Abstract
The community concept has maintained a constant and growing interest in urban studies and many related fields. The origin of this continuing interest seems to derive from the importance of the concept of community within diverse forms of political language and interpretations within different planning practices. In this contribution, through the analysis of different ethical and planning theories, we want to provide an update framework on community action. According to this objective, the argumentation will proceed through a literature review on four ethics theories and three key aspects related to spatial planning, as well as matching this theoretical analysis with exemplifying practices. The final objective is to provide an original analysis on drivers and outcomes of different forms of community, raising general issues that refer to spatial planning, social organization and regulation.
Highlights
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the debate on the role of communities in urban studies
According to the theories based on extrinsic community value community action can refer to an ownership role that can be defined as a “commonhold contractual community” (Moroni 2014: 45) or as Ostrom (1990) suggests, the “commons”
Looking at the framework of community actions reported in the analysis, we can make a series of useful reflections to understand how these features allude to a specific interpretation of both the background of a particular social organization as well as the policies and rules designed to enable action
Summary
The definition of the role of ownership by community members is a crucial issue significantly dividing different types of local action. According to the theories based on extrinsic community value (utilitarian, libertarian and geo-anarchist) community action can refer to an ownership role that can be defined as a “commonhold contractual community” (Moroni 2014: 45) or as Ostrom (1990) suggests, the “commons” In this sense, Moroni (2014: 46) recognizes a relevant issue related to the usual interpretation of commons as a different kind of property or as a third alternative to public and private property. This report indicates that, in addition to the current policy attention to asset transfer in certain countries like UK, there is a pre-existing cohort of organizations active in the field of contractual and collective private ownership schemes This result would be consistent with the historical studies that the research refers to (Woodin et al 2010). We should consider these community energy enterprises as “community technology” namely as a sub-category of “social technology” that “denote dependable expertise in voluntary social organization and exchange” (Lowi, MacCallum 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
