3rd PLATE Conference
September 18 – 20, 2019
Berlin, Germany
Nils F. Nissen
Melanie Jaeger-Erben (eds.)
Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin
Singh, Jagdeep; Lehner, Matthias; Winslow, Julia; Voytenko Palgan, Yuliya;
Mont, Oksana: Exploring social, economic and environmental conse-
quences of collaborative production: the case of bike repair maker
spaces in three European countries . In: Nissen, Nils F.; Jaeger-Erben,
Melanie (Eds.): PLATE – Product Lifetimes And The Environment : Proceed-
ings, 3rd PLATE CONFERENCE, BERLIN, GERMANY, 18 – 20 September
2019. Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2021. pp. 717 – 722. ISBN
978-3-7983-3125-9 (online). https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-9253.
This article – except for quotes, fi gures and where otherwise noted – is
licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0).
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
717
3rd PLATE 2019 Conference
Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Exploring Social, Economic and Environmental Consequences of
Collaborative Production: The Case of Bike Repair Maker Spaces in
Three European Countries
Singh, Jagdeep; Mont, Oksana; Winslow, Julia; Lehner, Matthias; Voytenko Palgan, Yuliya
The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Keywords: Bike Kitchens; Do-it-yourself (DIY); Sharing Economy; Maker Spaces.
Abstract: Cities have emerged as leading forces in transforming societies towards sustainable
development. Numerous repairs, do-it-yourself (DIY) and maker communities across European
countries are established to: improve resource efficiency by extending the lifespan products through
repair and part recovery from urban material streams; create new sources of income for local
communities by sharing resources and skills; and enhance social cohesion by enabling new kinds of
social interactions. The aim of this research study is to examine the contribution of such initiatives to
the environment, economy, and society. The study focuses on cases of maker spaces in Sweden,
Switzerland, and Spain engaged in bicycle repairs as study objects. The study addresses the
following research question: What are the main social, economic and environmental impacts of
collaborative production organizations? Overall sustainability effects of collaborative production
activities depend upon the design, operational activities, and institutional contexts. Thus, this study
analyses these cases of maker spaces from socio-economic, environmental and institutional
entrepreneurship perspectives. Qualitative data is gathered through interviews with the organizers of
maker spaces to formulate a systemic understanding of key activities (repair, resource recovery etc.)
and exchanges (spare parts, skills, tools, financial etc.) carried out at the maker spaces in the context
of the circular economy. A user survey focusing on the benefits of the maker spaces to the users is
carried. The study contributes to identifying critical system dynamics associated with collaborative
production in the circular economy context and highlighting main areas of further research assisting a
better understanding of the systemic impacts of collaborative production.
Introduction
Cities have emerged as leading forces in
transforming societies towards sustainable
resource management through collaborative
production and consumption. Indeed, cities
across Europe have been supporting circular
economy and collaborative production and
consumption initiatives, such as, repair cafes,
do-it-yourself (DIY) places and maker spaces.
These activities are recognised as solutions to
closing and slowing the material loops in an
urban context by extending product lifetimes
through repair, upgrade, reuse and recovery of
resources from urban waste. Product sharing,
mending and repairing initiatives are often
taken as environmentally sustainable due to
their potential to avoid new purchases of
products and spare-parts. Further, these
initiatives are closely associated with their
positive social and economic benefits for the
local communities by enhancing repair skills
and sufficiency, and social cohesion. In
addition, these activities have potential to
create new complex socio-economic
interactions by stimulating behavioural changes
in individual time-use and consumption
disrupting the sustainability status-quo. Indeed,
individual time-use, socio-economic conditions
and resource consumption are closely linked to
carbon footprints (Wiedenhofer, Smetschka,
Akenji, Jalas, & Haberl, 2018a). Therefore,
exploiting these consumption-behaviour
relationships offer an untapped policy option.
Nonetheless, the overall sustainability impacts
of collaborative production activities depend
upon the design, operational activities, and
institutional contexts (Winslow & Mont, 2019).
Therefore, from a sustainability point of view,
socio-economic, environmental and
institutional entrepreneurial perspectives are
718
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Singh J., Mont O., Winslow J., Lehner M., Voytenko Palgan Y.
Exploring social, economic and environmental consequences of collaborative
production: The case of bike repair maker spaces in three European
countries
needed to evaluate these initiatives. However,
theoretical frameworks to evaluate the
sustainability potential of these initiatives in
context to closing the material urban cycles
and stimulating behavioural changes among
users are unavailable.
Taking the cases of bike repair maker spaces in
four European countries, this study addresses
this gap in research by exploring the direct and
indirect social, economic and environmental
implications of collaborative production
activities. The main objectives of the study are
to examine the contribution of collaborative
production activities at these maker spaces to
slowing and closing the urban material cycles,
and broader sustainability implications of user
behaviour stimulated by such maker spaces. A
framework to evaluate the sustainability
potential of maker spaces is proposed.
