Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Adam Polko, Collective Benefits Generated By Urban Commons: The Case Study of Polish Cities


Published on

Adam Polko
Department of Spatial Economics
University of Economics in Katowice, Poland

Track 1: Common Pool Resources in the City
Bologna, 7th November 2015

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Adam Polko, Collective Benefits Generated By Urban Commons: The Case Study of Polish Cities

  1. 1. COLLECTIVE BENEFITS GENERATED BY URBAN COMMONS – THE CASE STUDY OF POLISH CITIES Adam Polko Department of Spatial Economics University of Economics in Katowice, Poland THE CITY AS A COMMONS Track 1: Common Pool Resources in the City Bologna, 7th November 2015
  2. 2. Research questions and problems  How should we coceive of the urban commons from economic prespective?  What is the nature of benefits generated by urban commons?  What are colective/joint benefits generated by urban commons? (If they exist at all?)  In pursuit of appropriate combination of urban goods in the context of urban development
  3. 3. Urban CPR as a economic good excludable URBAN CLUB GOODS Local/urban/neighborhood goods: gated commutities URBAN PRIVATE GOODS Urban private goods: private parking lots non-exludable URBAN PUBLIC GOODS Local/urban public goods: streets, parks, landsacape, etc. (without congestions and overuse problems) + cultural heritiage, city brand/image URBAN COMMON-POOL RESOURCES Urban CPR: street, parks, landscape, infrastructure, urban gardening etc. (with cogestion and overuse problems), Reaching a point refer to as „regulatory slippage” (Foster 2011) non-rivalrous rivalrous Aditionally the concept of (urban) merit goods – good that an individual or society should have on the basis of some concept of need, rather than ability and willingness to pay
  4. 4. Transformation of urban goods – sample path • More positive than negative externalities • Free-ride problem • The necessity of local government provision and regulations Local public goods • Congestion, overuse and rivalry • More negative than positive externalities • The necessity of collective action Common-pool resources • Club action (appropriation by one group) or individual action • Social exclusions • Fragmentation of space Club goods or private goods
  5. 5. Urban CPR – macro and micro level Urban CPR The resource system and the flow of resource units produced by the system. Resource units are what individuals appropriate or use from resource system (Ostrom 1990). In ubran context the resource system consists of open access space and infrastructure. The resources units are space unit filled. Urban/metropolitan commons macro-level; the city as a commons (Foster, Iaione 2016) As main resources and city governance model (co-city, sharing city) Neighborhood commons micro-level; urban blocks (Oakerson, Clifton 2015) As local resources and specific governance model
  6. 6. The main processes in urban public spaces of Polish cities TYPE Macro-level The main urban public spaces PROCESS regeneration (huge public or private projects) EFFECTS Improving the image and importance (iconic places) Metropolitan functions Commercialization Thematization TYPE Micro-level Neighbourhood public spaces PROCESS Privatization or appropriation EFFECTS Fancing (gated communities) Fragmentation of space Segregation 6
  7. 7. Collective decisions in participatory budgeting – the case of Polish city Type of projects All projects Accepted in voting Rejected in voting % in all submitted projects % in all accepted projects roads, parking lots, sidewalks 71 22 49 42,77% 33,85% monitoring, lighting 8 1 7 4,82% 1,54% leisure time (playgrounds, gyms) 35 18 17 21,08% 27,69% squares, backyards, open space, parks 14 6 8 8,43% 9,23% building repairs 4 3 1 2,41% 4,62% libraries, schools (books, softwares etc.) 30 15 15 18,07% 23,08% other public services (transport etc.) 4 0 4 2,41% 0,00% Sum 166 65 101 100,00% 100,00%
  8. 8. The nature of benefits generated by urban commons  Private benefits  Private benefits + externalities = Social benefits  Agglomeration economies and neighborhood externalities which result from proximity and density  value captured for example in housing prices using hedonic price method or total economic value using Contingent Valuation Method  Local government policy enahncing (regarding positive externalities) or reducing (negative externalities) private action to gain social efficiency  Collective/joint benefits (?)
  9. 9. Collective / joint benefits generated by urban commons  Collective benefits – benefits gained only as a result of collective action (additional benefits comparing collective provision of urban public goods and commons with public or private provision of this goods, also voluntary sector providing goods supplemental what the local government already provides).  Collective benefits – higher and more resilient social capital and innovation based on strong relation between users and urban resources (Foster, Iaione 2016).  Collective benefits – motives for commoning
  10. 10. Conclusions  The need of identification of collective benefits/collective action motives (the case studies, experimental economics – the differences in results of games without and with commoning)  The need of better understanding the forces of urban goods production and the influence of their structure (public, commons, club, private) on urban development and urban resilience  Local context is important