51

ENVISIONING URBAN
COMMONS AS CIVIC
ASSEMBLAGES IN THE
DIGITALLY AUGMENTED CITY
A critical urbanism exploration of
counterhegemonic individuation in the age
of networked translocalism, multi-associative
transduction and recombinant transculturalism

Manfredo Manfredini

Introduction
To shed light on the emerging modes of production of sociospatial systems based on com-
moning I address the recent transformation of their central nodes, the urban commons. I
foreground the impact of the rapid transformation of the technological framework on the
dual nature of these nodes as assembled institutions of associated and stabilized networks,
and assembling concatenations in continuous transformation. I elaborate on my longstanding
study on spatialization of relational infrastructures that looks at common trends and local
differences of cultures and practices across geographic boundaries (Manfredini, 2017, 2019a,
2020; Manfredini et al., 2018). I concentrate on recent changes in the commons’ constitutive
components – infrastructure, activation and agents – focusing on the continuous growth of
social inequalities and fragmentation of social and spatial fabrics of the city.
The mobile internet age has changed the relational practices and infrastructures of urban
communities, granting increasing freedom of interaction and collaborative production over
space and time. The space of flow (Castells, 1999) of the pervading reality-virtuality continuum
(Milgram et al., 1995) has penetrated in all productive and socially reproductive spaces of
our lifeworld, democratizing the access to networked, distributed and metastable forms of
territorialization that were previously accessible only to a few leading global organizations.
Novel networked, mobilized and distributed commons have subverted the territoriality of
public spaces, freeing their traditionally fixed geographical and chronological boundaries,
and according them a status of steady translocalization.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003033530-59 687

 Manfredo Manfredini

Acknowledging the crucial challenges posed by this process to commons’ stakeholders

in the coproduction of their urban space, this chapter shows how they contribute to the
disruption of the traditional mode of production and the stabilization of autonomous re-
lational territories. My analysis foregrounds the agency of three main technology-driven
territorial macrophenomena: networked translocalism, related to mobilization of people and
concrete elements; multi-associative transduction, related to the recombination of spaces; and
counterhegemonic transculturalism, related to intersection of ideas, beliefs, values and knowledge.
My discussion of the challenges associated with these macrophenomena elaborates on find-
ings of a case study investigation in the Australasian New World urbanism. I also delineate
a design strategy for future metastable commons that empower the communities and foster
their agency in the affirmation of equality, difference, pluralism, inclusion and cohesion.
I submit that the current metamorphosis of the urban commons has an ambivalent effect
on the capacity of communities to respond to the social and spatial fragmentation of the
novel metastable conditions of associative embodiments in steady becoming that assemble
their distributed members, infrastructures and networks. On the one hand, the digitally
enhanced translocalism, transduction and transculturalism radically deterritorialize struc-
tured patterns of control, favoring the development of multiple, emergent, autonomous and
independent relational practices of urban communities’ commoning. On the other hand, a
progressive dependence of these commons on systems controlled by global apparatuses of
domination limits their power to recombine and reassociate commoning resources and prac-
tices of networking and collaboration.
My investigation on the territorially subversive, emergent, multiple and indeterminate
character of the new commons centers on assemblage research (Brenner et al., 2011; DeLanda,
2016; Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Dovey, 2016; Nail, 2017; Sendra, 2015). Assemblage stud-
ies provide instruments to unveil how the emerging established relationships and means of
engagement promote autonomy and differentiation by extracting and subverting territories
at the margins, folds or interstitial spaces of the systems that host them. I foreground the acts
and practices that counter the reterritorialized embodiments of hierarchical apparatuses and
point out their agency within complex structured and structuring concatenations that affirm
equality and democratic distribution of power.
I analyze assemblage systems focusing on the interplay of their three core components: (1)
concrete elements that form their basic infrastructure and establish their social, spatial and cog-
nitive centrality. These are mobile, distributed, variable and highly heterogeneous elements,
including material things, values and paradigms, personalities and spheres of thought, that
constitute both the tangible and intangible infrastructure of the social space. (2) Sets of en-
abling relations that link their different components and establish them as networked concate-
nations to favor collaboration and sharing of resources. (3) Constitutive agents that dialogically
catalyze their embodiments with concepts, ideas and narratives that support the integration
and autonomy of communities. These agents include a multiplicity of entities, such as plans,
agendas and manifestos that prompt, engage and activate the commons’ infrastructure and
networks.
With such an analytical framework, I describe the discontinuous, multi-scalar, multi-di-
mensional and transformative nature of these metastable commons. Based on grounded the-
ory, I reject predetermined structure and generalizations that conceal particularities while
I affirm the subversive instances in which concatenations of actants (concrete elements, sets
of enabling relations and constitutive agents) establish dialogical emancipatory realms that
liberate the collective power of appropriation and co-creation. The resulting descriptions of
these instances of commoning that take hold in the new ordinary is framed the wider discourse

688
 Envisioning urban commons

on the universal Right to the City to indicate their capacity to nourish a territorial produc-
tion based on participation, assembly and collaboration.