Theoretical background
Collaborative production: Production,
consumption and presumption
In contemporary economies, we understand
that production always follows consumption and
vice-verse. However, this was not the case. At
the very outset of the Industrial Revolution,
western societies were defined predominantly
by production (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010).
However, it was only in the latter half of the 20th
century that consumption gained vital
importance, especially as compared to
production, due to increases in the objects of
consumption (e.g. consumer products), the
subjects of consumption (i.e. consumers) and
consumption processes (such as marketing,
advertising and branding). Toffler (1980) called
this ‘the second wave’ of marketisation (Ritzer
& Jurgenson, 2010). Production and
consumption were two separate functions
dividing two entities what we know as the
producers and consumers (Ritzer & Jurgenson,
2010).
The term prosumer was coined by Toffler
(1980) meaning the one who consumes and
produces a product. He argued that modern-
day internet-era presumption, what he called
‘the third wave’, was indeed predominant in
pre-industrial societies (the ‘first wave’). In
contrast, collaborative production as a part of
this ‘third wave’ is defined by Oxford dictionary
as “the production and sharing of information or
physical assets based on social collaboration
and knowledge sharing within horizonal peer-
to-peer networks open to all members of a
community, facilitated by the use of the internet
and social media (as in the case of Wikipedia).”
Proponents of collaborative production claim
that it brings economic empowerment for
individuals, improves social cohesion, and
minimizes environmental impacts by
decreasing demand for new products (Botsman
& Rogers, 2011). The marketed interests in do-
it-itself culture and sharing of skills, tools and
spaces have been supported by several cities
across Europe and beyond as means to drive
sustainable consumption among urban
population.
Circular economy and sustainable
consumption through DIY “Bike Repair”
movements
DIY bike repair studios or ‘bike kitchens’ or
maker spaces are mainly organized by
grassroot initiatives, in many cases, supported
by government and non-government
organizations (Bradley, 2018; Lehner, 2019)
due to their potential contribution to
sustainability. Bradley (2018) explores the
phenomenon of ‘Bike Kitchens’, DIY non-profit
bicycle repair studios, around technology in
relation to degrowth. Some of the anticipated
positive benefits of DIY bike repair studios
include: recovery of valuable spare parts from
the waste streams, sharing of tools, reduced
consumption of virgin part materials, and
benefits of product life extension through repair.
Based on Illich's (1985) notion of tools for
conviviality, Bradley (2018) proposes that bike
kitchens, by providing practical knowledge for
repair to the citizens enhances autonomy and
creativity among them by liberating them from
commercial relations and enabling formation of
non-capitalist relations. Bike Kitchen are
considered as an example of democratisation
of technology in practice that enables easy
access to low-cost technology, tools and know-
how to anyone (Bradley, 2018). Lehner (2019)
argues that bike kitchens could reduce
consumption among the bike kitchen
community through their time expenditure in the
repair activities
.
However, systematic sustainability analysis of
such DIY initiatives including broader
sustainability implications including the
unintended consequences is still lacking.
Based on empirical evidences, this study
719
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Singh J., Mont O., Winslow J., Lehner M., Voytenko Palgan Y.
Exploring social, economic and environmental consequences of collaborative
production: The case of bike repair maker spaces in three European
countries
provides a theoretical framework to evaluate
sustainability implications of DIY repair
movements.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews with key personals
associated with bike repair studios were
conducted in order to have an overview of the
key activities, value proposition, and societal
benefits, and success factors and barriers to
their operations. In total, seven semi-structured
interviews were conducted (see Table 1). The
semi-structured interviews followed the
following questions:
1. What are the main motivations behind
establishing the bike studios or maker
spaces?
2. What are the main social, economic
and environmental benefits of the bike
studio for the users?
Country Organisation(s) Total
interviewees
Sweden - Bike Kitchen,
Malmö
- Bagarmossens
Cykelköket,
Stockholm
3
Switzerland - Point Vélo,
Laussanne
2
Spain - Biciclot,
Barcelona
- Biciosxs,
Barcelona
2
Table 1. Information on the interviewees used in
the study.
All of the interviews were recorded with the
consent of the interviewees and transcribed.
The interviewees were selected from different
countries representing different types of bike
studio in order to get a broad perspective on
their activities.
In order to collect empirical information relevant
to the socio-economics impacts of bike kitchens
on the users, an online survey of the users of
the Bike Kitchen in Malmö was conducted. The
survey was utilized to gather information on the
key activities performed by the individual users
and their motivations to take part in the repair
activities, perceived social, economic and
environmental benefits, and average time spent
at the Bike Kitchen. In total, 46 individual
responses were collected.
