Academic Work
|
|
Biking in Copenhagen: Bold, Brash and Anarchistic
Prepared for PhD Course in Urban Ethnography
|
My observations – captured through fieldnotes, pictures, videos, and audio – illustrate a hectic morning commute punctuated by an intense biking culture. Biking seems to present a double- edged sword: on one hand, biking is a more environmentally-friendly mode of transportation, which sees commuters active and outdoors; on the other hand, bikers seem to have little regard for the rules of the road and fail to realise the impact of their behaviour on other commuters. Pedestrians have to avoid parked bikes on the sidewalks and moving bikes through crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways. Vehicle traffic has to be aware of bikers, who tend not to signal, as they meander into vehicle lanes from bike lanes.
My purpose in approaching this research was to observe current biking practices in order to illuminate practices that bikesharing platforms or municipalities may take in order to promote biking as a mode of transportation. Based on my limited observations during a single morning commute, I can begin to suggest some practices that bikesharing platforms may consider. Firstly, bikes may be equipped with a front basket, as many commuters had baskets for bags. Moreover, bikes may have plastic bike seat covers during times of rain. Many commuters had these stuffed under the seats of their bikes. Lastly, bikesharing platforms may consider an accompanying app, which provides some city-specific knowledge regarding practices and, potentially, bike routes. This may help people feel comfortable to take up biking as a mode of transport in Copenhagen. | ||
Digitally-Mediated Resource Sharing: Understanding Consumer Experience & Perception of Practices
Prepared for PhD Course in Digital Ethnography
|
Digital ethnography represents an emerging approach to research, useful at understanding the connection of online and offline mediated practices. As such, it is relevant for studying consumers’ experience and perception of digitally-mediated platforms within the sharing economy, which promote resource sharing among strangers. However, platforms describe their consumption practices differently, either as renting, sharing, or borrowing/lending. Does this have any impact on how consumers experience and perceive their consumption practice? And, what implication might this have on upscaling or diffusing sharing models that support sustainable development?
I propose digital ethnography can study the online platforms using digital content analysis of webpages and social media. Findings can be triangulated with the offline study of participants’ consumption practices via ethnographic interviews, the go-along method, and focus groups. I tested the methodological feasibility in a mini-ethnography. The findings illuminate tensions between how a bikesharing platform frames its activities and how its activities are discussed online. Furthermore, experience with one participant also highlighted this tension. They elaborated that renting is more of an economic transaction whereas sharing is more of a social activity. The preliminary analytical conclusions demonstrate further research is needed. |
| ||
Qualitative Methods, Interdisciplinary Research, and the Sharing Economy
Prepared for PhD Course in Qualitative Methods
|
Firstly, I believe the questions asked by researchers in the social sciences differ from those asked by interdisciplinary researchers in sustainability sciences. “‘Sustainability’ is multiple things at once and navigates interesting territory—it is a goal, an ideal, an umbrella, and a sub-discipline of multiple disciplines” (Stock & Burton, 2011: 1091). I suggest that interdisciplinary research, especially in the field of sustainability, may adopt differing ontological and epistemological positions, reflected in the research questions and the application of qualitative methods. Inter- and trans-disciplinary research in sustainability sciences is often characterised by addressing “specific real world problems”, usually with the intention of providing decision-making support to key stakeholders (i.e. policy-makers, industry, citizens). As such, researchers in sustainability sciences often adopt a critical realist ontology, such as myself. This ontological perspective supports the notion of one “real” reality that is only probabilistically apprehendable. This is not to suggest that sustainability researchers should avoid reflexivity and discount the limitations of their methodologies. Instead, researchers must acknowledge and be forthcoming in that the knowledge generated is probably true to the best of their ability.
