Networked Neighbourhood: Exploring the Potential of Threshold Interfaces to Support Sharing

Networked Neighbourhood Exploring the Potential of Threshold Interfaces to Support Peerto-peer Sharing in Urban Neighbourhoods Stefan GĂśllner Deutsche Telekom Laboratories, Berlin, Germany

Jaclyn Le KĂśln International School of Design, Germany

Peter Conradie University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, Germany

Jan Lindenberg Institute for Information Design Japan

In search of more sustainable ways of living, the sharing and joint use of local resources have been identified as a promising strategy for reducing the environmental impact of consumption. Regarding sharing in local neighbourhoods, different premises must be taken into account which include face-to-face interaction, privacy concerns, and the architectural configuration of threshold spaces. How can existing threshold spaces be redesigned to encourage on-site communication between neighbours?

Based on participatory research with neighbourhood residents in Berlin, we investigated threshold interfaces that enable sharing behaviour between neighbours. Our insights led to a set of design recommendations that are important to consider when developing peer-to-peer sharing solutions within the neighbourhood context. This paper reports the insights gained by means of design recommendations based on our studies.

The sharing of resources and mutual help, in the context of neighbourhoods, is a practice common across different cultures that possesses great potential for reducing the environmental impact of consumption in addition to contributing towards social sustainability (JĂŠgou, Liberman, & Wallenborn, 2009). Such increased interaction through mutual help between neighbours strengthens community bonds, and moreover, a growth in sharing activity would give rise to a higher sense of safety and quality of life.

Joint use and mutual exchange approaches are especially promising in dense urban environments, where a high concentration of diverse goods and services exists amongst inhabitants. However, urban neighbourhoods are also characterized by a high fluctuation of inhabitants, missing inter-generational bonds and social homogeneity of inhabitants, which are factors correlating with a decrease in sharing activities.

In spite of the abundance of co-located resources in urban neighbourhoods, the physical and social infrastructures to facilitate the sharing in a localized context are often lacking. The inadequacy of the physical infrastructures can be a substantial hindrance for local sharing practices. While the tools and infrastructures for remote communication have advanced exponentially, the existing interfaces for communication among residents, like doorbells or mailboxes, remain neglected in concepts on the improvement of infrastructures for facilitating sharing activity. But can, for example, the (re)design of a mailbox lead to a more sustainable future by enabling its additional appropriation as a sharing interface?

Sustainability in Design: NOW!

Process Overview In a mixed method approach, we applied participative studies with on-site observations to explore the conditions that enable neighbourhood sharing in an urban environment. The process led to insights about current practices of sharing in different communities-of-practice. We consulted everyday sharing practitioners, who reported on sharing activities within their daily routines in their actual social environments.

Different residential neighbourhood settings in the city of Berlin provided the surrounding for observations and participatory design sessions. The results lead to design recommendations intended to inform the design of sharing-interfaces in semi-private settings.

Background Inspiration from online-sharing The sharing and joint use of resources as an economic and cultural concept has experienced a renaissance in the virtual realm of the Internet: distributed computing, the open source movement and peer-2-peer file sharing have been identified as potential sources of social innovation (Manzini, 2006). What mainly differentiates these developments from the traditional approaches of resource allocation are the underlying structural and processual mechanisms that are characterised by distributed systems, bottom-up principles and many-to-many communication. Unlike traditional systems that are centralised and hierarchically organised, these online sharing developments offer a conceptual approach that is highly flexible and dynamic. Informed by this development, we explored existing neighbourhood settings with the intention to possibly transfer such participatory characteristics to apply new opportunities for bottom-up, peer-2-peer sharing practices in the local context.

Neighbourhoods and social sustainability through sharing In our approach to sharing, we follow the view that “Physical closeness does not mean social closeness” (Wellman, 2001). This does not implicate that social closeness cannot be achieved in a physical context.

The myth that the Internet, with it’s global nature, will lead to a deterioration of local social structures appears not to hold true. On the contrary, the implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) could potentially lead to an increased sense of belonging and social cohesion (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Hampton, 2001; Hampton & Wellman, 2003; Putnam, 2001). With the potential of cultivating social sustainability through enabling neighbours to share resources, we thus set out to create design recommendations for sharing systems.