Results and Discussion
Motivations
The organizational characteristics (e.g.
financial, operational, etc.) of the bike repair
studios or bike kitchens included in this study
significantly vary. However, the common
motivation behind establishing these was the
lack of DIY spaces recognized by bicycle
enthusiasts who share a common interest of
cycling and repairing bikes themselves. For
instance, Biciclot in Barcelona was started in
1987 by a small community of urban bicycle
enthusiasts, which now has taken a shape of
well-established institution that closely
cooperates with the City Council of Barcelona
on various urban mobility projects. Similarly, the
Cykelköket, Malmö and Bagarmossens
Cykelköket were also started by group of
individuals who jointly created DIY bike repair
space.
An increased trend of bicycling in the recent
years has also contributed to the demand of
such places. For example, the Point Vélo,
Laussanne was established in cooperation of
EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de
Lausanne after recognizing the need for a DIY
space in the university campus as a result of
increased number of students bicycling.
These spaces are financially supported by a
variety of means such as by the city
governments or non- governmental
organizations or self-financed. The bike
kitchens are supported by volunteers who
share their time and skills for free or part-time
workers. For example, Point Vélo, Laussanne
employs students during 1-hour lunch break
because many students come to repair bikes
during lunch breaks. Malmö Municipality
supports the salary of 2 full-time personnel
employed at Cykelköket, Malmö.
Bagarmossens Cykelköket is fully supported by
volunteers working few hours a week in the
evening, and funds the rented space by
membership fees. Point Vélo, Laussanne has
contract with the EPFL – École polytechnique
fédérale de Lausanne who offers the students
free use of tools and small repairs works.
720
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Singh J., Mont O., Winslow J., Lehner M., Voytenko Palgan Y.
Exploring social, economic and environmental consequences of collaborative
production: The case of bike repair maker spaces in three European
countries
Social, economic and environmental
impacts of the bike repair studios
Interviews with the key organizers/volunteers at
the bike repair studios revealed that a variety of
activities are performed by these studios.
These include recovery of bike parts from
discarded bikes, sharing of tools and skills for
bike repair, providing special courses on bike
repairing, organizing special events, providing
bikes on rent, donation of recovered bikes to
under-privileged sections of society.
These studios also provide spaces to people for
cultural exchange. According to Interviewee 1,
“Each time we open, 8-9 languages being
spoken at the same time. It is very diverse in a
way, people coming in from all around the city.”
“we still have lots of spare part that people could
get for free to fix their bike.” (Interviewee 1)
Effect on individual time-use
Studies have found a close relationship of
individual time-use and consumption, with
carbon footprints (Jalas & Juntunen, 2015;
Torriti, 2017; Wiedenhofer, Smetschka, Akenji,
Jalas, & Haberl, 2018b). Out of 46 responses in
the survey, 30 respondents appear to spend
more than 3 three hours each time they visit the
Cykelköket, Malmö. The survey found out that
the main motivations behind visiting the
Cykelköket, Malmö are to carry out bike repair
works and attend special events. Out of the total
respondents, 36 visited the Cykelköket, Malmö
more than 10 times in the past one year. Thus,
the users spend a significant amount of time at
this bike studio that could be replacing some of
the usual individual consumption activities.
However, the overall environmental impacts of
this alternative time-use may vary depending
upon the type of institutional settings of the
maker spaces. For instance, municipality-run
Cykelköket, Malmö which is a non-profit
organization provides spare-parts and skills
exchange for free without any mandatory
membership fees. Due to its organization,
Cykelköket, Malmö is not allowed to sell
recovered bikes without official auctions. From
an economic perspective, the users positively
benefit from free repairs and recovery of spare-
parts; however, Cykelköket, Malmö struggles to
secure funds to run the space as there is no
viable financial mechanism.
“One challenge we have been having is
stemming from the financial part, changing to
be more a volunteer-based organisation.”
(Interviewee 1)
Whereas, the Point Vélo, Laussanne which is is
only partly supported by EPFL – École
polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, offers
only free use of tools by users but subsidized
prices for repair operations and replacement of
spare parts. The Point Vélo also supplies bikes
on rent. Because of a viable economic model,
the Point Vélo been a success from an
economic perspective for both the users as well
as the organizers. In contrast, Biciclot,
Barcelona which is a totally volunteer-run
organization has been successfully in operation
for the past more than 25 years due to its social
cause. Thus, institutional settings do affect the
overall impacts generated by these maker
spaces.
This study has conducted survey of users of
only one type of organization. In-depth studies
of the users of different types of maker spaces,
therefore, could be conducted in order to
investigate the types of activities that were
replaced and their environmental, economic or
social impacts. In order to positively influence
the sustainability profile of maker spaces
various institutional constellations could be
examined to support sustainable development
through grassroot innovations.
