/3-2019

Motivation• Local governments alloverthe world are seeking tocreate socially inclusivecities andneighbourhoods.

• Digitalsharing platformsmay beimportant tools toachieve this goal,butsocial planners strugle todifferentiate between alternatives.

• Efforts todevelopdigitalplatforms that strenghten community tiesshouldnotfocus solely on the virtual dimension.They should also take account ofexisting social relationshipsandthe physical properties of the communitieswhere they will beused.

2

Saupstadneighbourhood,Trondheim,Norway

3

• Casestudy focusing onthe SaupstadareaofTrondheimcity.

• CooperationbetweenTrondheimmunicipality,SINTEFandNTNU.

• Threeyear researchproject,financed bytheNorwegianResearchCouncil(BYFORSK).

Mainhypotheses

Hypothesis 1:There are three main dimensions toconsiderwhenevaluating digitalsharing platforms:Thedigital,social andphysicaldimensions.

Hypothesis 2:Thethree dimenstion can beutilized tomakemeaningfull comparisonsof alternativerelevantsharing platforms.

Hypothesis 3:Thethree dimesions provide ausefull framework forconstructing implementation strategies forsharing platforms.

4

H1:Defining the three dimensions

Social:Thesocial dimenstion refers tothe social relationship between individuals who makeupthe targetpopulation.Therelationshipsmay beboth formalandinformal,weak orstrong,positiveornegative,onesided ormutual, short orlong term.Asoscial relation between twopeople isdefined byexpectations about the other personsvalues,thougts and/orbehavior,andisstrongly related totrust andthe sense of belonging.

Physical:Thephysical dimension coversfactors related tomobility of goods andpeople, andplaces forinteraction.Examples are geographical distance,barriers (e.g.stairs,locks,snow)andinfrastructure (e.g.pedestrian crossings,benches,parks,meetingplaces).

Digital:Thedigitaldimension involves the interaction with technology that depends onmicroprocessors.Relevantfactors toconsider are hardware,softwareandit-infrastructure,aswell asusers'competency andability toadopt digitaltechnologies.

5

Illustrations:physical andsocial factors

6

5

Typesof sharing

1:Traditional sharing:Sharing between individuals orgroups with existing social relations, inanaccomodatingphysical environment, without the use of ICT-tecknologies.

2:Assisted sharing:Sharing with supportof adigitaltool.

3:Matchsharing:Sharing with strangers.

4:Virtualsharing:Sharing without meeting.

5:Virtualmatchsharing:Opendisplayof informationthrough adigitalplatform.

7

Social

Digital

Physical

1

23

4

H2:Comparison of relevantplatformsDuringyearoneoftheproject,weidentifiedandexaminedthefollowingalternativesforacase-projectatSaupstad:

• SocialNetworksandforums: Facebook,Whatsapp,WeChat,etc.

• Internationalplatforms:Boblberg,Commodle,SocialStreet,Nextdoor,Intercanvis,Giveandtake

• Norwegianplatforms:Nabohjelp,Ledi,Nyby,Friskus,ViVil (Alder)

Mainresults:1)TheDSP-frameworkwasusefulforstructuringdiscussionsandmakingcomparisons;2)Twokeydeterminantsaretheneedforanadministratorandthematurityofthetechnology(TRL).

8

H3:Implementation strategies

• Theproject haschosen toestablish case-studiesusing the Ledi andFriskus plattforms. Ledi focusing onmaking public indoor spaceavailable toorganizations andinhabitants.Friskus isfocused onorganizing inclusive activities inthe local area.

• We are workingwith the platform developersandthe municipalgovernment todevelopanimplementation strategy.

• Evaluationof the casestudiesin2020will liekly bebased on theoryof change (TOC).

9

Teknologi foretbedre samfunn