Urban commons and the Right to the City

In our progressively globalized society, urban commons should be assemblages with in-
creased cardinal role in the constitution of civic, autonomous, independent and participa-
tory networks that foster diversity of the moltitude. Differentiation, as the manifestation of
irreconcilable alterity, makes such commons crucial to the constitution of a positive collec-
tive social subject, sanctioning that “the multitudo is no longer a negative condition but the
positive premise of the self-constitution of right” (Negri, 2008, p. 194). This sustains the
engagement of collaborative multitudes in the construction of competing social, cultural and
material spatialities in open dialogue and cross-pollination. By reclaiming, defending, main-
taining and taking care of the “coming together of strangers who work collaboratively …
despite their differences” (Williams, 2018, p. 17), they sustain the “fundamental struggles
in terms of a continuous conquest of (new) arenas of freedom, democracy, and creativity”
(Guattari & Negri, 2010, p. 39) toward the development of a “nonmystified” democratic form
(Negri, 2008).
A social production based on such diversity and differentiation politically mobilizes and
intellectually engages citizens toward the collective territorialization (i.e., production, ap-
propriation and association) of their urban space. The effective deterritorialization subverts
the enclosed central spaces that are depoliticized, alienated and financialized by the private
sector with the complicity of market-oriented systems of governance. The establishment
of emancipated spaces as prime common grounds for dialogical relationships between the
multiple spheres of the multitude sustains the cocreative construction of a society that strives
for the affirmation of freedom, integration, communion of interest and transculturalism
(Borch & Kornberger, 2015; Flusty, 1997; Garnett, 2012).
The mobile internet age has introduced new issues in the liberation and affirmation of
these common grounds. New questions of social, spatial and cultural justice, ethics and mo-
rality emerge from the digitally enhanced collective engagement in the differential appropri-
ation of the civic realm. The complexity and criticality of these questions is a consolidated
subject of investigation. Changes in the power relation balance are addressed in a consistent
body of studies in political economy that describe the shift of the mode of production in our
postconsumerist age (Frenken & Schor, 2017; Piketty, 2013; Ritzer, 2019). These descrip-
tions characterize this new mode as an intimately intertwined form of (excessive) production
and (excessive) consumption. The expressions that designate this new mode of (re)produc-
tion, prosumption (Ritzer, 2014; Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010) or leisure/unpaid labor of “dispersed
multitudes” (Fuchs, 2014a; Kücklich, 2005) show how it introduces a powerful acceleration of
economy, politics and culture that restructures the traditional collective forms of elaboration
of coordinated mobilization and engagement.
This productive restructuring threatens the capacity of the commons to produce con-
text-specific organizational formats that would enable “self-forming publics to appear, rep-
resent themselves [and] be represented.” Harms to integral sociospatial relationality hinder
citizen participation, responsibilization and conscious decision making, depleting the daily
demand of collectivities for political identity, affirmation of citizenship and emancipation
from externally imposed patterns, references and constraints. Public restraint inhibits the
emplaced social empowerment that is fundamental for the sustainable development of the
growing social mixité of local, migrant and diasporic communities. Uneven representation

689
 Manfredo Manfredini

crucially hampers the exercise of the fundamental ontogenetic right of citizens to participate
in the creation of their spatialities in a democratic pluralistic way. As such, this restructuring
jeopardizes the affirmation of a differential spatial production that would integrate physical,
social and mental dimensions of the collective by productively assembling conflicts and dis-
agreements of a progressively diverse socius.
The discussion underlying these problems affecting public space and urban commons has
steadily grown in the last decades and concentrated on the progressive decay of the collec-
tive agency vis a vis the increasing power of hegemonic actors. Seminal work by prominent
scholars of the second half of the past century includes the reflections on the transformation
of public space into a pseudo-space of interaction by Hannah Arendt (1958); the analysis of
the effects of the decentration of collective discursive structures and the colonization of the
public sphere with alienation of citizens from their political dimension by Jürgen Haber-
mas (Calhoun, 1992; Habermas, 1989); the critique of the spectacle and alienation that are
produced by the “autocratic reign of the market economy” by Guy Debord (1983, p. 2); the
elucidation of the sweeping subjugation of people through fetishistic, concrete abstraction of
the spatialities of the everyday life by Henri Lefebvre (1991); and the documentation of the
modern “fall of the public man” by Richard Sennett (2002).
These studies have led to a wider recognition of the necessity of a new approach to the
question of spatialized publicness. Major studies by Seyla Benhabib (2000), Nancy Fraser
(1990) and David Harvey (2007, 2012) on the contemporary crisis of the political sphere
and citizenship rights addressed the urban condition of increased dispossession of collec-
tive power on urbanization and segmentation of publics with the formation of counterpub-
lics. Others, who elaborated critical appraisals of spatial questions concerning imbalances in
power relations, include the scrupulous dissections of disciplinary systems of spatial control
by Honi Haber (1994), David Graham Shane (2005) and Michiel Dehaene and Lieven De
Cauter (2008); the meticulous descriptions of the widening privatization of urban public
space by Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris (1993), Edward Soja (2010) and Anna Minton (2012);
the in-depth discussions on spatial justice and loss of “common wealth” generated by co-
operative labor by Setha Low (2006), Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (2009, 2017); the
wide-ranging investigations of sociospatial fragmentation and marginalization by Stuart
Hodkinson (2012), Steven Miles and Malcolm Miles (2004); and the detailed studies on
public space with severe social exclusion, heightened surveillance and depoliticization by
Mike Davis (1990), Michael Sorkin (1992) and Don Mitchell (2003).

New technologies and augmented urban commons

Central to this discussion are the challenges emerging from a contemporary communica-
tion technology megatrend: a pervasion of virtual, augmented and mixed (VAM) reality in
the way people work, live and play;. This has profoundly redefined the relational patterns
of local communities, lending them virtual access to any environmental, cultural, societal
dimension spatially or temporally external to them. Othering realities have had a strong trans-
formative impact on the dynamics of communities’ constitution, transformation and inter-
action. Their agency operates ambivalently, simultaneously both empowering and depriving
these communities’ capacity to establish or terminate partnerships, connections, strategies
and mobilizations that transform their assets and attributes (Labonte & Laverack, 2008).
On the one hand, the new digital technologies have strengthened the hegemonic position
of dominant actors by expanding the capability of their apparatuses to control and disem-
power autonomous associations that counter their agendas (Piketty, 2020; Rushkoff, 2019;