A framework to evaluate overall
sustainability potential of collaborative
production
Based on this study, a framework to evaluate
social, economic and environmental
consequences of collaborative production
activities is proposed. Various steps of this
framework are as follows:
1. Conceptualize the major activities at
the maker spaces in context to the
socio-economic and environmental
interactions
2. Evaluate the social, economic and
environmental impacts
3. Set goals and agendas for the maker
spaces in sustainability context
4. Identify management strategies to
meet the goals of the maker spaces
721
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Singh J., Mont O., Winslow J., Lehner M., Voytenko Palgan Y.
Exploring social, economic and environmental consequences of collaborative
production: The case of bike repair maker spaces in three European
countries
The first step involves conceptualizing the
socio-economic and environmental exchanges
taking place at the maker spaces. In the studied
cases, for example, this involves the direct
(positive as well as negative) impacts are repair
with less or no cost, part recovery from urban
waste streams, socializing and skills exchange,
and changed/alternative consumption patterns
due to the time spent by users etc. This step
also includes exploring the rebound effects, if
any, induced by maker spaces due to such as
economic savings from cheaper/free repair
spent on other consumption activities. Methods
such as participant observation, user surveys
and semi-structured interviews with organizers
and users could be employed to explore these
exchanges. In this study, these interactions
were explored through semi-structured
interviews and a user survey.
Evaluating the social, economic and
environmental impacts of maker spaces
requires quantifying the interactions explored
during the first step. Methods such as material
flow analysis could be employed to trace to the
materials saved from a life cycle perspective.
In order to analyze the influence of institutional
context on sustainability profile of maker
spaces, various system goals and agendas
could be set. In order to achieve these systems
goals Different scenarios could be explored
under diverse business model settings and
institutional constellations for the maker
spaces. Based on this analysis, various
management strategies for the design, value
proposition, operational practices and
institutional contexts of maker spaces could be
devised and implemented to maximize their
sustainability potential.
Conclusions
The study concludes that the maker spaces for
bicycle repair do contribute to improve resource
efficiency by extending the lifespan products
through repair and part recovery from urban
material streams. Evidences show that these
maker spaces enhance social cohesion by
enabling new kinds of social interactions.
through sharing of resources and skills. The
activities at these maker spaces do influence
individual time-use, and therefore, could have
significant positive impacts on consumption
(and carbon footprints). However, the type of
institutional settings of the maker spaces may
influence the social, economic and
environmental impacts emanating from these
maker spaces, especially, the ones concerning
the individual time-use of the users. Thus, in-
depth studies of the users of different types of
maker spaces is needed in order to devise
institutional constellations to positively influence
to the sustainability profile of these maker
spaces. The study proposed a framework to
evaluate overall sustainability potential of
maker spaces.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support
of Urban Reconomy by Formas 211-2014-
1440. This project has received funding from
the European Research Council (ERC) under
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme (grant agreement
No 771872).
References
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is
yours: how collaborative consumption is changing
the way we live. Collins.
Bradley, K. (2018). Bike Kitchens – Spaces for
convivial tools. Journal of Cleaner Production,
197, 1676–1683.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.208
Illich, I. (1985). Tools for conviviality. Boyars.
Jalas, M., & Juntunen, J. K. (2015). Energy
intensive lifestyles: Time use, the activity patterns
of consumers, and related energy demands in
Finland. Ecological Economics, 113, 51–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2015.02.016
Lehner, M. (2019). An exploration of the
significance of prosumption for sustainable
consumption and its implications for sustainable
consumption governance. In O. Mont (Ed.), A
Research Agenda for Sustainable Consumption
Governance (p. 272). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production,
Consumption, Prosumption. Journal of Consumer
Culture, 10(1), 13–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673
Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. Morrow.
Torriti, J. (2017). Understanding the timing of
energy demand through time use data: Time of the
day dependence of social practices. Energy
Research & Social Science, 25, 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2016.12.004
Wiedenhofer, D., Smetschka, B., Akenji, L., Jalas,
M., & Haberl, H. (2018a). Household time use,
carbon footprints, and urban form: a review of the
potential contributions of everyday living to the
1.5 °C climate target. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 30, 7–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2018.02.007
722
3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019
Singh J., Mont O., Winslow J., Lehner M., Voytenko Palgan Y.
Exploring social, economic and environmental consequences of collaborative
production: The case of bike repair maker spaces in three European
countries
Winslow, J., & Mont, O. (2019). Bicycle Sharing:
Sustainable Value Creation and Institutionalisation
Strategies in Barcelona. Sustainability, 11(3), 728.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030728
