Danube region strategy: Arguments for a territorial capital based multilevel approach

During the last months the discussion on a strategy for the Danube Region as a new approach for a European macro-region has been intensified, predominantly within the area of Central and South-Eastern Europe. Evidently the territory of the Danube Region is characterized by a divergent group of countries concerning the process of integration and the preconditions in geographic, economic, cultural and socio-demographic terms. Besides, the region’s spatial development shows divergent trends causing increasing regional disparities. Therefore, territorial cohesion - understood as intensified functional interrelations and strategic cooperation - is jeopardized in manifold ways. Hence, the main objective of this paper is to discuss the basic features of a strategy aiming at strengthening the polycentric development on different spatial levels. We start by assuming that the development of every city (as an element of the urban system) depends on its territorial capital and relevant assets providing location based advantages regarding its competitiveness on different spatial levels. Therefore we uncover what we understand as assets driving urban development. In this context the meaning of polycentric development and the importance of polycentric structures as an asset of a city’s territorial capital is being revealed. Based on these conceptual considerations we examine some relevant features of the urban polycentric system in the Danube region and finally argue that a multilevel and evidence based approach should be evolved facing the differences in the preconditions and already existing assets of spatial development

Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the positioning of cities?

Because of radical economic and technological changes cities are facing growing competition for investors, tourists, qualified labour or international events over the last decades (see Begg 1999). As a consequence city rankings have experienced a remarkable boom: On the one hand the comparison of cities can support investors in their choice of location, on the other hand it can be an important guide for the cities to judge their strengths and weaknesses and to define their goals and strategies for future development and better positioning in the urban system. However, there is some evidence that the discussion of city rankings is mainly concentrated on the final ranks totally neglecting (1) the methods and indicators used (see Schönert 2003) resp. (2) its purpose and effectiveness for strategic planning aiming at the strengthening of the position to be gained. In front of this development, this paper concentrates first on the question what are the basic characteristics of national and international city rankings. Correspondingly, a selected number of city rankings are analyzed in order to identify different types of such rankings. Thereby, the number and features of the indicators used in these rankings as well as their methods of sequencing is described systematically. The sample of indicators and the complexity of the ranking approach itself constitute the base for a quality assessment of city rankings discussed within this paper. In particular, an own ranking approach ("European Smart Cities") is described. In the second part, the paper concentrates on the question how cities cope with the results and what are typical reactions of local governments and stakeholders. For providing insight into the way cities respond, it is described how they try to make use of their results to city rankings respectively how they reflect on the strengths and weaknesses revealed in the study. In this context different urban strategies for steering development and processes of learning in general, but especially with respect to urban planning and marketing, are discussed within this paper. Answering these questions the paper concludes in proposals for making city rankings a more significant and effective instrument for steering economic, social and spatial processes in cities: recommendations for researchers and analysts dealing with the design and methodology of city rankings on the one hand and for local governments and stakeholders concerning the reasonable handling of results on the other hand are formulated.Peer Reviewe

Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the positioning of cities?

Because of radical economic and technological changes cities are facing growing competition for investors, tourists, qualified labour or international events over the last decades (see Begg 1999). As a consequence city rankings have experienced a remarkable boom: On the one hand the comparison of cities can support investors in their choice of location, on the other hand it can be an important guide for the cities to judge their strengths and weaknesses and to define their goals and strategies for future development and better positioning in the urban system. However, there is some evidence that the discussion of city rankings is mainly concentrated on the final ranks totally neglecting (1) the methods and indicators used (see Schönert 2003) resp. (2) its purpose and effectiveness for strategic planning aiming at the strengthening of the position to be gained. In front of this development, this paper concentrates first on the question what are the basic characteristics of national and international city rankings. Correspondingly, a selected number of city rankings are analyzed in order to identify different types of such rankings. Thereby, the number and features of the indicators used in these rankings as well as their methods of sequencing is described systematically. The sample of indicators and the complexity of the ranking approach itself constitute the base for a quality assessment of city rankings discussed within this paper. In particular, an own ranking approach ("European Smart Cities") is described. In the second part, the paper concentrates on the question how cities cope with the results and what are typical reactions of local governments and stakeholders. For providing insight into the way cities respond, it is described how they try to make use of their results to city rankings respectively how they reflect on the strengths and weaknesses revealed in the study. In this context different urban strategies for steering development and processes of learning in general, but especially with respect to urban planning and marketing, are discussed within this paper. Answering these questions the paper concludes in proposals for making city rankings a more significant and effective instrument for steering economic, social and spatial processes in cities: recommendations for researchers and analysts dealing with the design and methodology of city rankings on the one hand and for local governments and stakeholders concerning the reasonable handling of results on the other hand are formulated.Peer Reviewe

Are smart innovation ecosystems really seeking to meet citizens’ needs? Insights from the stakeholders’ vision on smart city strategy implementation

The concept of a smart city is becoming the leading paradigm worldwide. Consequently, a creative mix of emerging technologies and open innovation is gradually becoming the defining element of smart city evolution, changing the ways in which city administrators are organizing their services and development globally. Thus, the smart city concept is becoming extremely relevant on the agendas of policy-makers as a development strategy for enhancing the quality of life of the citizen and improving the sustainability goals of their cities. Despite of the relevance of the topic, still few studies investigate how open innovation shapes the way cities become smarter or focus on the experiences of professionals to understand the concept of a smart city and its implementation. This paper fills this gap and analyzes the processes for building effective smart cities by integrating the different perspectives of smart innovations and using the core components of smart cities according to a conceptual framework developed in previous research. In so doing, it provides useful insights for smart city stakeholders in adopting social and technological innovation to improve the global competitiveness of their cities. The empirical dataset allows examining how “smart cities” are being implemented in Manchester (UK), and in Boston, Massachusetts, and San Diego City (United States of America (USA)), including archival data and in-depth interviews with core smart city stakeholders who are involved in smart city projects and programs across the cases. Results from empirical data suggest that the conceptualization of smart cities across the cases is similar with a strong emphasis on social and technological innovation aimed at addressing municipal challenges in the core sub-systems of the cities, which include mobility, environmental sustainability, entrepreneurial development, quality of life, and social cohesion. The results also reveal benefits and challenges relating to smart innovation ecosystems across the cases and the future directions of their diffusion

