week 8

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of

Smart Cities

Anastasia Stratigea, Chrysaida-Aliki Papadopoulou, and Maria Panagiotopoulou

ABSTRACT At present, sustainable urban development constitutes a major planning goal for many urban environments coping with contemporary challenges and problems con- fronted by world cities. Towards this end, the concept of smart cities emerges as a promis- ing policy option for effectively dealing with sustainability objectives. In this respect, the focus of the present paper is on the development of an ICT-enabled participatory planning framework for guiding policy-making towards the planning of smart cities. This frame- work is in alignment with the argument that smart-city solutions must start with the “city” not with the “smart,” shifting from a technology-pushed to an application-pulled smart-city planning approach, matching different types of “smartness” (technologies, tools, and applications) with different types of urban functions and contexts. It is also built upon a digital platform, integrating tools and technologies for data management and e-participatory planning that can support city- and citizen-specific decision making, capable of dealing with objectives for urban sustainability.

KEYWORDS smart city; Information and Communication Technologies (ICT); sustainable urban development; (e-)participatory planning; policy making

Introduction

In the shared vision of the European city of tomorrow, future cities are considered as:

. “places of advanced social progress, with a high degree of social cohesion, socially-balanced housing as well as social, health, and education for all services

. “platforms for democracy, cultural dialogue, and diversity

. “places of green, ecological, or environmental regeneration

. “places of attraction and engines of economic growth.” (European Union, 2011: vi)

or stated otherwise, cities represent a “promise for the future” built upon concepts such as freedom, innovation, creativity, opportunity, and prosperity (Schaffers et al., 2012).

Correspondence Address: Anastasia Stratigea, Department of Geography and Regional Plan- ning, School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens – NTUA, Heroon Polytechniou str. 9, Zographou Campus, Athens 15780 – Grecce. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Urban Technology, 2015 Vol. 22, No. 2, 43 – 62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2015.1018725

# 2015 The Society of Urban Technology

This vision is far from the present reality, and it actually constitutes a target to be reached. In fact, contemporary cities are confronted with considerable chal- lenges, threatening sustainability targets towards their future development. Thus, sustainable urban development is currently considered as a key planning goal and has received much attention by policy makers and urban planners (Stra- tigea, 2012; Tao, 2013) because of:

. demographic (growing and aging of population) and cultural shifts

. globally increasing urbanization patterns

. climate change challenges that are threatening the sustainability of urban eco- systems

. high rates of consumption of non-renewable resources

. deteriorating social cohesion which is expected to deteriorate further through evolving migration patterns that are triggered by political instability, economic recession, wars, and climate change in many neighborhoods.

In planning a sustainable future for cities, policy makers and planners are currently largely supported by the radical technological changes and the new potential these can offer for economic development, organizational performance, social equity, and quality of living in urban environments. Broadband network developments are affecting the interaction among various actors. These provide access to worldwide knowledge and information (re)sources, and a broad range of tools and applications that allow the establishment of networks and synergies among them (locally and globally), removing space and time bar- riers. Based on these new network opportunities that allow competitiveness gains and community development efforts (Stratigea, 2012), the concept of smart city emerges as a new paradigm for sustainable urban development that supports competitiveness, local prosperity, and social inclusion in the urban context. The widespread use of this concept is associated with the pivotal role it can play in coping with challenges emerging from the global pattern of urbanization (Walters, 2011).

Along these lines, the present paper focuses on the development of an ICT- enabled participatory planning framework supporting the “going smart efforts” of cities. Towards this end, in the next section we discuss the three pillars of the proposed participatory smart-city planning framework. The third section focuses on the steps of the proposed methodological framework, and, finally, we comment on the key components and obstacles hampering the implemen- tation of the proposed methodological framework.

(e-)Participatory Planning

A variety of terms found in the literature describe the engagement of various actors (policy makers, decision makers, stakeholders, citizens, planners, experts, and scientists) in the planning process (Saad-Sulonen and Horelli, 2010). Accord- ing to van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, participatory planning can be defined as a process that allows stakeholders and citizens to take part in the decision- making process and “ . . . share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources that affect them” (van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002: 174). Engaging various actors in the decision-making process is done to reach a balance between different levels of power, interests, and resources; to create a

44 Journal of Urban Technology

platform for actors to interact and communicate on an equitable basis; to establish a productive dialogue that allows participants to reach consensus; to build com- mitment and ownership of the final planning outcome; and to empower individ- uals to address problems and to set priorities (World Bank, 1996).

