The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America

As the United States slowly emerges from the great recession, a remarkable shify is occurring in the spatial geogrpahy of innovation. For the past 50 years, the landscape of innovation has been dominated by places like Silicon Valley - suburban corridors of spatially isolated corporate campuses, accessible only by car, with little emphasis on the quality of life or on integrating work, housing, and recreation. A new complementary urban model is now emerging, giving rise to what we and others are calling "innovation districts." These districts, by our definition, are geographic areas where leading-edge anchor institutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, business incubators, and accelerators. They are also physically compact, transit-accessible, and technicall

Lessons learned in effective community-university-industry collaboration models for smart and connected communities research

In 2017, the Boston University Hariri Institute for Computing and the Initiative on Cities co-hosted two workshops on “Effective Community-University-Industry Collaboration Models for Smart and Connected Communities Research,” with the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF). These efforts brought together over one hundred principal investigators and research directors from universities across the country, as well as city officials, community partners, NSF program managers and other federal agency representatives, MetroLab Network representatives and industry experts. The focus was on transdisciplinary “smart city” projects that bring technical fields such as engineering and computer science together with social scientists and community stakeholders to tackle community-sourced problems. Presentations, panel discussions, working sessions and participant white papers surfaced operational models as well as barriers and levers to enabling effective research partnerships. To capture the perspectives and beliefs of all participants, in addition to the presenters, attendees were asked to synthesize lessons on each panel topic. This white paper summarizes the opportunities and recommendations that emerged from these sessions, and provides guidance to communities and researchers interested in engaging in these types of partnerships as well as universities and funders that endeavor to nurture them. It draws on the collective wisdom of the assembled participants and the authors. While many of the examples noted are drawn from medium and large cities, the lessons may still be applicable to communities of various sizes.National Science Foundatio

Transition UGent: a bottom-up initiative towards a more sustainable university

The vibrant think-tank ‘Transition UGent’ engaged over 250 academics, students and people from the university management in suggesting objectives and actions for the Sustainability Policy of Ghent University (Belgium). Founded in 2012, this bottom-up initiative succeeded to place sustainability high on the policy agenda of our university. Through discussions within 9 working groups and using the transition management method, Transition UGent developed system analyses, sustainability visions and transition paths on 9 fields of Ghent University: mobility, energy, food, waste, nature and green, water, art, education and research. At the moment, many visions and ideas find their way into concrete actions and policies. In our presentation we focused on the broad participative process, on the most remarkable structural results (e.g. a formal and ambitious Sustainability Vision and a student-led Sustainability Office) and on recent actions and experiments (e.g. a sustainability assessment on food supply in student restaurants, artistic COP21 activities, ambitious mobility plans, food leftovers projects, an education network on sustainability controversies, a transdisciplinary platform on Sustainable Cities). We concluded with some recommendations and reflections on this transition approach, on the important role of ‘policy entrepreneurs’ and student involvement, on lock-ins and bottlenecks, and on convincing skeptical leaders

The new role of citizens as co-creators of socio-digital innovations and urban development: A case-study of participation and co-creation in the smart city development of Barcelona.