690
 Envisioning urban commons

Srnicek, 2017). New applications grant the former comprehensive access to the activities
and infrastructure of the latter. Seamless operations over multiple spatial and chronological
distances enable the prevailing actors to detect, identify, target, monitor and marginalize
their opponents. Multimodal messages enriched with augmented, immersive multi- and fully
synchronous realities relentlessly stimulate “sensuous appetites” to boost the capability of the
spectacular machine for cultural hegemony to produce consensus and homologation (Hassan,
2009). Systems for the amplification and multiplication of deceptively conceived social, cul-
tural and material content saturate all communication channels and override the voice of any
antagonist force. The creation of a hegemonic disciplinary space of flow with comprehensive tri-
angulated scanning and feedback routines capable of automatically converting or neutralizing
adverse or divergent processes of commoning appearing in their realms propagates the con-
trolling power by inducing self-harmonizing, self-controlling and self-regulating behaviors.
However, these hegemonic disciplinary spaces of flow, which support forces that under-
mine the autonomy, relatedness and instrumentality of the commons, also create opportuni-
ties for the growth of novel, countering act of commoning. As described by Lefebvre (1991),
these are unaccomplished spaces of abstraction and homogenization produced by dominant
groups to expand their control and exploitation capacities. The alienation they reify is not
absolute but carries within itself radically antagonist instances of individual appropriation
and differentiation. This resistance of self-determination relies on the centrality of the in-
dividual in the production of knowledge, consciousness and social practice, which are in a
constant state of mobilization (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 39, 50).
The intersection of digital and actual realms expands the incongruence inherent to the
abstractive condition. Multiple gaps in the domination apparatuses include inconsistencies of
local frameworks, customs and normative settings, such as inconsistent or conflicting owner-
ship and management of physical spaces and digital services, or contrasting legal frameworks
in the various jurisdictions in which multi-scalar operations occur. Countering practices of
residual and marginalized agents, networks and resources articulate subversive and imma-
nent recoding of territories, languages and material elements that defeat external surveil-
lance (Manfredini, 2019c). Antagonist information flows with different locative attributes
through multiple channels of interoperable platforms sprout and morph over various combi-
nations of mode (video, audio and text), formats (software coding), type (live and recorded)
and access (public or restricted).
The multiplicity of contexts and media of mobile interaction revive the public sphere by
expanding the capability of individuals and communities in the constitution of independent
networked coalitions (Foth et al., 2015; Fuchs, 2014b; Manfredini et al., 2017). Spatial media
have introduced degrees of freedom in the activities of the instituted and often commercial-
ized commons, supporting a large variety of countering associations in developing alterna-
tive territorialization patterns, structures and dynamics. The dynamism and multimodality
of the new context-specific relationality increases the capacity of the independent networks
to positively react to the continuing disruptions and, more importantly, to withstand the
emerging ones, as demonstrated by empirical research on the recent spatial effects of digitally
augmented social networks in instituted urban centralities (Manfredini, 2020).

Framing the transitioning spatialities: networked translocalization, multi-

associative transduction and counterhegemonic transculturalism
Three technology-driven macrophenomena have had a substantive impact on the recent
commons’ transition. Networked translocalization has constituted infrastructures for the

691
 Manfredo Manfredini

increasingly supported association and recombination of mobilized and distributed actants.

Multi-associative transduction has integrated the multiple and distributed resources of such vari-
able infrastructure with highly performative sets of enabling transspatial relations. Counter-
hegemonic transculturalism has driven purposeful exchanges between cultural agents of diverse
associations of actants and sets of relations. These phenomena have had major effects on the
way in which patterns of actual mobility and digital augmentation have critically trans-
formed the mode of spatial production of present-day urban communities, decisively chal-
lenging their livelihood, resilience and territoriality.

Networked translocalization of actants/concrete elements

Networked translocalization of communities is the constant reproduction of meanings,
practices and localities through negotiations of diverse mobile or displaced actors brought
together and engaged in the deterritorialization and reterritorialization of their spatialities
for the constitution of common grounds (Appadurai, 1995; Blommaert, 2010; Carpentier,
2007; Greiner & Sakdapolrak, 2013). Networked translocal communities have expanded due
to the increased mobility of their members and concrete components, and the diffusion of
electronically mediated communication technology, such as and mobile internet. Counter-
acting the loss of local interaction, the networked social and spatial relationality has sustained
progressively distributed communities by creating a new form of collective spatialization
no longer bounded by territory, as described at the inception of the internet age by Arjun
Appadurai (1995, 1996, p. 195).
The new translocal territorial patterns have increased plasticity operating on a global-local
continuum that seamlessly integrates the stable and the diasporic at all spatial scales in blended
actual/virtual neighborhoods. More-than-urban territorial developments has created metac-
ities on the global scale by articulating the sweeping general inurbation and multiscalar-
ity phenomena that, in the late-20th century, have produced general urban incorporations
(Brenner, 2013).
The differences between rural and urban experienced dramatic changes in both spatial dis-
tribution, with the formation of unprecedented hybrid metropolitan regions (e.g., the Chinese
Greater Bay Area megalopolis (Yang et al., 2019) or the Southeast Asian desakotas (McGee,
1991)), and synchronized multi-dimensional modes of production (Castells, 1996) integrated
with social reproduction (e.g., the Chinese Taobao villages and towns (Lin, 2019). Importantly,
the spatial transformation produced by the networked translocalization of communities has
been accompanied by a profound change in rhythms affecting their temporal stability and
duration. Strong acceleration and dynamism in structure and behavior have expanded their
variability (i.e., their scale, churn, merging, overlap and reversals). Comprehensively, this trans-
localization has produced an extremely volatile sociospatial relationality that, while making the
infrastructure of the commons more adaptive and robust, has increased the vulnerability of the
new communities (see, for example, the case study investigation in the New World urbanism
by Manfredini et al.1). The autonomous coproduction of connectedness progressively depends
on infrastructure provided by external forces over which these communities have little or no
control, as for example the privately owned transnational digital platforms (Srnicek, 2017).