Participatory planning engages people in the formulation of policy decisions about a variety of problems on a variety of spatial scales. It constitutes a new para- digm in planning: a shift from a top-down, largely hierarchical planning, aimed at identifying problems, jointly setting up priorities, and elaborating and adopting strategies. As such, it leads to “ . . . better-informed and more creative decision- making” (HarmoniCOP Project, 2003: 2), while it enables actors involved to make more informed judgments and commit to the planning outcome/decision (Papadopoulou and Stratigea, 2014; Stratigea, 2009; van Asselt and Rijkens- Klomp, 2002). As pointed out by Martens (2013), participatory planning envisages a political arena, within which decision-making on shared issues occurs through the interaction and negotiation among various actors. Thus, it largely constitutes a platform for interaction that can support mutual learning, the creation of partner- ships and the empowerment of all parties involved (VSO, 2004) (See Figure 1), rather than an attempt at problem solving. Stated differently, it constitutes a process of collective analysis, learning, and policy action, where the emphasis is placed on the decision-making process rather than on sketching the final planning outcome.

In participatory planning, citizens and stakeholders first provide the opinions, views, visions, fears, desires, and empirical knowledge that feeds the subsequent stages of the process. These contributions delineate the specific com- munity context, both in territorial and in social terms, which in turn define the context of the planning process and the type of the planning outcomes that best fit each specific community context. Participatory planning implies the sharing of responsibility for decisions (Lefevre et al., 2000), which can lead to win-win sol- utions for both local decision-making institutions on the one hand and the public and stakeholders on the other (Stratigea, 2009). Finally, participatory planning

Figure 1: Key dimensions of participatory planning. Source: Adapted from VSO (2004).

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 45

exercises can improve the motivation of participants; sometimes result in innova- tive solutions to existing problems; and ensure that proposed planning interven- tions reflect the specific needs of the community.

More specifically, the contribution of citizens and stakeholders can support the identification of: (See Figure 2)

. planning problem(s): the type and intensity of the problem, as perceived by those affected by it

. community attributes: allow planning solutions to account for the peculiarities of the social system involved

. spatial context: notes the territorial attributes of the region concerned

. planning goals, objectives, and targets: reflect priorities of the planning context (spatial, social)

. potential planning outcomes (plans): create a vision-driven process for structuring locally adjusted different planning outcomes

. planning evaluation context: sets the evaluation context (criteria and their priori- tization), based on participants’ views and visions

. policy options: identify locally-adjustable strategies, policy paths and measures for implementing the preferred planning outcomes

. feasibility of the proposed planning outcomes: seek consensus or acceptance by the community of the final plan.

Figure 2: The contribution of public participation at the various planning stages. Source: Adapted from Jain and Polman (2003).

46 Journal of Urban Technology

Participatory planning is currently considered a policy response to the growing public expectations and willingness to take part in the decision- making process. It satisfies citizens’ and stakeholders’ requests for more democratic decision-making forms, while it also reinforces the legitimacy of decision-making and increases the effectiveness of implementation of the final plan- ning outcome (Craps et al., 2003; Stratigea, 2009). During recent decades, the request for more open and democratic decision-making has been largely facilitated by ICTs, which have set the ground for strengthening participation through e-participation tools and techniques. These enable the establishment of online platforms for collec- tive action, offering the potential of involving a large number of interest groups and thus enhancing interaction, democracy, and transparency of the planning process; and the gathering of a massive and diversified knowledge stock, shedding light on specific dimensions of the planning problem at hand. Through such platforms, traditional—face-to-face—ways of establishing interaction have migrated to the Web, providing planners and decision makers a variety of options for “e-engaging” participants at the various planning stages.

ICTs and Participatory Urban Planning

Everyday life has been greatly affected by the rapid and pervasive development and diffusion of ICTs, which are currently considered the means for pursuing sus- tainability objectives. As Caperna stated, “ . . . ICT . . . pervades all sectors of the economy, where it acts as integrating and enabling technologies . . . their pro- duction and use have important effects on the development of economic, social, and environmental areas” (Caperna, 2010: 340).

The role of ICTs has also been broadly acknowledged in coping with contem- porary complex problems of urban and regional environments and has marked a certain transition in the way and the context within which solutions to these pro- blems are sought. The ubiquitous potential of these technologies can expand the limits of understanding spatial issues through context-aware information and the virtual exploration of environments and communities (Foth et al., 2009; Mitchell, 2000). Moreover, these have set new perspectives in the field of spatial and participatory planning by creating new opportunities for developing and using e-planning and e-participation tools. Particularly in the case of the urban environment, ICT becomes a “main driving force for the development of the infor- mation/knowledge/network society” (Caperna, 2010: 346) while, as Reed and Webster write, “ . . . the dynamic nature of ICT ‘intervention’ in the city extends and questions traditional ‘comprehensive planning’ notions because the city space becomes ‘fluid’ and dynamic, shaped by the technology itself” (Reed and Webster, 2010: 367). Because the Internet allows local people to communicate on a global scale, local residents have gained access to knowledge that permits them to make knowledgeable decisions at both the local and global scale (Foth et al., 2009).

