The article Participation and the provision of discrete public goods: a strategic analysis grapples with the issue of free-riders [1]. Behavior is modeled through Nash equilibrium to identify conditions where an individual will contribute towards a public good where it is possible that no benefits are realized. If a sufficient number of contributions are made the discrete good is provided, if insufficient contributions are made, those who contributed gain nothing and are not refunded.
The article can be found here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047272784900239#
According to Palfrey and Rosenthal’s study, a public good may be produced because a player is indifferent between contributing and not contributing when the player is not pivotal and the public good is not currently provided. This is interesting because it attempts to explain how choices of individuals can change based on the amount of other players.
I am curios: How can community process be designed to promote contribution from players – and at a point where critical mass allows individuals to be comfortable contributing without worrying about a refund, benefit in return, or greed (concern for free-riders). And along with an underlying theme in class: What characteristics of a process or idea allow scalability or applicability to divergent contexts.
As a case example I explored marginal spaces used by skateboarders. Through these sites I tried to learn more about what allows certain marginal community spaces to exist while others are intentionally crushed despite stakeholder interest. Reminiscent of old VHS memories, I looked at the Pits in Venice, CA, a pavilion on Venice Beach.
Bordertown in Berkeley/Oakland, CA – built under the 580 freeway on the border of Berkeley and Oakland – this site was neglected as an in between area that neither city maintained. Needles and broken glass flourished until pools were constructed. While needles and glass often found their way, brooms always found their way to some corner of the site.
Burnside in Portland, OR – is under the Burnside Bridge that separates North and South Portland. This place is a magical spot featured in videogames and second life. A place where kids are dropped off from Mercedes and the skate van keeps the parking lot fresh. The site features NoBikes allowed and rotating community art.
and Channel Street in San Pedro, CA is built under the 110 freeway. With community cultural events and more safety than the local school yard – what more can you ask for?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xLkmSflMXAo
Burnside and Channel Street are alive and well. They are frequented by locals and skate tourists alike. Each of these sites was at one time or another, heavily impacted by violence, drugs, and challenges with “liability”. Each of these sites has a similar story of people identifying an underutilized area prime for community interaction and design.
Yet, the Venice Pit was filled in with sand. http://welovenice.com/2010/10/05/know-your-history-the-venice-graffiti-pit/ and Bordertown was demolished and the city’s dime.
While these two were destroyed because of their existence and use, others have learned to thrive. Burnside and more exemplary, Channel Street, have transitioned from a place of despair, drugs and violence to a places of trust, respect and community.
For Venice and Bordertown the contributors didn’t get a refund, thank you note or a seat on Santa’s lap. But maybe they just didn’t pay enough?
[1] Thomas R. Palfrey, Howard Rosenthal, Participation and the provision of discrete public goods: a strategic analysis, Journal of Public Economics, Volume 24, Issue 2, July 1984, Pages 171-193, ISSN 0047-2727, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(84)90023-9. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047272784900239)
Peter Komfolio
Design and Policy 