Multi-associative transduction and sets of enabling of relations

Transduction is a transmutative process that operates by combining heterogeneous forces
by diffusing an exogenous activity that restructures given domains and creates provisional

692
 Envisioning urban commons

unities or conditions (Simondon, 2013). Digital augmentation of transduction has increased

the overall spatial metastability (Colwell, 1997; Deleuze, 1994) and enabled the emergence of
embodiments of transient and spatially distributed assemblages at any point along the entire
reality-virtuality continuum (Milgram et al., 1995) with patterns that range from progressive
to iterative and from systematic to irregular. The transduced unities and conditions have
recombinant and multi-associative properties, articulations and boundaries. They expand
the capability and capacity of distributed commoning actants of translocal communities to
operate efficaciously with scalable everyday practices (MacKenzie, 2006). Their fully im-
mersive and intensely evenemential instances embody the virtual and the remote in situated
contests, enabling actants to engage in actual presence independently form their spatio-­
temporal location and belonging. The relational potential of these unities allows commu-
nities to strengthen and expand the inclusivity and openness of their modes of production
and reproduction by supporting dialogue, centrality of actors and multistakeholdership
(Kitchin & Dodge, 2015).

Counterhegemonic transculturalism and constitutive agents

The quasiperpetual and ubiquitous connectedness granted by our ultramediated globaliza-
tion has generated an unprecedented intensification and structuration of social dynamics
and an expansion of the reach and hybridity of the general political engagement. The novel
digital grammars of protest (Treré, 2018), affirmation and play cocreated through different
media emerging from a public progressively formed by “precarious bodies in the space of
appearance” (Treré, 2018, p. 137), have not only played a central role in the growing social
tensions, antagonisms and conflicts (at the time of this writing, 6/01/2021, the President of
the United States has been suspended from Twitter, Instagram and Facebook after using dig-
ital platforms to engage with the supporters who attacked the Capitol Building). They have
also expanded their agency in support of the creation of countering discourses, networks and
spatialities across the increasingly transnational collectivized social activities that pertain to
the specific lifeworlds, “stories and histories of resilience, agency, and resistance of people,”
in which they are embedded (Lim, 2018, p. 31). This growing complexity has also a great
potential to foster the affirmation of rights of self-determination and the construction of
identities in our plural and hybrid cosmopolitan condition profoundly modifying the nor-
mative conceptions of conditions that traditionally were implemented to support equitable
participation in social dialogue and exchange of communities.
This potential, however, does not always express its transcultural pluralistic force. Its
dialogic character is often affected by the restrictions of social media that progressively
confine their networks into parochial spaces. The complete integration of these media into
everyday sociality and resistance lacks translational processes in overcoming the barriers
across different sociopolitical locales (Lim, 2018, p. 12). The shrinking of dialogic processes
imperils pluralism by negating open confrontations with the different for the construction
of political identities and normativities through acts of power in the collective dimension
(Mouffe, 2016).
The pathway to delocalizing and unleashing the full potential of digitally enhanced coun-
terhegemonic transculturalism is indicated by the recent elaborations of the Arendtian idea
of a democratic agonistic pluralism (Connolly, 1995; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; Mouffe, 1999,
2008). Digitally networked agonistic settings can subvert systems of hegemonic domination
and establish ecologies of competitive co-creation. This expands the productivity of conflicts
that are essential for the development of the political life of a civil society and of prolific

693
 Manfredo Manfredini

disturbances that sustain identification processes by promoting acculturation, recognition and

understanding of the other and diverse (Mouffe, 2016). Digital augmentations can make these
conflicts and disturbances multisited and multi-scalar, thus fostering translocal partnerships
and cooperation in undertakings of any scale and complexity. Multisited and multi-scalar
conflicts expand the constitutive outside of individuals and communities, developing relational
dynamics based on differentiation and autonomy.
Such an extended agonistic condition favors the formation of a multiplicity of positions
and strengthens communities’ coalition capacity, maintaining dialogical relations among
competitive hegemonic discourses. Countering the dominating parochialization, this reas-
sembles the collective dimension of the emerging transcivic urbanity, while re-establishing
commoning practices and institutions that protect the translocalized citizen against the at-
tempt of external hegemonic economic organizations to take control of their power. Con-
tingent and fluid subjectivities, agencies and individualities emerge from the distributed
“creative ways [that] use the powers of collective labor for the common good” (Harvey,
2019, p. 87). Throughout the novel unbounded agonistic fields of intelligibility, “rich mixes
of instrumentalities” (Harvey, 2011, p. 107) provide the foundation of the stability for these
discourses (Laclau, 1990, p. 64).

Designing assemblages for commoning

The revised understanding of the emerging commoning institutions informs the design
goals, strategies and tactics of their spatial conception and implementation. Plans for these
commons build capacity and introduce strategic systemic redundancies in the emerging
concatenations that strengthen the resilience of their digitally networked more-than-urban
communities. Policies are designed to enable the new institutions to bounce forward from the
crisis caused by aggravating changes in power relationships moderated by rampant neoliberal
regimes, which have led to an extensive disengagement of the state in their organization and
management, and a comprehensive colonization and financialization by the private sector.
Projects address the complex problems rising from the critical paradoxes, ambivalences and
variability of their translocalised, transduced and transcultural metastable assemblages of
concrete, relational and agential components.
These revised instruments address the recent structural transformations of the Right to the
City and the related Right to Difference and Right to the Centre (Harvey, 2012; Lefebvre, 1991,
1996, 2003). They reformulate and operationalize these notions, originally developed by
Lefebvre (Lefebvre, 1991, 1996, 2003; Purcell, 2003) and Harvey (2008, 2012), by critically
interpreting their recent articulation in one of the highest level official documents on sus-
tainable development of cities: the New Urban Agenda adopted at the United Nations Con-
ference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development in Quito, Ecuador, in 2016 (2017).
The advancement of these rights must be guaranteed in its comprehensive dimensions of
the “right to freedom, to individualization in socialization, to habitat and to inhabit … to
participation and appropriation” (Lefebvre, 1968, p. 56). This common, rather than an indi-
vidual, right to create collective fabrics guarantees the establishment of platforms for unity
and multiplicity extended to all elements of the meta-city and its mobilized, distributed and
yet hyperconnected communities.
As right to digitally augmented collective power and commoning of the networked multitude, the
revised bundle of rights responds to the needs of civic agonistic coalitions by fostering –
paraphrasing Jacques Rancière’s (2004) The Politics of Aesthetics – the formation of heterol-
ogous forms of subjectivation and radical differences of individuation that are grounded on

694
 Envisioning urban commons

diverging logics of plural, stateless or migrant political actors. As a radical challenge to any
goal to reach universal rational consensus, it instates paths for the formation of “a vibrant
‘agonistic’ public sphere of contestation where different hegemonic political projects can be
confronted” (Mouffe, 2011, p. 3) disarticulated and transformed.