ICTs have also enhanced the role of citizens in the production of urban infor- mation. In this respect, while planners and professionals, hithertofore, were the only producers and users of urban information, digitization tools and technol- ogies have empowered users as co-producers, a shift that has added value to such technologies, based on the huge and diverse types of information that can be produced by talented and mass user groups (Wallin et al., 2010). Although a

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 47

lot of information produced by users has little to do with urban planning issues (usually they are more tourism, entertainment, and shopping related), it rests upon urban planners and decision-making institutions to take advantage of this potential and exploit urban and community informatics for gathering information useful for urban planning. In such cases, citizens are invited to experience urban space and report inefficiencies or place-based positive and negative views. Thus, the potential for citizen participation in seeking solutions to urban problems is enhanced (Manzo, 2003; Stratigea, 2012).

At this point, it should be noted that despite the remarkable progress having taken place in the field of digital tools and technologies, their usefulness in the context of urban planning issues is not yet fully understood. This can be partly explained by the (Wallin et al., 2010):

. lack of accessibility to various ICTs applications in many urban environments

. lack of user-friendly applications

. limited awareness/understanding of the benefits arising from their use

. lack of an overall purpose for their use, i.e. an urban strategy or a plan to be served by these technologies

. production of knowledge and tools targeted to specific fields/disciplines, while missing an integrated interdisciplinary view of their use.

In seeking sustainability objectives in the urban context, the adoption of ICTs appears to be a great opportunity and a challenge for planners, decision makers, and the public. It should also be noted that although “ICTs may be seen as neutral technologies, they can certainly be applied to serve different political and social purposes, or to respond to different principles and values” (Anttiroiko and Malkia, 2007; Buthimedhee et al., 2002; Silva, 2010: 2); and can, therefore, play a central role in supporting the participatory issues that lie at the core of contempor- ary planning opportunities and challenges. Planners seem to realize the benefits to be reaped by the adoption of ICTs for enriching the planning context with a more diverse range of citizens’/stakeholders’ views and thus producing more comprehensive and locally adapted plans. Decision makers are also realizing the potential of ICTs for engaging people in a policy dialogue that will ensure a mutual understanding of interests and reduce the number of conflicts (Taylor, 1998), that will ensure transparency, legitimacy, and inclusiveness of the decision-making process (Stratigea, 2009), that will promote adaptation to con- tinuously changing societal conditions (Innes and Booher, 1999) and that will support the creation of an innovative learning and knowledge-building environ- ment (Friedmann, 1998). Finally, the public seems to be growing more mature, by gaining access to a huge number of resources through ICTs, which in turn strengthen the willingness to participate and be an integral part of the decision- making process.

Clarifying the Concept of “Smart City”

. . . Over the past few years, the definition of ‘Smart Cities’ has evolved to mean many things to many people. Yet, one thing remains constant: part of being ‘smart’ is utilizing information and communications technology (ICT) and the Internet to address urban challenges (http://www.cisco. com/).

48 Journal of Urban Technology

What is actually meant by “smart city?” Despite the remarkable increase in the use of this term, a distinct consistent comprehension of the concept among prac- titioners and academics still does not exist (Chourabi et al., 2012). This results in a cacophony of definitions observed in the literature, stressing the need for further conceptual research (Boulton et al., 2011). Some of the definitions of smart cities that have been introduced and adopted focus on ICTs as the dominant technology driver and enabler of urban growth, while others provide a broader perspective, including socio-economic, governance,and participatory aspects in order for sustainable urban development to be enhanced (Manville et al., 2014). Some significant definitions, put forward and used in both practice and academia, describe the smart city as:

. “ . . . a city that monitors and integrates conditions of all of its critical infrastruc- tures, including roads, bridges, tunnels, rail/subways, airports, seaports, com- munications, water, power, even major buildings, can better optimize its resources, plan its preventive maintenance activities, and monitor security aspects while maximizing services to its citizens” (Hall, 2000: 1);

. “ . . . a city built on the ‘smart’ combination of endowments and activities of self- decisive, independent, and aware citizens” (Giffinger et al., 2007: 11);

. “ . . . a city that combines ICT and Web 2.0 technology with other organizational, design, and planning efforts to de-materialize and speed up bureaucratic pro- cesses and help to identify new, innovative solutions to city management com- plexity, in order to improve sustainability and livability” (Toppeta, 2010: 4);

. “ . . . a city where investments in human and social capital and traditional (trans- port) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable econ- omic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance” (Caragliu et al., 2010: 70);

. “ . . . a city seeking to address public issues via ICT-based solutions on the basis of a multi-stakeholder, municipally-based partnership” (Manville et al., 2014: 9).