Die vorliegende Masterarbeit untersucht aktuelle Trends in der Stadtplanung und Design, um zu analysieren, wie Bürger an der Mitgestaltung von Smart Cities beteiligt werden können. Ziel ist es, ein ganzheitliches Verständnis der neueren Konzepte und Methoden von Co-Design und Co-creation zu entwickeln und diese mit den etablierteren Forschungsfeldern der Bürgerbeteiligung und Koproduktion zu vergleichen. Koproduktion und Co-Creation können als verbesserte Partizipation oder Partnerschaft in Bezug auf die Partizipationsleiter verstanden werden, da beide Konzepte Beziehungen auf Augenhöhe zwischen Bürger und Stadtverwaltung voraussetzen. In ähnlicher Weise gesteht Co-Design, Designern und Usern die gleichen Rechte und Möglichkeiten im Gestaltungsprozess zu. Es wird eine ganzheitliche Definition des Co-Creation-Prozesses dargelegt, die Erkenntnisse aus Co-Design, Co-Produktion und Partizipation beinhaltet und Co-Creation als einen Prozess versteht, der aus Initiation, Design und Produktion besteht. Die Smart City als sich rasch entwickelndes Forschungsfeld, Definitionen und Charakteristika sowie populäre imaginäre und dominante Diskurse werden vorgestellt. Um die Rolle des Bürgers zur Smart City zu verstehen, werden die unterschiedlichen Verständnisse von Smart Governance erläutert und Aspekte von Open Data, Big Data und Big Data Analytics sowie die Rolle von Bürgern und Gefahren der Smart City diskutiert. In der Fallstudie zur Bürgerbeteiligung werden Methoden und Werkzeuge zur Förderung der Mitgestaltung einer Smart City anhand Partizipationsleiter von (Arnstein 1969) diskutiert und analysiert. Die Smart City Entwicklung in Barcelona wird vor dem Hintergrund der gemeinschaftlichen Entwicklung sozialer Innovationen in Smart Cities analysiert. Die Fallstudie verweist auf Mängel im Hinblick auf Bürgerbeteiligung an der Entscheidungsfindung und an der Verlagerung von Machtverhältnissen in der Entwicklung der Smart City Barcelona, die dafür aber mit neuen Werkzeugen und Technologien für partizipative Stadtentwicklung experimentiert und sich zu einem alternativen Smart City Modell entwickelt. Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse sind abschließend im Methodenkatalog zusammengefasst, der Methoden und Tools aus Theorie und Fallstudie aufgreift um zu dem Verständnis beizutragen, wie Smart Cities gemeinsam gestaltet werden können.This thesis studies current trends in planning and design studies to analyse how citizens can participate in the co-creation of smart cities. It aims at developing a holistic understanding of the new concepts and methods of co-creation, and co-design and compares those with the more established research fields of citizen participation and co-production. Co-production and co-creation can be understood as instances of enhanced participation or as a partnership in participation, as both concepts require equal relationships among citizens and the city administration. Similarly, co-design requires designers and users to share the same rights and possibilities in the design process. A holistic definition of the co-creation process is provided that incorporates insights from co-design, co-production and participation and defines co-creation as a process consisting of initiation, design and production. The smart city as emerging research field, definitions and characteristics, as well as popular imaginary and dominant discourses, are presented. To grasp the role of the citizen in the smart city, the different understandings of smart governance are explained and aspects of to open data, big data and big data analytics, as well as the role of citizens and perils of the smart city are discussed. In the case-study of citizen participation methods and tools fostering the co-creation of a smart city are discussed and analysed with the introduced participation framework, which is based on the ladder of participation (Arnstein 1969). The smart city development in Barcelona is analysed against the backdrop of co-creating social innovations in smart cities. There might be a lack of citizen participation in decision-making and shifting power relations in the city, which experiments nonetheless with new tools and technologies for the participatory environment experiments with new formats and technologies for economic and urban development and evolves to become an alternative model of the smart city. The main findings are included in the toolbox based on methods and tools from theory and the case-study contributing to the knowledge of how to co-create of smart cities

Ecosystemic Evolution Feeded by Smart Systems

Information Society is advancing along a route of ecosystemic evolution. ICT and Internet advancements, together with the progression of the systemic approach for enhancement and application of Smart Systems, are grounding such an evolution. The needed approach is therefore expected to evolve by increasingly fitting into the basic requirements of a significant general enhancement of human and social well-being, within all spheres of life (public, private, professional). This implies enhancing and exploiting the net-living virtual space, to make it a virtuous beneficial integration of the real-life space. Meanwhile, contextual evolution of smart cities is aiming at strongly empowering that ecosystemic approach by enhancing and diffusing net-living benefits over our own lived territory, while also incisively targeting a new stable socio-economic local development, according to social, ecological, and economic sustainability requirements. This territorial focus matches with a new glocal vision, which enables a more effective diffusion of benefits in terms of well-being, thus moderating the current global vision primarily fed by a global-scale market development view. Basic technological advancements have thus to be pursued at the system-level. They include system architecting for virtualization of functions, data integration and sharing, flexible basic service composition, and end-service personalization viability, for the operation and interoperation of smart systems, supporting effective net-living advancements in all application fields. Increasing and basically mandatory importance must also be increasingly reserved for human–technical and social–technical factors, as well as to the associated need of empowering the cross-disciplinary approach for related research and innovation. The prospected eco-systemic impact also implies a social pro-active participation, as well as coping with possible negative effects of net-living in terms of social exclusion and isolation, which require incisive actions for a conformal socio-cultural development. In this concern, speed, continuity, and expected long-term duration of innovation processes, pushed by basic technological advancements, make ecosystemic requirements stricter. This evolution requires also a new approach, targeting development of the needed basic and vocational education for net-living, which is to be considered as an engine for the development of the related ‘new living know-how’, as well as of the conformal ‘new making know-how’