Urban Policies and Mobility Trends in Italian Smart Cities

This study uses indicators to evaluate the progress made by Italian cities in the smart mobility sector, in order to understand how these cities have approached the new guidelines imposed by the European Union, and how they have implemented the European changes. Specifically, this study analyses the evolution of public transportation systems, using a sample of twenty-two Italian cities for three successive time periods (2005, 2010, and 2015). The outcomes identified are then linked to funding provided for the implementation of projects related to smart mobility in the cities studied, in order to verify possible correlations between the growth of these services and European and national financial investments. The data analysis shows remarkable progress in the field of sustainable mobility, especially between 2010 and 2015 as well as how this progress is linked to significant financial support that favours the realization of projects related to smart mobilit

The business model evaluation tool for smart cities: application to SmartSantander use cases

New technologies open up the door to multiple business models applied to public services in smart cities. However, there is not a commonly adopted methodology for evaluating business models in smart cities that can help both practitioners and researchers to choose the best option. This paper addresses this gap introducing the Business Model Evaluation Tool for Smart Cities. This methodology is a simple, organized, flexible and the transparent system that facilitates the work of the evaluators of potential business models. It is useful to compare two or more business models and take strategic decisions promptly. The method is part of a previous process of content analysis and it is based on the widely utilized Business Model Canvas. The evaluation method has been assessed by 11 experts and, subsequently it has been validated applying it to the case studies of Santander’s waste management and street lighting systems, which take advantage of innovative technologies commonly used in smart cities.We thank to the European Commission’s H2020 Program, Organicity, GA-645198, for partially funding the research work carried out in this paper

City rankings and the citizens: exposing representational and participatory gaps

Acritical reflection on the purposes, role and performance of city rankings through an holistic communicational approach is at the core of this article. Grounded on a conceptual framework that highlights the contemporary idea of the city—beyond the smart city and more as a co-intelligent, collaborative and co-creative entity, and on the performance outputs of city rankings as territorial and strategic communication tools that actually represent the state of cities, we address the citizens’ presence or contribute—as main city stakeholders—to city rankings. In order to make research tangible with a practical component, an exploratory comparative content analysis of three recognized city rankings: the CBI – City Brands Index 2017, the GCR – 2018 Global Cities Report, and the Global Liveability Index 2018—was carried out. Conclusive notes argue that in order to effectively represent cities, as they are lived, thought and built by their citizens in their everyday, city rankings must rely in more real-time, updated, people’s perception centred data, and embed more citizen participation and insights. Moreover, methodology transparency and accountability should be promoted in order to add trust value to city rankings.(undefined

Smart cities, social media platforms and security: online content regulation as a site of controversy and conflict

Abstract Smart, technologically managed city-regions are one of the main characteristics of the contemporary world. Since the attack to the Charlie Hebdo offices, city-regions and social media digital technologies have increasingly been changing the definition of 'territory of security' and 'security governance'. What are the characteristics of the security architecture created by the interaction of smart city-regions and digital technologies? Drawing from Actor-Network theory and Science and Technology Studies, we provide an empirical account of the shape of this new territory, by presenting a study of the controversy concerning security and social media in UK, the role of cities in this changed security space, and how social sciences can help better understand and respond to the opportunities and threats of smart cities

Sustainable–Smart–Resilient–Low Carbon–Eco–Knowledge Cities; Making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization

Over the last couple of decades, metropolitan areas around the world have been engaged in a multitude of initiatives aimed at upgrading urban infrastructure and services, with a view to creating better environmental, social and economic conditions and enhancing cities' attractiveness and competitiveness. Reflecting these developments, many new categories of 'cities' have entered the policy discourse: 'sustainable cities'; 'green cities'; 'digital cities'; 'smart cities'; intelligent cities'; 'information cities'; 'knowledge cities'; 'resilient cities'; 'eco-cities'; 'low carbon cities'; 'liveable cities'; and even combinations, such as 'low carbon eco-cities' and 'ubiquitous eco-cities’. In practice, these terms often appear to be used interchangeably by policy makers, planners and developers. However, the question arises whether these categories nevertheless each embody distinct conceptual perspectives, which would have implications for how they are understood theoretically and applied in policy. In response, this article investigates, through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, how the twelve most frequent city categories are conceptualised individually and in relation to one another in the academic literature. We hypothesize that, notwithstanding some degree of overlap and cross-fertilization, in their essence the observed categories each harbour particular conceptual perspectives that render them distinctive. This is borne out by the findings, which demonstrate robustly for the first time the conceptual differences and interrelationships among twelve dominant city categories. The 'sustainable city' is the most frequently occurring category and, in a map of keyword co-occurrences, by far the largest and most interconnected node, linked closely to the 'eco-city' and 'green city' concepts. Recently, the more narrow concepts of 'low carbon city' and 'smart city' have been on the rise, judging by their frequency of occurrence in academic journals; the latter in particular appears to have become an increasingly dominant category of urban modernization policy. On their part, ‘resilient city’ and ‘knowledge city’ represent distinct concepts, albeit with comparatively low frequency. Overall, the findings point to the need for rigor and nuance in the use of these terms, not least if one wishes to comprehend their implications for urban development and regeneration policy and practice