Furthermore, various terms similar to “smart city” appear, such as “wired” or “smart” communities, “broadband” communities, “digital” communities, “net- worked” communities, “smart community network,” “community informatics,” and “intelligent” communities. (California Institute for Smart Communities, 2001; Coe et al., 2001; Droege, 1997; ICF, 2007; Intel, 2007; Keenan and Trotter, 1999; Komninos, 2002, 2006, 2009; Steventon and Wright, 2006). These terms are interchangeably used by various researchers, all implying communities that are making “a conscious effort to understand and engage in a world that is increas- ingly connected” (Albert et al., 2009: 8). Although there are certain differences in the way the above terms are used, all definitions seem to have three main key dimensions in common, namely (Stratigea, 2012): the means of communi- cation (network infrastructures—technology—ICTs); the process (networking among various actors); and the goal pursued (public involvement or other, e.g. transport management).

At the heart of the smart city concept also lie (Stratigea, 2012):

. sustainability: seeking the management of urban functions in a way that a balance is maintained among environmental, social, and economic objectives

. innovation: seeking to empower both people and places in urban regions

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 49

. participatory governance: implying the way that rules are set and implemented by governing bodies in order to drive a more effective resource management pattern

. investments: on specific ICTs infrastructures and applications that fit with the needs of each specific urban environment.

The goal behind smart city development is the provision of qualitative and inno- vative services to citizens, economic activities, institutions, but also visitors, together with the production of a safe, pleasant, and highly inclusive urban environment (Stratigea, 2012).

Apart from the role played by digital technologies towards a competitive and sustainable future, what is also a distinguishing characteristic of the smart-city concept is the collaborative perspective, implying interaction among various city actors (policy makers, decision makers, planners, stakeholders, citizens, experts, and scientists). This reflects the user-driven and user-centric research approach of smart cities, compared to the rather technology-based initiatives, relating to the digital city or the u-city (ubiquitous) concepts. More specifically, the challenge is to redefine the smart city as an environment of innovation, empowerment, and participation of citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders in shaping their future, through the choices they have and decisions they make; or the challenge is to focus on change and transformation towards a smarter city, in the sense of a change towards shaping a better and more participative, inclusive, and empowering city, instead of imagining an ideal future vision (Schaffers et al., 2012). Thus the concept of Public Participation (PP) as “ . . . the involvement in knowledge production and/or decision-making of those involved in, affected by, knowledgeable of, or having relevant expertise or experience on the issues at stake” (van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002: 168), is of crucial impor- tance, largely associated with its role as a tool to identify areas of stakeholders’ mutual understanding and consensus that can drive policy choices on specific ICT infrastructure and applications that serve the needs of citizens and local stakeholders.

Based on the literature review and the empirical applications of the concept of smart city, a certain revision of the concept is taking place, shifting from a technol- ogy-driven to a more holistic approach by means of integrating certain city attributes/functions in pursuing smart and sustainable development objectives. The definition provided by Schaffers et al. (2012), which is also adopted in this work, states:

. . . The smart city concept is multi-dimensional. It is a future scenario (what to achieve), even more, it is an urban development strategy (how to achieve). It focuses on how Internet-related technologies enhance the lives of citizens. This should not be interpreted as drawing the smart city technology scenario. Rather, the smart city is how citizens are shaping the city in using this technology, and how citizens are enabled to do so. The smart city is about how people are empowered, through using technol- ogy, for contributing to urban change and realizing their ambitions. The smart city provides the conditions and resources for change. In this sense, the smart city is an urban laboratory, an urban innovation ecosystem, a living lab, an agent of change. Much less do we see a smart city in terms of a ranking. This ranking is a moment in time, a superficial result of under-

50 Journal of Urban Technology

lying changes, not the mechanism of transformation. The smart city is the engine of transformation, a generator of solutions for wicked problems; it is how the city is behaving smart (Schaffers et al., 2012: 57).

Planning the Smart City—A Participatory Methodological Framework

In this section, the focus is on the exploitation of the smart city concept and respective ICT-enabled tools and technologies dealing with sustainability chal- lenges in urban environments. Towards this end, a collaborative planning frame- work is developed, where the concept of smart city and its applications are used for serving sustainability goals, i.e., economically strong, socially inclusive, and environmentally responsible urban development, in alignment with the EU 2020 objectives for smart, sustainable, and inclusive urban growth (JESSICA, 2012). This framework adopts a participatory planning orientation, seeking city- and citizen-specific smart applications, allowing for the management of chal- lenges faced by contemporary cities under the current social, economic, and environmental circumstances. The steps of this planning process are supported by ICT-enabled tools and technologies, drawn from state-of-the-art of smart-city initiatives. These are further enriched by ICT-enabled participatory foresight and evaluation tools and approaches, integrated in the planning framework, which aim at exploring and evaluating potential future developments (scenarios) and respective policy options of each specific urban context.