The promotion of assets in the community

Espoon keskuksessa toteutetun osallistava budjetointi Mun Idea -hankkeen osatuoto

Smart Governance: Kashiwa-no-ha smart city in Japan as a model for future urban development?

Since urban processes need models of possible futures (referred to as travelling concepts) to drive their development, this study investigates whether planned-from-scratch smart city Kashiwa-no-ha International Campus Town Initiative can produce such an image with its smart governance approach, that is combined with an urban living lab. Using geographical governance research in relation to urban development processes as a framework, this master's thesis derives its own definition of the fuzzy concept of smart governance within the smart city vision based on a socio-geographical understanding of space, here referred to as Smart Urban Governance. Additionally, a set of indicators for the operationalisation of Smart Urban Governance is designed and applied to the case study. Methodologically, the thesis pursues a qualitative approach and, in this context, carries out a descriptive and normative governance analysis of Kashiwa-no-ha on the basis of the existing literature and empirical surveys conducted by the author. In summary, the strong role of academia in the urban planning context of community-building in Kashiwa-no-ha is exemplary and has led to a collaborative code of conduct between the traditional actors, mediated by a public-private-academic partnership, as well as to co-innovation between the city, developers, and citizens in form of a public-private-people partnership. Although the flagship project successfully addresses a large number of the Smart Urban Governance indicators defined in this context, there is potential for improvement, for example, in terms of participation, transparency, inclusion, and public spaces. Since Kashiwa-no-ha Smart City is still in an implementation phase until 2030, the thesis concludes with a forecast and a recommendation for action based on a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis.Da urbane Prozesse Leitmodelle zukünftiger Städte (sogenannte "travelling concepts") benötigen um ihre Entwicklung voranzutreiben, untersucht diese Arbeit, ob die "am Reißbrett" entworfene Smart City Kashiwa-no-ha in Japan, die praktische Governance mit einem urbanen Reallaboransatz verbindet, als ein solches Modellkonzept fungieren kann. Ausgehend von einer sozio-geographischen Governanceperspektive auf Stadtentwicklungsprozesse, leitet der Autor eine eigene Definition des "fuzzy concepts" der Smart Governance innerhalb der Smart City-Vision ab - fortlaufend als Smart Urban Governance bezeichnet. Hierfür entwickelt der Autor einen Indikatorenkatalog für die Operationalisierung dieser Smart Urban Governance und wendet diese auf das japanische Fallbeispiel an. Methodisch verfolgt die Arbeit dabei einen qualitativen Ansatz und führt in diesem Zusammenhang sowohl eine deskriptive als auch eine normative Governance-Analyse am Beispiel von Kashiwa-no-ha durch. Als Datengrundlage dienen hierfür neben der vorhandenen Literatur zum Themengegenstand vor allem die empirischen Erhebungen des Autors. Die Arbeit kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die starke Rolle der Wissenschaft beim "community building" im städtebaulichen Kontext von Kashiwa-no-ha beispielhaft ist und zu einem kooperativen Verhaltenskodex zwischen den traditionellen Akteuren, vermittelt durch eine öffentlich-privat-akademische Zusammenarbeit, sowie zu einer Ko-Innovation zwischen der Stadt, den Entwicklern und den Bürgern in Form einer öffentlich-privat-zivilen Partnerschaft geführt hat. Obwohl das Vorzeigeprojekt eine große Anzahl der in diesem Zusammenhang definierten Indikatoren für Smart Urban Governance voll erfüllt, besteht auch Verbesserungspotenzial. Zum Beispiel in Bezug auf die Partizipation, Transparenz, Integration sowie die Bereitstellung öffentlicher, aneignungsfähiger Räume. Da sich die Kashiwa-no-ha Smart City noch bis 2030 in der Umsetzungsphase befindet, schließt die Arbeit mit einer Prognose sowie mit einer Handlungsempfehlung auf Basis einer Stärken-Schwächen-, Chancen- und Gefahrenanalyse (SWOT) ab