Thresholds and their importance in the sharing context To come to these recommendations, we focus on the interfaces located between the different spheres of private, semi-private, semi-public and public areas (Newman, 1996). Newman classifies these spaces according to the access it provides. A private space is thus only accessible for residents within a home, whilst semi-private spaces can be defined as shared areas restricted for strangers but accessible by residents within a building. These different spheres are created as a result of structures in place such as lawns, walls, doors, etc. Whilst Newman’s intention is to create defensible spaces inside these various spheres in order for residents to protect themselves of criminality, our approach is to look at the interfaces located in these thresholds separating the spheres and apply the thinking further to a micro level in the sense that, for instance, the front door entrance to the building is part of the semi-public sphere, the exterior of a mailbox is part of the semi-private sphere, and subsequently, the interior of a mailbox belongs to the private sphere due to its restricted access. The identification of these spheres on an interface level assists in guiding the context of how such interfaces are to be implemented, as suggested by our recommendations.

2

Göllner, Le, Conradie, Lindenberg

Networked Neighbourhoods

Opportunities designing thresholds Digital solutions on offer exist to facilitate sharing and communication within a neighbourhood context, however the solutions are primarily online-based and do not strengthen social cohesion due to their global nature – a distinct local element is missing. In referring back to Hamton & Wellman (2003) who illustrates that ICT could contribute to social cohesion, we see the opportunity for using sharing systems to be conducive in doing so. Meanwhile institutionalized sharing organizations such as Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) do exist within a local context, however, they require a high level of personal involvement in a club-like fashion with a high entry barrier which renders it an unattractive solution for casual users.

Sharing practices in the neighbourhood context In order to explore the current sharing and communication practices, we study the current existing institutionalised sharing practices in LETS. We follow up these visits with a series of observations in apartment buildings, especially focusing on threshold interfaces. These observations are incorporated into design games conducted with residents in cooperation with Quarter Managements (QMs) to come to a better understanding of the existing, improvised usage of thresholds as vehicles for local communication. In our research, the existing thresholds offer a starting point for future peer-to-peer sharing solutions. We therefore focus our efforts on already existing infrastructures that subscribe to the residents' current mental models of usage. We hypothesize that systems which enable neighbours to interact and share should be highly localized and integrated into the daily lives and rituals of residents by offering a low barrier of participation while still allowing them the privacy that they require.

Local Exchange Trading systems: Institutionalized Sharing Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) – place-based, time-banking, service-sharing communities – are of particular interest to us, as it is the most prominent institutionalized sharing offering in Berlin (Collom, 2005). LETS work on the premise that time currency can be acquired through the act of performing services, which subsequently can be used to receive services. We observed 2 out of 26 LETS to conduct contextual interviews with sharing experts.

Membership comprises mainly of people who have resided in the locale over an extended period of time and thus are well-integrated into their communities. Services on offer range from the mundane such as grocery shopping and home repair to highly specialized services such as dance instruction and language tutoring.

The members expressed that a motivation for participating in LETS is given that it affords them the possibility to obtain services that they otherwise could not financially afford. Additionally noteworthy is the importance of the social aspect of participating as a secondary motivator. It was also noted that the LETS observed use technology as little as possible – relying rather on photocopied lists for the membership database and maintaining contact through telephone, face-to-face meetings and newsletters.

Although the LETS observed are alive and running, LETS as a sharing concept is not without threat.

Studies indicate that only 20.7% (17 out of 82 attempts) of LETS still exist (Collom, 2005). The sustainability of such organizations is in question, since in LETS, the branches are run on a volunteer basis. We encountered that community social activities are reliant on at least one highly motivated person to instigate and organize it for it to come into being. For instance, we encountered a woman who singlehandedly maintains and runs her LETS branch and reportedly knows all the members and therefore can match up members based on needs and offerings. In these circumstances, the LETS branch’s livelihood is dependent on a specific person, which is not sustainable, as the organizational processes behind the LETS is not systematized to be easily taken over by a successor.

It was stated in interviews that members are encouraged to maintain a high level of activity in the LETS, where less-active members are pressured by other members to get more involved. This high level of personal engagement could be a hindrance to neighbourhood residents, who while interested in sharing, might be put off. Furthermore, participation in such institutionalized sharing organizations requires paying membership dues and attendance at meetings which could also serve as deterrents for people to participate.

3

Sustainability in Design: NOW!

Exploratory observations To understand the current nature of sharing and communication between neighbours, we performed ethnographic observations in various neighbourhoods, focusing on the interfaces contained within these buildings.

Referring back to Newman’s spheres (1996), we looked at how interfaces, such as doorbell plates, mailboxes, bulletin boards, etc., are being used by neighbourhood residents as communication interfaces, either intentionally or through creative misuse. We categorise these interfaces according to types of communication conducted through their use and reflect on their location (private, semi-private, semipublic, public) and the subsequent effect this might have.