The proposed participatory methodological framework consists of four suc- cessive stages (See Figure 3):

Figure 3: Structure/stages of the proposed participatory methodological framework—tools and technologies at each stage.

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 51

. First stage: “Scanning” of smart city efforts/applications at a global/European level, with special emphasis on the identification/classification of smart-city strategies, efforts, and respective applications

. Second stage: Supports the establishment of:

- a pool of tools and technologies used for city-wide, geo-data collection and management

- a pool of tools and technologies supporting public (e-)participation aspects

- a pool of smart city applications, which can better “communicate the message” of smart city development, present fields of application (e.g., transport, energy), and learn from the benefits reaped by cities pioneering in the field.

These are the outcomes of both tools and technologies already used in various smart cities’ examples (Stage I) and also tools and technologies that exhibit certain potential in fulfilling specific needs. The above established pool of tools and technologies can provide a range of options for decision makers and planners, which can be used for guiding “going smart” planning efforts in city environ- ments.

. Third stage: At this stage, a collaborative planning framework is proposed for smart city development. More specifically, efforts focus on structuring and eval- uating alternative options for smart-city development, based on a forward- looking, vision-building process towards urban regeneration, which adopts:

- an integrated approach, exploring all potential fields of smart-city appli- cations that promote sustainable development

- a place-oriented and people-oriented approach, aimed at incorporating the peculiarities of the physical and social reality of each specific urban environment in designing smart-city applications

- a participatory approach, supporting the establishment of broad urban coalitions, through certain compromises and strategic choices in co-oper- ation with citizens and local stakeholders.

. Fourth stage: Web platform development, implementing the “Smart City Plan- ning Framework.” This platform combines/integrates tools and technologies presented at the previous stages that support decision makers and planners establishing an online communication/interaction with citizens and stake- holders for co-designing/co-deciding city- and citizen-specific policies and smart applications, serving sustainable future planning options.

The stages of the proposed methodological framework are further discussed in the following sections.

Stage I: Gathering Smart Cities’ Experiences

This stage focuses on examining the experience of smart cities by reviewing several literature resources, both at the global and the European level. The main sources of information can be scientific research papers, EU reports, White Papers, and

52 Journal of Urban Technology

policy documents; national reports on strategies towards smart cities’ development; reports based on the Smart Cities’ initiative (http://www.smartcities.info/research); reports produced by the FIREBALL Smart Cities Project (www.fireball4smartcities. eu); other reports on smart cities from the global scene, e.g. United States, Canada, and China. Work carried out at this stage can fall within two layers:

. At the first layer, information on smart cities is gathered, both at the global and the European levels. This information is elaborated so that the current state-of- the-art can be clarified and concluded with a pool of smart-city applications. Furthermore, these are classified according to the specific purpose they serve and the technology used. The outcome of this stage can provide a range of policy options and respective ICT applications already used for smart-city development. Moreover, it can provide a core of themes/aspects for smart- city development for further consideration.

. At the second layer, emphasis is placed on problems and challenges that are cur- rently faced by cities and that are strongly affecting their future economic, social, and environmental conditions:

- changing social structure, characterized by social polarization, segre- gation, isolation, and violent incidents that threaten social cohesion and safety

- intensifying migration patterns due to a variety of factors, such as poverty, political instability, and wars

- changing demographic structures, mainly characterized by an aging and declining population

- an economic structure marked by factors such as the economic recession, which has dramatically influenced development in many cities, mainly in European neighborhoods, threatening sustainable urban development by severe unemployment, radical changes in economic structure, poverty, social exclusion, the “brain-drain” accompanying the high youth unem- ployment rates, environmental deterioration, and degradation of quality of life

- the depletion of natural resources due to urban sprawl and land con- sumption patterns, which place urban ecosystems under severe pressure

- climate change threatening urban environments.

Work at this stage results in the listing of already established, well-functioning, smart-city applications/best practices that are tackling peculiar issues faced by single case study contexts—first layer; and the sketching of new challenges that need to be dealt with, going beyond already implemented smart city applications and posing the need for further developments in this particular field—second layer.

Stage II: Tools and Technologies

Smart cities can be also understood as places generating a particular form of spatial intelligence and innovation, based on sensors, embedded devices, large data sets, and real time information and response (Schaffers et al., 2012: 6).