Analyzing smart city development through an evolutionary approach

Cities have always been places where agglomeration economies attained their highest yields, producing cultural, economic, and social benefits being the main locus of entrepreneurship and innovation. However, rapid urbanization created many problems such as inequality, pollution, diseases, insecurity and so on, that end up restraining the dynamic of value creation in 21st century. This is challenging ‘industrial cities’ to rethink and to reshape their structures to overcome these issues. In this sense, the ‘smart city’ model has gained prominence in urban development. Many cities from different countries are designing strategies and implementing them through initiatives and projects towards smart city development. It is noted that these experiences are idiosyncratic, because cities are inherently different and have different issues that must be solved in a particular way. The first question that arise is: how to make a city smarter? Despite the contrasting view of frameworks and their multitude of dimensions and approaches, the literature points out that cities must have specific elements to induce innovation processes through digital solutions and the collaboration between stakeholders in order to address local challenges and, thus, increase local competitiveness and quality of life. However, it does not an easy task and involves a set of stakeholders that may not prone to collaborate and to promote smart city development. In fact, the main difficulties of a strategy emerge during the implementation phase, because many of the challenges for cities to become or to be smart exceed the scope and capabilities of their current organizations, institutional arrangements, and governance structures. Indeed, the lack of appropriate structural and organizational formations does not foster the involvement of local stakeholders and makes it difficult to organize and coordinate the different activities needed to achieve sustainable urban development. Then, the second question that emerge is: what kind of organization can foster smart city development? In this sense, the literature sheds light on the need to discuss alternative governance models to overcome those challenges by combining political and social support with strategic planning and creative thinking in order to deal with smart city complexity. Some authors point out that it is necessary to create a dedicated organization to lead the collaboration between those stakeholders in this process of urban transformation. From that discussion, what seems clear is that the analysis of the development process of a smart city in its different dimensions and units of analysis demands a theoretical background that enables academia and industry to capture the dynamics of evolution and, therefore, understand how smart cities change over time. It is necessary to incorporate theories and concepts that consider not only the notion of space-time, but especially that delve into how the relationships between the elements of the ecosystem interact and complement each other. Then, our third question is: how to analyze this dynamic, context-dependent, long-term process of urban development so that a city becomes smarter? Some authors point out the possibility of a theoretical approximation between evolutionary approach and smart city literature affirming that due to complexity of smart city development, smart city planning is shaped by evolutionary processes too. Thus, it is necessary to incorporate the notion of evolution in the processes of urban transformation and that they occur in a certain geographical location being conditioned by local contextual factors. As aforementioned, cities are inherently different and have different issues. Thus, to measure the existing level of development is crucial to foresee the right steps to enhance urban smartness. Smartness should be seen as a continuum, in which stakeholders may implement initiatives to create, improve or alter smart city elements across those different city dimensions. The notion of smartness may help cities to understand how this process of urban transformation affects their dimensions and their performance, and, consequently, analyze what should be done to accelerate it. In this sense, it is important that cities assess their current stage of development. The assessment of smart city development may bring multiple benefits for different stakeholders. It enables the identification of city strengths and weaknesses, comparison among cities, monitoring and racking projects implementation, increasing transparency on investments, enabling to make policies based on evidences, enhancing citizen awareness, and so on. The fourth question that emerges is: how to measure the smartness of a city? In terms of smart city assessment, many scholars, organizations and companies have developed indexes, toolkits, and benchmarking to measure and rank smart cities. These assessments schemes may provide a good overview about the city’s characteristics and both its strengths and weaknesses, as well as being used to showcase its competitive position. However, most of them neglect the multiple interrelated processes related to the smart city development by adopting a summative approach. This approach presents some limitations that do not properly capture the smartness of a city. Considering that, the objectives of this study are to (1) identify the dimensions and the driving elements to make a city smarter, (2) to understand the role of smart city dedicated organization on smart city governance, (3) to propose an evolutionary framework for the analysis of smart city development and (4) to create a model to measure the smartness of a city using different methods, considering the type of data, its