What is this publication about?In this publication on ‘New urban economies’, we search for answers and insights to a key question: how can cities foster economic development and develop ‘new urban economies’. And, importantly, how can they do that:◗ in concertation with different urban stakeholders, ◗ responding adequately to key challenges and developments beyond their control, ◗ building on the cities’ own identity, industries and competences, ◗ in a sustainable way, ◗ and without compromising weaker groups.
DOCUMENT
Europe’s urban economies do not look the same as ten years ago. And in ten years from now,they will again be different. The digital revolution is particularly disruptive: entire sectors are being transformed, old playersare losing out, newcomers are taking over, and competition is fiercer than ever. At the same time, citizens are not just workers in companies, but many become independent entrepreneurs, and active producers.Innovation is becoming open, involving interaction between companies, universities and users. Working, living and recreation become intertwined in place and time.
MULTIFILE
Increasingly, Instagram is discussed as a site for misinformation, inau-thentic activities, and polarization, particularly in recent studies aboutelections, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines. In this study, we havefound a different platform. By looking at the content that receives themost interactions over two time periods (in 2020) related to three U.S.presidential candidates and the issues of COVID-19, healthcare, 5G andgun control, we characterize Instagram as a site of earnest (as opposedto ambivalent) political campaigning and moral support, with a rela-tive absence of polarizing content (particularly from influencers) andlittle to no misinformation and artificial amplification practices. Mostimportantly, while misinformation and polarization might be spreadingon the platform, they do not receive much user interaction.
MULTIFILE
Het Breed Platform Arbeid heeft in 2017-2018 een proces doorlopen om te komen tot een onderzoeksagenda voor de komende jaren. Dit boekje vormt de weerslag van dit proces en het bevat de onderzoeksagenda zelf, plus voorstellen voor vervolg. Bij het verkennen van de thema’s die leven op het brede terrein van Arbeid zijn veel mensen uit het mbo en het werkveld betrokken geweest. Aan hen allen is dit boekje gericht
DOCUMENT
What is platformization and why is it a relevant category in the contemporary political landscape? How is it related to cybernetics and the history of computation? This book tries to answer such questions by engaging in multidisciplinary dialogues about the first ten years of the emerging fields of platform studies and platform theory. It deploys a narrative and playful approach that makes use of anecdotes, personal histories, etymologies, and futurable speculations to investigate both the fragmented genealogy that led to platformization and the organizational and economic trends that guide nowadays platform sociotechnical imaginaries. The dialogues cover fields such as media studies, software studies, internet governance, network theory, urban studies, social movement studies, political economy, management, and platform regulation. The interviews are set up to develop a network of internal cross-references that highlight the multi-layered connections from which platform power emerges.
MULTIFILE
Are the so-called “new” business models focused on “sharing” actually promoting new behaviour or are they simply using old behaviour of the provider/consumer in a new technological environment? Are the new tech companies in the sharing economy with their “new” business models grabbing too much power, unnoticeably?
DOCUMENT
Introduction: The Netherlands has been known as one of the pioneers in the sharing economy. At the beginning of the 2010s, many local initiatives such as Peerby (borrow tools and other things from your neighbours), SnappCar (p2p car-sharing), and Thuisafgehaald (cook for your neighbours) launched that enabled consumers to share underused resources or provide services to each other. This was accompanied by a wide interest from the Dutch media, zooming in on the perceived social and environmental benefits of these platforms. Commercial platforms such as Uber, UberPop and Airbnb followed soon after. After their entrance to the market, the societal debate about the impact of these platforms also started to include the negative consequences. Early on, universities and national research and policy institutes took part in these discussions by providing definitions, frameworks, and analyses. In the last few years, the attention has shifted from the sharing economy to the much broader defined platform economy.
MULTIFILE
In light of increasing cashlessness, platform economies, Open Banking APIs, financial bots and cryptocurrencies, money is on the move - once inert, money is gaining agency, becoming programmable, automated, data-driven and part of 'more than human' infrastructures. These financial futures demand that designers engage with difficult questions of economy and value, while retaining a sensibility to the many subtle and social qualities of money and our everyday economic interactions. This one-day workshop will therefore bring together practitioners and researchers to explore design challenges related to four broad themes: Designing with Transactional Data; Designing Alternative Representations of Value; Money, Automation, Power, and Control; and Financial Futures with Vulnerable Users. Developing scenarios related to these themes, the workshop will cultivate a rich design space to establish the value of design-led research in shaping our financial futures.
MULTIFILE
Background: To prevent deterioration after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and to improve rehabilitation, the ICU team should use digital technologies to provide comprehensive and practical information alongside personalised support for survivors and their family members. However, a knowledge gap exists on the users’ preferences for such an e-health platform in ICU follow-up services. Objectives: This study aims to explore the opinions and priorities for an e-health platform, including choices in digital elements, according to survivors of critical illness and their family members. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used among members and other interested individuals of the Dutch volunteer organisation ‘Foundation Family- and Patient-Centred Intensive Care’. An investigator-developed questionnaire was disseminated through the newsletter and social media channels of the Foundation Family- and Patient-Centred Intensive Care. The results of this member consultation were analysed and reported as descriptive statistics on demographic variables and outcome measures in opinions and priorities of the participants. Results: Most of the 227 participants were female (76%), aged 46–55 years (33%), and completed higher education (70%). The participants reported high confidence in advice delivered through an e-health platform (72%). They prioritised the provision of a guide including relevant professionals who may support them during their recovery when using an e-health platform. Conclusions: ICU survivors prioritised the provision of relevant professionals who may support them during their recovery when using an e-health platform; however, selection bias means the population studied is likely to be more digitally connected than the general ICU population. Digital solutions could cater to their information and support needs. For family members, the highest priority reported was receiving help in managing their emotional distress. The development of an e-health platform considering the opinions and priorities of this target group could contribute to a personalised recovery trajectory promoting self-management while including digital elements addressing relevant ICU follow-up services.
MULTIFILE