Devising the spatialities for differentiation, pluralism and commoning

In recent research at the Urban Relational Informatics Lab (URIL), a research unit I coordi-
nate at the Digital Research Hub of the University of Auckland, the conception of the new
spatialities has revolved around the following research questions:
How can designers and planners adapt their role, mission and practices to respond to these
disrupting phenomena and use the speculative architectural method to envision possible fu-
tures, pursuing the integral well-being of the emerging meta-citizen by fostering equality,
full participation and collaboration?
Considering the meta-city and its public space as a crucial domain for the above chal-
lenge, how can the design of the commons assemblages (i.e., the conception of concrete
elements, set of enabling relations and constitutive agents of the commons) take advantage
of the new condition to foster processes that subvert the fragmented structure of the city and
the inequity of its distribution of resources and opportunities?
If it is true that, as Rancière (2004) maintains, equality exists (only) when we exert it, is
it possible to use design and planning to affirm the existence of equality without falling into
the trap of “revealing inequality” and ineffectively “raising awareness” as fundamental for
individualization and citizenship?
The design streams of URIL has responded to these questions by envisioning spatial-
ities for differentiation, pluralism and commoning in form of experimental architectural
design proposals that activate the combined potentials of utopia and desire. Radical alterna-
tives for notable situated instances of the crisis of postcivil society, such as privatized public
spaces, pseudopublic civic institutions and exclusive walled territories, have been developed
to restructure the actual other of things. Desiring machines concatenating heterogeneous
material elements, agents of change and systems of relations have been produced through
architectural narratives that operationalize the urban assemblage approach as in the triplectic
described below.
Devising concrete infrastructures. Basic tangible and intangible elements of the assemblages are
found in actual counterspatial instances and synchronically reassociated in new configurations.
As emplaced boundary objects for pluralism, they form open civic institutions with a high degree
of indeterminacy (Sennett, 2018). As differentiating “meaningless structural forms” (Jameson &
Speaks, 1992), they materialize a political paradigm that combines “formal requirements of a
certain order without content permits all kinds of forms of freedom or disorder within the in-
terstices” (p. 33). As emancipatory facilities, they counter the logic of abstraction, control and
domination, enabling communities to expand key common resources, such as territories, ob-
jects, practices, ideas and values (Hardt & Negri, 2017). The proposed counterspaces constitute
main transspatial reference for communities engaged in the affirmation of “common worlds”
and in reversing sustained processes of social fragmentation, marginalization and exclusion of the
cities of enclosures. Their structures are open and incremental, and recombine spaces, devices
and technologies that provide knowledge and instruments for effective cocreative productions
that terminate the abstractive delegation of the transformation of urban space to circles of expert
managers. VAM reality enables these infrastructures to provide distributed communities and
their mobile members real-time access to common tools and facilities enabling the embodiment

695
 Manfredo Manfredini

of translocally emplaced metastable machineries for complex conception, implementation, and

management of collective transformational and transformative processes.
Envisioning relational machines. Open systems for agonistic pluralism are conceived to
establish robust and efficacious connection between commoning actants of the concrete
infrastructures. These devices enable an incremental constitution of the infrastructural as-
semblages of the distributed resources in variable machinic compositions. Advanced trans-
duction capacity guarantees the seamless information flows among their networked actants
and facilitates the embodiment and operation of their metastable domains as central public
spaces of appearance (Arendt, 1958) of the meta-city. These relational commoning machines
activate the local-global and urban-rural continua that form the main arena for radical de-
mocracy. Their openness sustains the activation of democratic agonistic realms of produc-
tive and creative conflicts where multiple relations of exchange, confrontation and political
actions affirm the collective ownership, association and transformation of space (Harvey,
2012; Mouffe, 2000). As elements of inclusive commons, these machines include proprietary
platforms, interfaces and applications designed to sustain collective participation, shared
understanding of ideas, tenets and personalities. As co-creativity enablers, they implement
transcultural processes that are denied in conditions of overdetermination and homogeni-
zation. Designed to contrast to the power of hegemonic actors, they implement strategies
and tactics of collective repossession of the spatial conception, practices and actions of urban
production (Hodkinson, 2012). As machines of digitally augmented networked translocal-
ization, they materialize the pluralistic and differential concatenations of the Deleuzian full
body without organs, “the domain of free syntheses, where everything is possible; partial con-
nections, included disjunctions, nomadic conjunctions, polyvocal flows and chains, trans-
ductive breaks” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983, p. 300). Characterized by unlimited qualitative
and quantitative transformations and expansions, these assemblages trigger revolutionary
processes that positively deterritorialize the existent to build better and alternative worlds
in the shell of the old. Their translocally transduced relations across space and time sustain
genuine transcultural and rhizomatic participatory arrangements of active presences that
obliterate abstractive forms of representation and delegation. Their comprehensive processes
of transformation and recombination of all elements advance the production of a maximal
spatial differentiation that subverts financialization, generalizes self-management and rein-
forces integral relationality.
Formulating spatial narratives. The construction of topoi that articulate multiple complex
spatial and chronological sequences completes the assemblage of the concrete infrastruc-
ture and relational machines that subvert the depoliticized, conflict-free and antidifferential
spaces of the dominated commons. Made of contextual, incidental and fragmentary discur-
sive presentations of social formations, narratives are cocreated formulations of hegemonic
discourses among metaurban communities that affirm their rights to the city and difference.
The formulation initiates with the detection, disclosure and activation of the residual “some-
thing in common” (Rancière, 2004, p. 12) found in the metastable lifeworld, moving those
in dialogue from producing noise to speech, from being inaudible to audible and invisible to
visible (Gramsci, 1975; Laclau, 1996; Rancière, 1999, p. 23). The agency of these narratives
is exerted through communicative actions in everyday practices that constitute coalitions
for maximal differentiation and reappropriation of homogenized and abstracted urban spa-
tialities. The construction of stories of possible common worlds (Purcell, 2014) that reterri-
torialize deterritorializing assemblages of elements, behaviors and practices is never precise,
but produced as indeterminant frameworks with methods of subtraction of meanings and
ostranenie.