manipulation and analysis. To achieve these objectives, the research focused on understanding the concept of smart cities and that their development depends on a non-linear process, which should make some steps like designing strategies, implementing them through projects to solve the current urban issues. For that, the establishment of a governance structure is crucial to smart city development succeed since collaboration is needed to create complex solutions and the legitimacy of a vision. Therefore, a dedicated organization is important to articulate the stakeholders and boost the development of projects and initiatives. However, just collaborative networks will not solve the urban issues per se. It should be identified how to create, improve, change the elements from the hard and soft dimensions of a city (i.e., economy, social, environment). It is important to highlight that a smart strategy, project, or solution to be smart in fact must consider that these dimensions are integrated and then affect and are affected by each other. In addition, it is needed to incorporate in this urban planning and management discourse the notion of time and space, because past events can affect the current stage of development and the present decisions will impact future of the city. As an evolutionary process, each city will certainly follow different paths, because the dynamics of its development depends on how the (eco)system is configured and which is his level of smartness. It also should be considered the history of city and its context to define more assertive strategies and projects. Thus, for the analysis of smart city development, it is necessary to apply an evolutionary framework capable to link micro-behavior to macro- processes that occur in each territory over time. By considering smart city development as a process that changes the urban realm and the behavior of stakeholders over time, there is a need to measure how this is in fact helping (or not) the urban performance and, how cities can achieve a sustainable development in a more efficient way. In this study, it focusses on the measurement of smartness of an urban innovation ecosystem, because it provides an overview of the current stage of development and the relationship among the elements and dimensions, which could guide policymakers and the society on what invest, how to design a comprehensive strategy and when to implement it.As cidades sempre foram locais onde as economias de aglomeração atingiram seus maiores rendimentos, produzindo benefícios culturais, econômicos e sociais sendo o principal locus de empreendedorismo e inovação. No entanto, a rápida urbanização criou muitos problemas como desigualdade, poluição, doenças, insegurança e assim por diante, que acabam por restringir a dinâmica de criação de valor no século XXI. Isso está desafiando as "cidades industriais" a repensar e remodelar suas estruturas para superar esses problemas. Nesse sentido, o modelo de 'cidade inteligente' tem ganhado destaque no desenvolvimento urbano. Muitas cidades de diferentes países estão desenhando estratégias e implementando-as por meio de iniciativas e projetos para o desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes. Nota-se que essas experiências são idiossincráticas, pois as cidades são inerentemente diferentes e possuem questões diversas que devem ser resolvidas de forma particular. A primeira questão que surge é: como tornar uma cidade mais inteligente? Apesar da visão contrastante dos frameworks e de sua multiplicidade de dimensões e abordagens, a literatura aponta que as cidades devem ter elementos específicos para induzir processos de inovação por meio de soluções digitais e da colaboração entre stakeholders para enfrentar os desafios locais e, assim, aumentar a competitividade local e qualidade de vida. No entanto, não é uma tarefa fácil e envolve um conjunto de stakeholders que podem não estar dispostos a colaborar e promover o desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes. De fato, as principais dificuldades de uma estratégia surgem durante a fase de implementação, pois muitos dos desafios para as cidades se tornarem ou serem inteligentes excedem o escopo e as capacidades de suas atuais organizações, arranjos institucionais e estruturas de governança. De fato, as principais dificuldades de uma estratégia surgem durante a fase de implementação, pois muitos dos desafios para as cidades se tornarem ou serem inteligentes excedem o escopo e as capacidades de suas atuais organizações, arranjos institucionais e estruturas de governança. Com efeito, a falta de formações estruturais e organizativas adequadas não favorece o envolvimento dos atores locais e dificulta a organização e coordenação das diferentes atividades necessárias para alcançar um desenvolvimento urbano sustentável. Então, a segunda questão que surge é: que tipo de organização pode fomentar o desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes? Nesse sentido, a literatura lança luz sobre a necessidade de discutir modelos alternativos de governança para superar esses desafios, combinando apoio político e social com planejamento estratégico e pensamento criativo para lidar com a complexidade da cidade inteligente. Alguns autores apontam que é necessário criar uma organização dedicada a liderar a colaboração entre as partes interessadas neste processo de transformação urbana. A partir dessa discussão, o que parece claro é que a análise do processo de desenvolvimento de uma smart city em suas diferentes dimensões e unidades de análise demanda um embasamento teórico que permita à academia e à indústria captar a dinâmica da evolução e, assim, compreender como as smart cities mudam com o tempo. É preciso incorporar teorias e conceitos que considerem não apenas a noção de espaço-tempo, mas