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 53

In planning the smart future development of a specific urban environment, of crucial importance is the management of big data—different data layers concern- ing the spatial structure and functioning of the city, its infrastructures, the natural and cultural resources, and the social context. Towards this end, planners and decision makers need to use a range of tools and technologies in support of data management. These can be used for enhancing planners’ potential to:

. better understand the environmental, economic, and societal aspects of urban environments as well as their interrelationships, upon which livability and sus- tainability perspectives of the urban context are built

. explore or anticipate or even map urban problems and effectively allocate avail- able resources for planning solutions

. properly communicate problems and/or potential solutions/policies to plan- ning recipients in seeking consensus and the more effective implementation of the planning outcome

. identify policy priorities in each specific urban context.

Moreover, in contemporary planning theories and approaches, there is a strong emphasis on the role of public participation in seeking more effective plan- ning solutions to societal problems (Pereira and Quintana, 2002). Public partici- pation, as a knowledge and intelligence gathering tool, but also as a communication and consensus-building tool, contributes to widening of the scope of the planning exercise, reaching consensus in defining priorities and allo- cating scarce resources and effectively implementing plans. (Stratigea, 2009). Public participation can be understood and implemented in many different ways, ranging from providing information that empowers stakeholders to increasing the number of choices to consider (Aggens, 1998; Arnstein, 1969; Green and Hunton-Clarke, 2003; OECD, 2001).

In addition, when planning the “smart” future development of urban regions, it is important for decision makers planners, and citizens to gain access to a variety of good practices—examples—which can shed light on a range of issues, such as the type and range of existing applications; the core themes tackled such as trans- port and energy; the type of problems considered; the level of public partici- pation/citizen involvement in the decision-making process; the acceptability of these applications at each specific city context; and the tools/technologies prac- ticed. This information can be of value for both decision makers and planners— the creators/providers of such applications—for enriching their knowledge and views and also for using the examples as demonstrative material in the context of participatory processes; and for citizens/stakeholders—the users of the appli- cations—who, by previewing successful examples, can widen their knowledge and understanding on the specific issues/technologies that are to be applied.

More specifically, work carried out at this stage supports the identification/ description of tools and technologies, examples of their application, and the expected outcome/contribution to the smart city planning context referring to the following layers:

. First layer: incorporating tools and technologies that can be used for big data management, as well as geo-visualization and mapping

. Second layer: presenting available options as well as tools and technologies for dealing with citizens’/stakeholders’ engagement

54 Journal of Urban Technology

. Third layer: presenting a range of sectoral or other types of applications, which arise from the literature review, representing a bulk of potential options for further elaboration in the context of smart-city development. These can be used for various purposes, e.g. to increase public awareness of potential appli- cations that can be developed in a specific smart-city context.

. These tools can be used to have planners and stakeholders better understand the urban context, identify spatial problems, and increase citizen empower- ment.

If public engagement in planning is a goal to be achieved, there are now many tools and technologies for doing so including classical tools such as focus groups, advanced web-based participatory technologies (Kingston et al., 2000; Wilson, 2008), crowd-sourcing platforms (Howe, 2006b; Papadopoulou and Giaoutzi, 2014; Surowiecki, 2004), and the user-oriented open innovation esosystems known as city living labs (Chesbrough, 2003; Komninos, 2006 2009; Pallot, 2009). Examples of these living labs include:

- 22@ Urban Lab—City of Barcelona: employed to promote the use of public spaces in the city of Barcelona in order for tests and pilot programs on products and services with an urban impact to be conducted (sensoriza- tion, urban planning, mobility, tourism, and education) in large-scale, real-life environments (Schaffers et al., 2012).

- Smart crowds—City of Trento, Italy: territorial lab, in which citizens can participate as volunteers in R&D and innovation projects and products. Usually participants are asked to test mobile, tablet, or desktop appli- cations and services in the context of a survey or to participate in focus groups (http://www.smartcrowds.net/).

- Smart Campus—City of Trento, Italy: is both a laboratory and a commu- nity, where students, teachers, researchers, and campus staff, using advanced ICTs, participate and collaborate in innovative design pro- cedures for smart services, in support of urban sustainability objectives (http://www.smartcampuslab.it/).

It should be noted that, in most cases, smart-city applications consist of a combi- nation of tools and technologies, aimed at improving the efficiency of services and decreasing costs while offering a wide range of “accessibility” options to users. An example of the combined use of tools and technologies is the “TiMatOnGIS” plat- form (Tourism in Matera On Geographic Information System), in the city of Matera, Italy, which successfully combines cloud computing, crowdsourcing tools, Volunteered Geographical Information (VGI), collaborative mapping, and Web-GIS services. TiMatOnGIS is a geographic database (package of Web 2.0 and cloud computing based tools), which was developed by the Laboratory of Urban and Territorial Systems, University of Basilicata, and aims to provide visi- tors with significant information about Matera, while it also allows them to inter- act by providing geographical data, remarks, and comments via Web-GIS services and the TiMatOnGIS Blog. Apart from the visitors’ target group, the platform also provides tourist operators—the supply side—with the potential to promote their services or products as well as anything that could be interesting or useful to tour- ists (Murgante et al., 2011).