696
 Envisioning urban commons

Consistently, these formulations revolve around communities of interest on these issues

that transcend the academic environment. Distinctive conjunctural cocreative platforms that
involved multiple stakeholders are created to develop these projects. Participation in public
events of multiple scales and focus is integral part of this and includes the attendance to major
global events, such as the Venice Architecture Biennale (CSA, 2018), the Shenzhen-Hong
Kong Biennial of Architecture and Urbanism (Manfredini, 2019b) and the World Urban
Forum of the United Nations (Manfredini et al., 2018).

The strength and impact of codesigning commons’ differential assemblages

The proposed assemblages delineate metastable, yet socially equal, context specific and
spatially differential systems that enact restorative relational, infrastructural and narrative
recoding of contests with dissociative and homogenizing modes of production. The imple-
mented commoning strategies inform processes of change that internally subvert dominated
systems by converting induced deterritorialisation (abstractive reassembling) into maximal deter-
ritorialization (differential assembling) reconstituting socially, culturally and environmentally
fragmented and abstracted productive urbanities. The infrastructures, links and narratives
of the new assemblages are designed with open, yet highly internally consistent, cohesive
and tight signifying coding chains in continuous becoming. These concatenations deploy
the freed play of signifiers to spatialize the reappropriation of instances of individuation that
transgress imposed determinations. Design tactics associated with these strategies produce
narratives of basic configurations of institutions developed through incremental collective
processes. These configurations describe machinic allegorical assemblages, which are finely
tuned to situated contextual counterdiscourses, with three main objectives at play: (A) cre-
ating transductive embodiments of concrete elements of commoning that guarantee the
formation of places where multi-scalar multiplicity constitutes unity in the difference; (B)
deploying translocal synchronization of relationality to foster the subversive efficacy of dy-
namic, discontinuous and distributed assemblages in continuous becoming for the common-
ing goal; (C) activating transcultural integrations of agential discourses to sustain dialogue
and reidentification in transformational productive conflicts.
The outlined assemblages are the prototypes of new commons for a coproduction of
(social) space that counters the marginalization of any actant and supports processes of em-
placed sociopolitical change. They envision digitally augmented concatenations of possible
future autonomous and independent counterspatial formations. Their composition is plural
and offered through dioramic theatralizations of illusory heterotopias (Shane, 2005), illus-
trating desiring machines of reassociated heterogeneous meta-spatialities rich of potenti-
alities, materializing transformative Deleuzian bodies without organs. The created visions
reassociate heterogeneous entities actively producing and socially reproducing moments of
emancipation, enjoyment and pleasure by deploying the power of allegory (Figure 51.1 and
51.2). Signs are used as super-signifiers to contribute to the growth of heterohegemonic cul-
tures that contest and confute the spatialities produced by exogenous culturally hegemonic
systems. Illusionary instances delineate architectonics of wonder and affirmation of maximal
difference in urban life to show the potential of radical metastable deterritorialization and
reterritorialization processes. Using rich mixes of instrumentalities, these contributions spa-
tially articulate the discourse on radical democracy, presenting the capacity of codesigning
collective platforms for the liberation of dialogical power of communities in the imagination
of everyday utopian realms. The fabulatory, allegoric and parodic presentation of the new
ordinary advocates for the deconstruction of complex apparatuses of antagonist dominating

697
 Manfredo Manfredini

Figure 51.1  Daniel Choi, Manfredo Manfredini Studio – URIL, Adtopia: a counterspace of resistance
in the era of advanced abstractive advertisement, 2020

powers. Visions of spatialites for commoning endorse modes of production where maximal
differentiation emerges from processes of democratic decision making and control on urban
life that celebrate both bodily and experiential particularities for the affirmation of autonomy
and self-determination.
The above-described framework informs the analysis of the emerging commons of my
research at the URIL and enables to constitute the basis to proactively respond to the chang-
ing role, mission and practices of designers and planners. By providing guidance to address
the disruptions of the emerging meta-city and its public space, it helps answering three fun-
damental and pressing questions.
How can design positively contribute to the reproduction of commons’ assemblages in
steady becoming (i.e., conceiving metastable concatenations of concrete elements, set of
enabling relations and constitutive agents of the commons) taking advantage of the evolving
relational framework to foster processes that subvert the fragmented structure of the urban
socius and the inequality of distribution of resources and opportunities?

698
 Envisioning urban commons

Figure 51.2  
Daniel Choi, Manfredo Manfredini Studio – URIL, Adtopia: a counterspace of
resistance in the era of advanced abstractive advertisement, 2020

How can design positively help countering the “crisis of the commons” by contributing to
offset the growing threats of ultra-territorial and ultra-scalar dominating forces that – supported
by rampant neoliberal regimes – exploit new technologies to hinder the emergence of indetermi-
nate recombinant concatenations of concrete, relational and agential commoning components?
How can design pursue a territorial (social) production that supports the new forms of
commoning and fosters integral well-being of the emerging meta-citizen toward a radically
democratic society that guarantees the universal Right to the City and Difference?