principalmente que se aprofundem em como as relações entre os elementos do ecossistema interagem e se complementam. Então, nossa terceira pergunta é: como analisar esse processo de desenvolvimento urbano dinâmico, dependente do contexto e de longo prazo para que uma cidade se torne mais inteligente? Alguns autores apontam a possibilidade de uma aproximação teórica entre a abordagem evolutiva e a literatura de cidades inteligentes, afirmando que devido à complexidade do desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes, o planejamento de cidades inteligentes também é moldado por processos evolutivos. Assim, é necessário incorporar a noção de evolução nos processos de transformação urbana e que eles ocorram em uma determinada localização geográfica sendo condicionados por fatores contextuais locais. Como mencionado anteriormente, as cidades são inerentemente diferentes e têm problemas diferentes. Assim, medir o nível de desenvolvimento existente é crucial para prever os passos certos para aumentar a inteligência urbana. A inteligência deve ser vista como um continuum, no qual as partes interessadas podem implementar iniciativas para criar, melhorar ou alterar os elementos da cidade inteligente nessas diferentes dimensões da cidade. A noção de smartness pode ajudar as cidades a entender como esse processo de transformação urbana afeta suas dimensões e seu desempenho e, consequentemente, analisar o que deve ser feito para acelerá- lo. Nesse sentido, é importante que as cidades avaliem seu atual estágio de desenvolvimento. A avaliação do desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes pode trazer múltiplos benefícios para diferentes partes interessadas. Permite identificar os pontos fortes e fracos da cidade, comparar cidades, monitorar e acompanhar a implementação de projetos, aumentar a transparência nos investimentos, possibilitar a formulação de políticas com base em evidências, aumentar a conscientização do cidadão e assim por diante. A quarta questão que surge é: como medir a inteligência de uma cidade? Em termos de avaliação de cidades inteligentes, muitos acadêmicos, organizações e empresas desenvolveram índices, kits de ferramentas e benchmarking para medir e classificar cidades inteligentes. Esses esquemas de avaliação podem fornecer uma boa visão geral sobre as características da cidade e seus pontos fortes e fracos, além de serem usados para mostrar sua posição competitiva. No entanto, a maioria deles negligencia os múltiplos processos inter-relacionados relacionados ao desenvolvimento da cidade inteligente, adotando uma abordagem somativa. Essa abordagem apresenta algumas limitações que não capturam adequadamente a inteligência de uma cidade. Considerando isso, os objetivos deste estudo são (1) identificar as dimensões e os elementos impulsionadores para tornar uma cidade mais inteligente, (2) entender o papel da organização dedicada a cidades inteligentes na governança de cidades inteligentes, (3) propor uma abordagem evolutiva framework para a análise do desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes e (4) criar um modelo para medir a inteligência de uma cidade usando diferentes métodos, considerando o tipo de dados, sua manipulação e análise. Para atingir esses objetivos, a pesquisa se concentrou em entender o conceito de cidades inteligentes e que seu desenvolvimento depende de um processo não linear, que deve seguir algumas etapas como desenhar estratégias, implementá-las por meio de projetos para resolver os problemas urbanos atuais. Para isso, o estabelecimento de uma estrutura de governança é crucial para o sucesso do desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes, pois é necessária a colaboração para criar soluções complexas e a legitimidade de uma visão. Portanto, uma organização dedicada é importante para articular as partes interessadas e impulsionar o desenvolvimento de projetos e iniciativas. No entanto, apenas redes colaborativas não resolverão os problemas urbanos per se. Deve ser identificado como criar, melhorar, mudar os elementos das dimensões hard e soft de uma cidade (ou seja, econômica, social, ambiental). É importante destacar que uma estratégia, projeto ou solução inteligente para ser inteligente de fato deve considerar que essas dimensões estão integradas e então afetam e são afetadas umas pelas outras. Além disso, é necessário incorporar neste discurso de planejamento e gestão urbana a noção de tempo e espaço, pois eventos passados podem afetar o atual estágio de desenvolvimento e as decisões presentes impactarão o futuro da cidade. Como processo evolutivo, cada cidade certamente seguirá caminhos diferentes, pois a dinâmica de seu desenvolvimento depende de como o (eco)sistema se configura e qual é o seu nível de inteligência. Também deve ser considerada a história da cidade e seu contexto para definir estratégias e projetos mais assertivos. Assim, para a análise do desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes, é necessário aplicar um quadro evolutivo capaz de vincular o microcomportamento aos macroprocessos que ocorrem em cada território ao longo do tempo. Ao considerar o desenvolvimento de cidades inteligentes como um processo que muda o ambiente urbana e o comportamento dos stakeholders ao longo do tempo, há a necessidade de medir como isso está de fato ajudando (ou não) o desempenho urbano e como as cidades podem alcançar um desenvolvimento sustentável em uma forma mais eficiente. Este artigo tem como foco a mensuração da inteligência de um ecossistema de inovação urbana, pois fornece uma visão geral do estágio atual de desenvolvimento e a relação entre os elementos e dimensões, o que poderá orientar os formuladores de políticas e a sociedade sobre o que investir, como projetar uma estratégia abrangente e quando implementá-la