| ||
An Investigation of Living Labs for Sustainability
|
Living labs are a growing approach in the realm of innovation; in particular, the application of living labs is being investigated as a mechanism to promote sustainable urban transitions. Seen as a process of co-creation, exploration, experimentation and evaluation, living labs emphasize stakeholder collaboration and end-user input in the co-creation and co-generation of knowledge. However, to date, academic literature has focused on singular or a limited number of living labs in evaluating their transformative potential. The purpose of this study is to identify, catalogue and map living labs that pertain to sustainability in order to support additional research in advancing living lab methodology in addressing sustainability issues. The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) serves as a network and database of living labs throughout the world. Using this database, this study investigated all living labs within and determined their relation to sustainability. Through investigation, the study also delineates the trends among living labs and reflects on the role and impacts of ENoLL. Results suggest that, in practice and contrary to anecdotal evidence, the majority of living labs in the ENoLL database do not set sustainability goals as their primary focus. Living labs, instead, look at a plethora of areas including information and communication technology, rural development, health- and elderly-care, gender equality issues, among others. Moreover, regional trends in living lab implementation are evident and living labs motivate their actions using a wide array of terminology. Furthermore, while touted as the most comprehensive database of living labs, ENoLL lacks transparency and robustness in developing its membership database. In conclusion, this study provides a holistic view of living labs demonstrating the variety of actors, resources and motivations of practitioners and the wide array of techniques and tools used in developing a living lab. This study starts the process of evaluating living labs, in particular those for sustainability and begins to answer questions of their potential societal impact. Researchers, practitioners and policy makers can use this information to steer future research, development and funding of living labs. ...Continue Reading
| ||
Water Pricing Policies in the European Union
As stipulated in Article 9 of the European Union Water Framework Directive
|
Water plays a vital role in supporting human life, natural processes and the economy (European Commission, 2012). Freshwater represents less than 2% of all water on earth and, while it is a renewable and replenishable resource, water does have a finite supply (European Commission, 2012). With increasing global population and increased urbanization, demand for water continues to increase (Elnaboulsi, 2009) to the point where it is projected that there will be up to a 40% global water supply shortage by 2030 (European Commission, 2012).
In recent years, the role of government has been to ensure and provide pure drinking water to its citizenry (Elnaboulsi, 2009). To this end, many countries see water as a public good; the legal basis originates in the 19th century where governments began regulating water supply because of the spread of infectious disease (Elnaboulsi, 2009). However, water scarcity is, in part, due to the fact that people see water as a public good and a human right (Elnaboulsi, 2009). In 2000, the European Parliament passed the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (European Commission, 2000). This directive became known as the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This directive recognizes “[w]ater is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such” (European Commission, 2000, p. 1). ... Continue Reading |
| ||
The Aarhus Convention
Implementation and Best Practices as Learned from the European Union Water Framework Directive
|
Society continues to face complex social and environmental challenges with growing pressure from an increasing global economy (Bush et. al., 2005). At all levels of governance, it is becoming increasingly important to consider economic development, environmental protection and social equity (Bush et. al., 2005). More than ever, the public expects these considerations along with their active involvement in policy-making (Welp, 2001). The public at large depends on government and public administrations to set and implement policy with the protection of human health and environment in mind (Ebbesson, 2011).
On June 25th, 1998, the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters1 convened in Aarhus, Denmark (The Aarhus Convention, 1998). The strongest motivation of the Convention was to improve environmental protection through increased public participation (Lee & Abbot, 2003). The Aarhus Convention was a new kind of international agreement considering the environment and human rights issues (Bush et. al., 2005). The Convention looked to engage non-experts at all levels of government (Bush et. al., 2005) and recognized the importance of public participation in improving democratic legitimacy while providing useful information to the public and decision-makers (Lee & Abbot, 2003). The Convention saw entry into force in October 2001 and currently has thirty-nine signatories and forty-seven parties, many of which are within Europe and parts of Asia (United Nations Treaty Series, 2015). This paper looks to provide a cursory understanding of the Aarhus Convention with particular details discussed including background and context for the Convention along with its three pillars: access to information; public participation in decision-making; and access to justice in environmental matters (The Aarhus Convention, 1998). To provide a more robust understanding of the Convention and its implications, the paper looks to examine various EU regulations and their inclusion of access to information and public participation, specifically the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). In analysing the WFD, the paper aims to provide empirical observations on the best practices of implementing the various aspects of the Convention along with lessons learned. ... Continue Reading |
| ||
