CROWD-MAPPING ALTERNATIVES ECONOMIES THE CASE OF TRANSFORMAP Adrien Labaeye Jon richter - Humboldt Universität zu Berlin / TransforMap

1. CROWD-MAPPING ALTERNATIVES
ECONOMIES
THE CASE OF TRANSFORMAP
Adrien Labaeye
Jon richter
-
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin / TransforMap

2. OUTLINE
1. Action research for sustainability
2. Many many maps of alternative economies
3. Action-researching TransforMap
4. Social dilemmas
5. The IAD applied to TransforMap
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions

3. ACTION RESEARCH FOR
SUSTAINABILITY
 Calls for solutions-based research (Miller et al. 2013)
 Calls for knowledge systems that are more agile and
participative (Cornell et al. 2013)
 Process-oriented research (Transition management)
Creating and maintaining spaces for societal learning
(Wittmayer & Schaepke 2014)
 The web 2.0 as new arena: citizen science
A science to answer the needs concerns of citizens (Irwin
1995)
 From web of documents towards web of open data
(Tim Berners-Lee 2010)

4. Many many maps

5. ACTION RESEARCHING TRANSFORMAP
 Collective started in 2014: Austria & Germany…
 Vizualizing alternative economies
 Commons approach: open data, FOSS
 Building a digital knowledge commons about
alternative economies by connecting and enriching
maps

6. SOCIAL DILEMMAS
 Freeriding
Researchers are freeriding: extractive science
 Enclosure
5-Star of open data
 Austist dilemma
Ontologies & vocabularies
 Goldfish & fossils
No versionning or no updating

7. TRANSFORMAP FROM THE IAD
PERSPECTIVE
 Resource
Data / mapping infrastructure / deep
infrastructure
 Community
Forged not given: boundaries, money…
 Governance
“Regulation is in the code” (Lessig): forum

8. DISCUSSION
 Using the IAD for digital commons
(Fuster Morell 2013)
– Infrastructure is vital: need more attention
– Nested infrastructure: where to focus?
– Difficulty to delineate the community in practice and
research
 Action research vs extractive science
– Transferring agency of research process to the citizens
– knowledge commons as a conceptual frame

9. CONCLUSIONS
 Self-organized commons = collective action +
self-governing mechanisms + social capital
(Hess & Ostrom 2010)
Boundary rules are
difficult to enact
Openness conflicts
with culture of
money/management…
 What about social capital of researchers on
urban commons ? Are they ready for the trip?

10. Thank you!
adrienlabaeye@gmail.com
transformap.co
transitionlab.de
@alabaeye
@transformap
Credits images
Twitter logo by Twitter Inc.
Icons from Noun Project:
Map icon by Anusha Narvekar
Stormtrooper icon by Bram_van_Rijen
Hobbit icon by Rodrigo Vidinich

11. REFERENCES
 Berners-Lee, Tim. 2006. “Linked Data.” http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html.
 Cornell, Sarah, Frans Berkhout, Willemijn Tuinstra, J. D. Tàbara, Jill Jäger, Ilan Chabay, Bert de Wit
et al. 2013. “Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental
change.” Environmental Science & Policy 28: 60–70.
 Fuster Morell, Mayo. 2013. “Governance of online creation communities for the building of digital
commons: Viewed through the framework of the institutional analysis and development.”
Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.onlinecreation.info/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/MFM_WorkingPaper_IAD_OCC.pdf.
 Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise, and sustainable development.
Environment and society. London, New York: Routledge.
 Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom, eds. 2007. Understanding knowledge as a commons: From
theory to practice. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0619/2006027385.html.
 Miller, Thaddeus R., Arnim Wiek, Daniel Sarewitz, John Robinson, Lennart Olsson, David Kriebel,
and Derk Loorbach. 2014. “The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research
agenda.” Sustain Sci 9 (2): 239–46. doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6.
 Wittmayer, Julia M., and Niko Schäpke. 2014. “Action, research and participation: roles of
researchers in sustainability transitions.” Sustain Sci. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4.