Acknowledgments
This work was developed as part of the projects “Analysing the Role of Urban Forms in
Making Sustainable, Healthy Cities” funded by WUN – World University Network; and
“Give Us Space,” funded by the National Science Challenge Building Better Homes Towns
and Cities of the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment.

Note
1 The study on a main metropolitan center of Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, exclu-
sively constituted by an integrated, multifunctional and privately owned commercial enclosure
addressed the relational life in privatized public space that eminently represents the contradiction
in the relations of production (here morphed into prosumption) of our postconsumerist age. This
study included a digital space analysis of crowdsourced social media data from Instagram with
integrated network (i.e., interaction patterns) and visual (i.e., representations of space) components

699
 Manfredo Manfredini

that provided abundant evidence of the mobilization and recombination of the commoning infra-
structure, both regarding social (community dynamics), physical (spatial dislocations) and cogni-
tive (referential shifts) components (Manfredini, 2020; Manfredini et al., 2019).

References
Appadurai, A. (1995). The production of locality. In R. Fardon (Ed.), Counterworks: Managing the diver-
sity of knowledge (pp. 204–225). Routledge.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota
Press.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago.
Benhabib, S. (2000). The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt. Sage.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalisation. Cambridge University Press.
Borch, C., & Kornberger, M. (Eds.). (2015). Urban commons: Rethinking the city. Routledge.
Brenner, N. (ed.) (2013). Implosions/explosions: Towards a study of planetary urbanization. Jovis Verlag.
Brenner, N., Madden, D. J., & Wachsmuth, D. (2011). Assemblage urbanism and the challenges of
critical urban theory. City, 15(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.568717
Calhoun, C. (Ed.). (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. MIT Press.
Carpentier, N. (2007). Translocalism, community media and the city: Vol. Working Papers (No. 7). Centre
for Studies on Media and Culture (Cemeso).
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1999). Grassrooting the space of flows. Urban Geography, 20(4), 294–302. https://doi.
org/10.2747/0272-3638.20.4.294
Colwell, C. (1997). Difference and repetition. International Studies in Philosophy, 29(1), 132–133. https://
doi.org/10.5840/intstudphil199729114
Connolly, W. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. University of Minnesota Press.
CSA (2018). City Space Architecture meets Venice Architecture Biennale 2018. http://www.cityspacearchi-
tecture.org/?e=48
Davis, M. (1990). City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. Verso.
Debord, G. (1983). Society of the spectacle. Black & Red.
Dehaene, M., & De Cauter, L. (2008). Notes. In M. Dehaene & L. De Cauter (Eds.), Heterotopia and
the city: Public space in a postcivil society (pp. 22–29). Routledge.
DeLanda, M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh University Press.
Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition. Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota
Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of
Minnesota Press.
Dovey, K. (2016). Urban design thinking. In Urban design thinking. Bloomsbury. https://doi.
org/10.5040/9781474228503
Flusty, S. (1997). Building paranoia. In N. Ellin (Ed.), Architecture of fear (pp. 47–59). Princeton Archi-
tectural Press.
Foth, M., Brynskov, M., & Ojala, T. (Eds.). (2015). Citizen’s right to the digital city: Urban interfaces, ac-
tivism, and placemaking. Springer.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing
democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80.
Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation
and Societal Transitions, 23, 3–10.
Fuchs, C. (2014a). Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime
of time. Time & Society, 23(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X13502117
Fuchs, C. (2014b). Social media and the public sphere. TripleC, 12, 57–101.
Garnett, N. S. (2012). Managing the urban commons. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160,
1995–2027.
Gramsci, A. (1975). Quaderni del carcere. Giulio Einaudi.
Greiner, C., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2013). Translocality: Concepts, applications and emerging research
perspectives. Geography Compass, 7(5), 373–384.

700
 Envisioning urban commons

Guattari, F., & Negri, T. (2010). Les nouveaux espaces de liberté. Lignes.
Haber, H. F. (1994). Beyond postmodern politics: Lyotard, Rorty, Foucault. Routledge.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois
society. Polity Press.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Harvard University Press.
Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2017). Assembly. Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2007). Habermas and Foucault: Deliberative democracy and strategic state analysis. Con-
temporary Political Theory, 6(2), 218–245.
Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 23–40.
Harvey, D. (2011). The future of the commons. Radical History Review, 109, 101–107.
Harvey, D. (2012). Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. Taylor and Francis.
Harvey, D. (2019). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso.
Hassan, R. (2009). Empires of speed: Time and the acceleration of politics and society. Brill.
Hodkinson, S. (2012). The new urban enclosures. City, 16(5), 500–518.
Jameson, F., & Speaks, M. (1992). Envelopes and enclaves: The space of post-civil society (an architec-
tural conversation). Assemblage, 17, 30–37.
Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2015). Placing’ cyberspace: Geography, community and identity. Informa-
tion Technology, Education and Society, 16(1), 23–43.
Kücklich, J. (2005). Precarious Playbour: Modders and the digital games. Fibreculture, 5. http://five.
fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-025-precarious-playbour-modders-and-the-digital-games-industry/
Labonte, R., & Laverack, P. (2008). Health promotion in action: From local to global empowerment. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. Verso.
Laclau, E. (1996). Emancipation(s). Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le Droit à la ville [The right to the city]. Anthropos.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell Publishing.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Blackwell.
Lefebvre, H. (2003). The urban revolution. University of Minnesota Press.
Lim, M. (2018). Sticks and stones, clicks and phones: Contextualizing the role of digital media in the
politics of transformation. In Digital Media and the Politics of Transformation in the Arab World and Asia.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20700-7_2
Lin, Y. (2019). E-urbanism: E-commerce, migration, and the transformation of Taobao villages in
urban China. Cities, 91, 202–212.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1993). Privatisation of public open space: The Los Angeles experience. The
Town Planning Review, 64(2), 139–167.
Low, S. (2006). How private interests take over public space: Zoning, taxes, and incorporation of gated
communities. In S. Low & N. Smith (Eds.), Politics of public space (pp. 81–104). Routledge.
MacKenzie, A. (2006). Transductions: Bodies and machines at speed. Continuum.
Manfredini, M. (2017). The augmented meta-public space: Interpreting emerging transductive terri-
tories in enhanced centres of consumption. The Journal of Public Space, 2(3), 111–128.
Manfredini, M. (2019a). Mobility, translocalisation and transduction: The resilience of new ur-
ban commons in the era of advanced technospheres. In A. Marata (Ed.), Diverse city (pp. 1–10).
CNAPPC - Consiglio Nazionale architetti Paesaggisti Pianificatori e Conservatori. http://www.
cittacreative.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/manfredini_DIVERSEcity-2019.pdf
Manfredini, M. (2019b). Travels in Woundedland, Manfredo Manfredini for the Shenzhen Biennale
(UABB) 2019. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/929175/travels-in-woundedland-manfre-
do-manfredini-for-the-shenzhen-biennale-uabb-2019 or at: https://www.academia.edu/41135512/
Travels_in_Woundedland_Bi-City_Biennale_of_Urbanism_Architecture_UABB_Shenzhen_
Manfredini, M. (2019c). Envisioning atmospheres of spectacle and activism. Utopia and critical urban-
ism instruments for the reclamation of the fragmented territories of the WALL and the MALL. The
Journal of Public Space, 4(4), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v4i4.1235
Manfredini, M. (2020). Affirmatively reading post-consumerism: distributed participatory creativity
and creative destruction of the malled metropolitan centres of Auckland, New Zealand. The Journal
of Public Space, 5(3).
Manfredini, M., Lo, A., & Reeves, D. (2018). Give us space! Augmented public space geographies in
the changing public/private relationships. The Journal of Public Space, 3(1), 171–178.