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 55

Stage III: Smart City Planning Framework

In this section, a framework for sustainable smart city development is presented, supporting an integrated, city- and citizen-specific as well as participatory- oriented planning approach. The scope of this stage is to provide input on the range of ICT-enabled smart applications, tools, and technologies, as well as plan- ning tools that can strengthen the planners’ potential and options for shaping the sustainable future smart city.

A collaborative planning approach is adopted for identifying city- and citizen-specific applications for smart city development, i.e. adjusting the smart- city concept to the attributes and needs of a specific city environment. These appli- cations can be incorporated in desired smart city future alternatives which, along the lines of sustainability, can be structured and evaluated by means of the follow- ing distinct steps of the planning process (Khakee, 1998; Giaoutzi and Stratigea, 2011):

. a learning step, consisting of an in-depth analysis of each city

. an evaluation step, comprising:

- a co-design process that aims at embodying the ideas, concerns, visions, and urban development priorities of citizens, stakeholders, and private and public agencies in the structuring of alternative scenarios of future smart city development

- a co-deciding process that addresses opinions, priorities, and views of par- ticipants in support of the evaluation of alternatives and sets policy pri- orities and policy measures that need to be enforced in pursuing a certain smart-city development alternative

. an action step, relating to the implementation of the policy framework presented before, that needs to be enforced for the effective implementation of the selected alternative plan.

These three steps form the backbone of each planning exercise and are used for building the smart-city planning framework, while they are supported by a wide range of tools and technologies dedicated to carrying out specific tasks within the planning process (Stratigea, 2009).

The focus of this stage is on facilitating ICT-enabled choices by presenting tools and technologies that support e-planning. In this respect, it can provide a pool of potential tools and technologies available to decision makers and planners and successful examples of applications of those tools and technologies.

Stage IV: Web-Platform Development

The final stage aims at the development of a Web-platform, which integrates ICT- enabled tools and technologies for data management and public participation as well as participatory foresight and evaluation tools, serving the goal of planning the future development of the specific city as a smart city. In this respect, the archi- tecture of the proposed digital platform will be based on the combination of tools and technologies presented at the previous stages (II and III), while work at this specific stage will be enriched by the knowledge gathered and options available at Stage I (e.g., smart city applications, sectoral choices).

56 Journal of Urban Technology

The development of the platform can form the base of a smart-city planning exercise, which needs to be part of a general planning approach of each specific city context for reaching sustainability goals and objectives. More specifically, it constitutes the basis for the direct participation of public and private agencies, planners, citizens, and local stakeholders, upon which city- and citizen-specific smart applications can be identified, coping with goals and objectives of sustain- able urban development. The above actors are considered as key players in the process of defining the type of applications to be used in each specific city context, while they are also considered as both co-creators (content development), but also consumers of these applications.

Discussion

The present article focuses on the development of a planning framework support- ing “going smart” planning efforts in cities. The paper first presents the three pillars of the proposed planning framework, namely: the participatory planning approach, shedding light on its rationale/usefulness for sustainable urban planning; the ICTs and their potential for urban management purposes; and the smart city, as a new ICT-enabled concept and a context, within which environ- mental, economic, and social innovation objectives in urban environments can be pursued.

Next in line is the creation of a pool of ICT-enabled tools and technologies for data management, but also citizens’ and stakeholders’ engagement, which in com- bination with a range of participatory planning tools (foresight tools, evaluation tools, etc.), can support decision makers and planners to carry out city- and citizen-specific smart planning exercises. The scope behind the implementation of such a framework is to identify and apply ICT applications that will improve the management of urban functions. This is accomplished by the integration of technological innovations and potentials with participatory planning approaches in the urban context. Understanding each specific urban setting is of crucial importance for developing applications that are of relevance to this specific city context (Aurigi, 2013).

The role of planners is of crucial importance for the application of the proposed planning framework. In this respect, planners are considered agents of change, initiators, and managers of the whole participatory experiment (Briasoulis, 1999; Fischler, 2000a, 2000b; Forester, 1989; Stratigea, 2010). More specifically, planners have multiple roles, including convincing decision-making institutions to shift from purely bureaucratic to more democratic decision- making models by changing institutional codes and meanings and engaging stakeholders and the public and convincing stakeholders and the public to accept new, more inclusive and democratic decision-making processes, contribut- ing their empirical knowledge, their views, and their values to the decision- making process. In such a way, planners are responsible for establishing the “bridges” that will enable “public and democratic argumentation” (Throgmorton, 1996: 257) among all partners involved in decision-making.