Co-creative partnerships as catalysts for social change

Mundane cities are challenged to design for unpredictable and rapidly changing futures. In the current work, we refer to thesechallenges as a collaborative design challenge and explore how co-creative partnerships can enable a participatory turn by establishinga new social infrastructure. The corresponding citizen-centred design approach offers a variety of design opportunitiesto engage with citizens, to empower all involvement, and enabling a social fabric to be increasingly reflexive and responsive.Through the illustration of three collaborative design studies in the public realm, we explore how design can act as a strategytowards a transforming society. It shows that participatory designing enabled empowerment across the co-creative partnership,though it also calls for strategic guidance in order to sustain transformational change. We end with an elaborate discussion onthe role of strategic design in facilitating the interplay among new coalitions of city makers towards a transforming society thatembraces sustainable social innovation. It can be concluded that co-creative partnerships can act as network designers, capacitybuilders, and enablers of transformational change, and have the potential to act as change makers, driving sustainable socialinnovation.Keywords: co-creative partnerships, diffuse design, participation, social innovation, transitions

A proposed assessment scheme for smart sustainable urban development

The twenty-first century belongs to the cities. For the first time in history, more than 50% of the world\u27s population now lives in a city and the urban population is expected to double by 2050. The opportunities created by new technologies challenge the way in which we conceive our cities, how we plan, design and construct them and how we will live in them. The current large gap between smart city and sustainable city frameworks implies that there is a need for developing their frameworks further or re-defining the smart sustainable city concept, which is relatively new and can be seen as a successor of information city, digital city and sustainable city. Furthermore, rating standards like LEED and (GPRS) do not cover all the topics behind the Smart Sustainable City Concept. The aim of this study is to conduct and perform qualitative and comparative analysis of International Standards and case studies, to provide a foundation for developing a framework for the planning of a Smart Sustainable City based on rigorous criteria and sub-criteria. This framework, can be used to assess the smart sustainable urban development of the new administrative capital of Egypt. The criteria have been selected according to international standards via ISO37120 and the Focus Group of Smart Sustainable Cities of International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T FGSSC), as a base for the framework. The framework developed in this study is more oriented towards achieving aspects of urban life at the design and planning stage versus other models existing in the literature that are more oriented towards progress in International Communication Technology (ICT) as a dimension by itself and as means to transform already built cities to smart cities. The proposed study is intended to build up and complement key dimensions that were developed by ITU-TFGSSC, by adding sub-dimensions and key indicators filling this gap in research. The outcome of this study could be used to generate a framework and develop recommendations that has been tailored for urban planners, owners, operators and occupiers, to successfully and cost effectively adopt smart sustainable solutions as they plan, design, construct, and manage future cities. City assessment tools can be used as support for decision making in urban development as they provide assessment methodologies for cities to show the progress towards defined targets