Communication in the semi-private sphere When communication takes a direct, asynchronous form, the location of the message is an important indicator of who the message was directed to, or sent by. This was illustrated by neighbours communicating something directly amongst each other by placing a written note on the exterior of the mailbox of the receiver. Noteworthy is also that such messages were posted inside the entryway, on the mailbox (but not deposited inside), resulting in communication taking place in the semi-private sphere, as opposed to messages directed to the package delivery services, located outside on the doorbell plate, where communication takes a place in a semi-public sphere. One-to-one communication on the mailbox adds the extra dimension that, whilst being semi-private, and viewable to all who have access to the inside of the building, it is person bound and directed to the owner (or user, in the case of the messages to the postman) of the mailbox.

Figure 1 : Re-appropriation of mailbox surfaces in the semi-private sphere

Communication in the semi-public sphere This form of direct communication is also observed as synchronous communication, specifically on the doorbell plates located on the outside wall surface of an apartment. Whilst a doorbell plate is an institutionalized interface, it still undergoes some creative changes to accommodate the needs of residents. For example, some residents opted to draw attention to their doorbell on the plate during certain situations, e.g., when expecting visitors or when the particular bell was associated with a tenant getting frequent visits, e.g., a doctor. We see parallels here with status indicators found on instant messaging platforms, where the desire to be contacted (or not) is communicated publicly. The location of the interface corresponds with the nature of messages it communicates and to whom it is being communicated. To illustrate, messages in the semi-public sphere are available to all those who pass by, but might only be intended for those entering the building.

4

Göllner, Le, Conradie, Lindenberg

Networked Neighbourhoods

Figure 2 : Customization of doorbell plates in the semi-public sphere

Communication filtering Restrictions on what types of information residents wish to receive in their mailboxes can also be found.

This behaves as a “spam filter” of sorts: similar to what one might have installed on an email client to filter unwanted email. It manifests itself in the form of stickers placed on the exterior of mailboxes, semiprivate in nature, requesting no advertisements. Noteworthy are also instances of what can be explained as “white lists”: requests to, despite the insistence of not receiving advertisements, still receiving particular advertisement catalogues.

Results In the absence of formally-implemented designated communication interfaces in the semi-public or semiprivate spheres, inhabitants readily adapt threshold interface surfaces as make-shift communication surfaces, such as in the case mentioned earlier with the frequent occurrence of mailbox surfaces serving informally for one-to-one communication akin to personal bulletin boards. The location of such interface is also influential in the type of messages communicated and to whom is being communicated with. To reiterate, the patterns of behaviour observed in the semi-public and semi-private spheres reinforce the importance of locality and security as influential criteria for how and where communication between residents occurs.

Participatory Design Sessions To broaden our understanding of local sharing practices, we visited several Quarter Managements (QMs), which are place-based community institutions with projects ranging from organising neighbourhood events to managing local social initiatives. With QMs as partners, we staged participatory design workshops with discussion rounds and interviews with locals. We see participatory design, an approach that focus on empowering stakeholders by including them in the design process, as crucial in understanding the needs of and designing for neighbourhood sharing, due to the necessity of involving stakeholders in the decision making process of ICT implementation (Foth, 2004; Schuler & Namioka, 1993).

We conducted the workshops to understand the neighbourhood context, the relationships residents had with their neighbours, existing sharing practices and the potential for sharing systems by employing tools such as propositional cards and generative tools. These insights were later incorporated in our design recommendations.

We devised the Neighbourhood Blocks, a generative design toolkit that serves as a boundary object to assist in interviewing participants. A boundary object is something that exists between and bridges two divergent groups of actors, because it can be understood by and serve to facilitate communication between the two groups (Star 1984, 1989 cited by (Fleischmann, 2006)). The Neighbourhood Blocks kits’ purpose is to give insight on the context surrounding neighbourhood sharing activity and communication.

The kits consist of a set of abstract, geometric blocks representing pieces of a neighbourhood particular to Berlin apartment configurations (buildings, courtyards, streets and shops); stickers representing neighbours (color-coded by relationship to the neighbour); and supplementary material to aid the workshop activity.

5

Sustainability in Design: NOW!