701
 Manfredo Manfredini

Manfredini, M., Reeves, D., & Kiddle, R. (2019). Give us space: Improving community well-being by en-
hancing performance and communication of semi-public space in the evolving public realm. https://www.drh.
nz/labs/urban-relational-informatics/
Manfredini, M., Zamani Gharaghooshi, F., & Leardini, P. (2017). Instances of emerging agonistic
spatialities in the contemporary city: The production of differential geographies in the public space
of Istanbul. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 5(5), 281–291.
McGee, T. G. (1991). The emergence of desakota regions in Asia: expanding a hypothesis. In N.
Ginsburg, B. Koppe, & T. G. McGee (Eds.), The extended metropolis: Settlement transition in Asia (pp.
3–25). University of Hawaii Press.
Miles, S., & Miles, M. (2004). Consuming cities. Palgrave Macmillan.
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1995). Augmented reality: A class of dis-
plays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies. https://doi.
org/10.1117/12.197321
Minton, A. (2012). Ground control: Fear and happiness in the twenty-first century city. Penguin.
Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford.
Mitchell, D. (2017). People’s Park again: On the on-going history of the end of public space. Environ-
ment and Planning A, 49, 503–518.
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 6(3), 745–758.
Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2008). Public spaces and democratic politics. In Highrise–common ground. Art and the Am-
sterdam Zuidas area (pp. 135–156). Valiz.
Mouffe, C. (2011). On the political. In On the Political. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870112
Mouffe, C. (2016). Democratic politics and conflict: An agonistic approach. Política Común,
9(20210301). https://doi.org/10.3998/pc.12322227.0009.011
Nail, T. (2017). What is an assemblage? SubStance, 142, 21–37.
Negri, A. (2008). The Savage anomaly: the power of Spinoza’s metaphysics and politics. University of Min-
nesota Press.
Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the twenty-first century. Belknap Press.
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology. Harvard University Press.
Purcell, M. (2003). Citizenship and the right to the global city: Reimagining the capitalist world or-
der. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3), 564–90.
Purcell, M. (2014). Possible worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the right to the city. Journal of Urban Affairs,
36(1), 141–154.
Rancière, J. (1999). Disagreement. University of Minnesota Press.
Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics: The distribution of the sensible. Continuum.
Ritzer, G. (2014). Prosumption: Evolution, revolution, or eternal return of the same? Journal of Con-
sumer Culture, 14(1), 3–24.
Ritzer, G. (2019). Prosumption: Contemporary capitalism and the ‘new’ prosumer. In F. F. Wherry
& I. Woodward (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of consumption (pp. 75–93). Oxford University Press.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption. Journal of Consumer Cul-
ture, 10(1), 13–36.
Rushkoff, D. (2019). Team human. W.W. Norton & Company.
Sendra, P. (2015). Rethinking urban public space. City, 19(6), 820–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
04813.2015.1090184
Sennett, R. (2018). Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City. Penguin.
Sennett, R. (2002). The fall of the public man. Penguin.
Shane, G. (2005). Recombinant urbanism: Conceptual modeling in architecture, urban design, and city theory.
Wiley.
Simondon, G. (2013). L’individuation à la lumière des notions de formes et d’information (Edition Jé).
Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press.
Sorkin, M. (1992). Introduction. In Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public
space (pp. XI–XV). Hill and Wang.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity.
Treré, E. (2018). The sublime of digital activism: Hybrid media ecologies and the new gram-
mar of protest. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 20(2), 138–148. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1522637918770435

702
 Envisioning urban commons

United Nations. (2017). New urban agenda: Quito declaration on sustainable cities and human settlements for
all, adopted at united nations conference on housing and sustainable urban development, Habitat III Quito,
Ecuador, October 2016.
Villa, D. (1992). Postmodernism and the public sphere. American Political Science Review, 86, 712–721.
Williams, M. J. (2018). Urban commons are more-than-property. Geographical Research, 56(1), 16–25.
Yang, C., Li, Q., Hu, Z., Chen, J., Shi, T., Ding, K., & Wu, G. (2019). Spatiotemporal evolution
of urban agglomerations in four major bay areas of US, China and Japan from 1987 to 2017:
Evidence from remote sensing images. Science of the Total Environment, 671, 232–247. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.154

703