Figure 3 : Examples of the Neighbourhood Blocks results

The task that the participants had of arranging the Neighbourhood Blocks was administered in conjunction with an informal interview. The Neighbourhood Blocks were intended to serve multiple purposes: to un-inhibit the participants as they opened up to us as they spoke about their neighbourhood living situation, to put into context the anecdotes they shared with us, and to put the participants into a neighbourhood frame-of-mind to prepare them for the propositional card activity that focused on the sharing aspect of neighbourhood relationships.

Our participants, using the two devised tools, expressed a strong desire to share with their neighbours but also communicated the obstacles that hinder them from doing so. These obstacles included: lack of integration of the resident within the social sphere of an apartment; lack of one-to-many sharing infrastructure to communicate offerings or needs to neighbours; and landlords acting as gatekeepers restricting informal re-appropriation of threshold interfaces in the semi-public and semi-private spheres of an apartment.

Design recommendations Based on the observations made in the neighbourhood and our workshops, we derived a set of design recommendations pertaining to designing sharing systems within a neighbourhood context.

Consider the social context When implementing sharing systems, it is important to consider the social context in which a system is implemented. As we learned in the previously mentioned workshop, all residents do not share the same social ties, and underlying social relationships are more complex than simply being neighbours. Taking into account this social context means taking into account the complex relationships within an apartment.

This was demonstrated to us in a workshop, where participants were unanimous in stating that a washing machine is not something that would be indiscriminately shared with all neighbours. Participants were adamant that access to the system must be regulated to prevent misuse by, for example, external users.

In interviews, residents repeatedly stated that a considerable obstacle for communication and sharing in the semi-public and semi-private sphere between neighbours is the landlord, who acts as a gatekeeper for the use of the threshold interfaces in these spheres.

This brings us to the point that local stakeholders must be taken into account. By offering value and functionality to all players, a sharing system becomes much more attractive, especially when considering that landlords and housing companies are the ones to implement such systems.

6

GĂśllner, Le, Conradie, Lindenberg

Networked Neighbourhoods

Consider the place-based context Also to be taken into consideration is the local, placed based context. Sharing systems must give the impression that they are for, and by neighbours. Whilst not being a social network of friends, our respondents indicated that, by virtue of sharing a house, a certain amount of closeness is created, be it merely through being forced to share a bicycle storage space or garbage deposit or through having to use a communal key. This means potentially restricting access, e.g., vertically to those physically living in an apartment or horizontally to those living within close proximity, and designing in such a fashion that the local aspect is integrated. The desire to restrict communication illustrates that: communication is not always seen positively, participation should not be mandatory (in other words, users should be able to opt out) and privacy is an important consideration.

As realized by our observations about thresholds, the sphere in which interfaces exists is crucial in determining the type of communication or interaction that takes place within it. For example, the exterior of a mailbox, because it exists in the semi-private sphere, is best appropriated for communication that is directed to individuals with access to an apartment, specifically to the owner of the mailbox. The posting on the outside also differs from communication posted inside: a message might be directed to the owner but also implicitly directed to the other inhabitants. Relevant when talking about the place based context is also the re-use of existing infrastructures, such as a mailbox, as repeatedly mentioned in this paper as a sharing interface.

Be transparent Being transparent in the use of sharing systems is important. In interviews and participatory sessions, participants stated that they are wary of the content they are willing to share. The added element that neighbours are not necessarily friends contributes to this, so transparency can help ease concerns. Practically it translates to making sure users are aware of what it is they are sharing and who they are sharing it with. This reflects back on social context in the sense that different services or objects might be available for different groups of users. For example as noted by workshop participants, an old fridge might be available to everyone, including non-residents, whereas the availability of a set of tools might be restricted to residents of a flat, and a game console that is only to be shared with the direct neighbour. Such differentiation should be clear to those applying it and it is important to avoid giving the impression that all one’s possessions are being offered online. Anonymity must similarly be avoided but here a compromise must be struck: the threshold of participation must be low enough to attract users, but the initial information provided must be high enough to ensure transparency.

Be flexible Considering how diverse the technical abilities of residents are, it is of importance to allow usage for diverse audiences. The reluctance of the LETS to switch to digital systems is illustrated by the delaying of the release of digital newsletters to coincide with the same newsletter sent by post in order to not place those without computer at a disadvantage. This involves being aware that not all residents own a computer or feel comfortable with using their mobile phones as input devices. Judgements as to which threshold interface is appropriate must take this variance into account. Translated practically, this means offering the ability to interact with the system using various devices or inputs, for instance, with simply a printout (located on the appropriate threshold interface) of the current offerings might be offered periodically. In covering the two extremes (high tech and analog) and everything in between, one can also be more confident that the participation threshold is lowered.

Discussion and Conclusion In this paper we created a set of design recommendations for sharing systems in the neighbourhood context. Our findings are constructed by investigating current sharing practices of institutionalized sharing organisations such as LETS in Berlin, observational studies of threshold interfaces in apartments and participatory sessions with neighbours. We were motivated by the observation that sharing is currently not

7

Sustainability in Design: NOW!

facilitated in the neighbourhood context and that applying ICT could lead to an increase in social cohesion within these neighbourhoods. Our recommendations are grouped under the four concepts of locality, transparency, flexibility and social aspects. As our research illustrates, the neighbourhoods encountered rarely afford neighbours a way to communicate and share with designated communication channels. The interfaces contained within buildings remain largely, institutionally unchanged. Not reflecting technological and societal trends, these existing interfaces offer opportunities of sharing and communication, if the nuances contained within the context of the neighbourhood taking into account.

For future work, we propose developing working prototypes, based on our design recommendations.

These are optimally developed in cooperation with stakeholders such as residents, landlords, etc. and implemented in a real world setting where the various stakeholders can make use of such sharing systems over a longer period of time and reflect back on their experiences, together with the researchers, on how such a system could be improved upon.

Bibliography Collom, E. (2005). Community currency in the United States: the social environments in which it emerges and survives. Environment and Planning, 37(9), 1565 – 1587.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 11431168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.

Fleischmann, K. (2006). Boundary Objects with Agency: A Method for Studying the Design–Use Interface. The Information Society, 22(2), 77-87. doi: 10.1080/01972240600567188.

Foth, M. (2004). Encouraging residents to take social ownership of an online community network through PAD: Participation, Animation, Design. In Community Network Analysis Conference, Brighton, Mar (Vol. 31).

Brighton: Citeseer.

Hampton, K. (2001). Living the wired life in the wired suburb: Netville, glocalization and civil society.

Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb. City and Community, 2(4), 277-311. doi: 10.1046/j.1535-6841.2003.00057.x.

Jégou, F., Liberman, J., & Wallenborn, G. (2009). Collaborative design sessions of objects proposing energy-savi1.

Jégou F. LJ. Collaborative design sessions of objects proposing energy-saving practice. Energy Efficiency & Behaviours conference. 2009. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en. Energy Efficiency & Behaviours conference. Maastrich, Holland.

Manzini, E. (2006). Design, ethics and sustainability: Guidelines for a transition phase. Texto de estudo. Milão: DISIndaco. Politecnico di Milano, 1-8.

Newman, O. (1996). Creating Defensible Space. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. doi: 10.1007/s00267-004-0342-0.

Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community (p. 541). Simon & Schuster.

Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: principles and practices. Hillsdale: Routledge.

Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International journal of urban and regional research, 25(2), 227-252.

About the authors Stefan Göllner is a PhD candidate at the Design Research Lab of Deutsche Telekom Laboratories and Technical University of Berlin. Before he was educated as a communication designer at University of applied sciences Düsseldorf worked as a freelance designer in the cologne area and was part of the research stuff at Academy of Media Arts Cologne as an artistic researcher from 2007 to 2009.

Contact details: stefan.goellner@telekom.de

Jaclyn Le is a Masters student in Integrated Design with emphasis on Service Design at the Köln International School of Design (KISD) in Germany. At the KISD, she assisted Professor Birgit Mager as a teaching assistant in a Social Design related project entitled Living Quality by Design. Additionally she works as a research assistant supporting the Networked Neighbourhoods project at the Design Research Lab at Deutsche Telekom Laboratories.

Contact details: jaclyn@kisd.de

8

Gรถllner, Le, Conradie, Lindenberg

Networked Neighbourhoods

Peter Conradie studied Communication and Multimedia Design at the University of Applied Sciences in Rotterdam.

Currently taking a semester off from his Interface Design Masters at the University of Applied Sciences in Potsdam, he is working at the Deutsche Telekom Laboratories on a project concerning sharing in Neighbourhoods as research assistant.

Contact details: peter.conradie@fh-potsdam.de

Jan Lindenberg is a interaction designer and associated design researcher at IIDj, the Institute for Information Design in Tokyo. Prior to that he worked as a PhD candidate and scientific researcher at the Design Research Lab at Deutsche Telekom Laboratories and the Berlin University of the Arts, where he was engaged in the field of mobile communication and sustainability. Currently he is focusing his research on participatory design strategies to facilitate social and environmental sustainability in the context of urban neighbourhoods.

Contact details: jan.lindenberg@iidj.net

9