ICT-enabled features of the proposed methodological framework include:

. Big data management tools and technologies that are used for collecting, storing, processing, visualizing, and communicating information. Such information can refer to the various layers of a specific city, e.g. transport network,

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 57

energy network, various services, land uses, local assets, and entertainment spaces.

. Public (e-)Participation tools and technologies that enable the participation of a wide range of actors in the decision-making process, thus leading to city- and citizen-specific policy decisions as to the type of “smartness” to be pursued (e.g., transport, energy) and the type of applications needed. These policy decisions, being the outcome of a participatory planning process, can reflect the specific attributes of a city and its population, as well as the challenges facing that specific city. Tools and technologies considered at this stage can refer to Web-based participatory tools, crowdsourcing platforms, living labs, and social media. These tools are used to gather local knowledge, thus enriching planners’ and decision makers’ potential to meet the population’s expectations and needs when planning the development of a smart city.

. ICT-enabled digital platforms that integrate the first two sets of tools and technol- ogies and allow for the development and planning of a smart city.

The existence of advanced and ubiquitous broadband communication infra- structures (mobile or fixed-line infrastructures) is essential for the implementation of the proposed methodological framework and the development of the digital platform, setting the ground for both the digital interaction among actors and the function of smart-city applications. Although the civilized world is experien- cing great progress, it should be borne in mind that advanced infrastructures may, even at present, be an issue for many regions of the world and of Europe as well (e.g., small isolated cities in rough terrains or lagging-behind urban areas) (Papadopoulou and Stratigea, 2014; Stratigea and Panagiotopoulou, 2014).

Of crucial importance for the implementation of the Web-based platform for planning smart cities are the ICT skills of the local population (Papadopoulou and Stratigea, 2014). The higher the level of ICT skills, the higher is the potential of effective participation in planning a smart city. Of importance is also the digital divide, which can disturb the balance of citizens’ groups that participate in the planning process for smart-city development, to the detriment of ICT illiterate and thus less empowered population groups. For a balanced outcome, the attenu- ation of the digital divide among different city groups through smart-city learning models is important, as this will ensure a higher level of digital inclusion and a more representative balance of power of the various social groups in decision- making. In turn, this will strengthen the participatory context of the whole plan- ning effort as well as the legitimacy, transparency, acceptability, and successful implementation of the planning outcome.

At this point, it should be noted that the two issues of broadband communi- cation infrastructures and ICT skills of the local population are critical to creating smart communities (Stratigea, 2012). It is important to note that there are many small cities in the developed world that are still striving for connectivity and high quality broadband infrastructures (Papadopoulou and Stratigea, 2014). Moreover, ICT illiteracy, especially in specific population groups (e.g., the elderly, the poor, the illiterate), still remains an issue in many regions of the world.

The proposed methodological framework is considered of importance for contributing to:

. Policy recommendations on city- and citizen-specific smart applications that: are the result of a systematic participatory planning process, where a variety of local actors (decision makers, local agencies, businesses, institutions, citizens)

58 Journal of Urban Technology

are engaged in a co-designing/co-deciding exercise; and are seeking to support planning goals and objectives of a specific urban context;

. Policy decisions on the deployment of the necessary infrastructures and the development of the selected ICTs applications, thus steering, both private and public decisions on certain investment plans.

When the framework presented in this paper is implemented, additional pro- blems might be revealed, but they too will be solved. We are convinced that as technological potential is married to societal will, urban planners and other decision makers will be able to use these new tools to create “smart cities” that are informed by the wisdom of their citizens

Notes on Contributors

Anastasia Stratigea is an associate professor at the Department of Geography and Regional Planning, School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens.

Chrysaida-Aliki Papadopoulou is a PhD candidate at the Department of Geography and Regional Planning, School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens.

Maria Panagiotopoulou is a PhD candidate at the Department of Geography and Regional Planning, School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens.

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 59

Bibliography

L. Aggens, “Identifying Different Levels of Public Interest in Participation,” in J. Creighton, J. Priscoli, and M. Dunning, eds., Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources (Alexandria: Institute for Water Resources U.S. Corps Of Engineers, 1998) 193 – 198.

A.-V. Anttiroiko and M. Malkia, eds., Encyclopedia of Digital Government (Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub- lishing, 2007).

S. Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Planning Association 35: 4 (1969) 216 – 224.

M.B.A. van Asselt and N. Rijkens-Klomp, “A Look in the Mirror: Reflection on Participation in Inte- grated Assessment from a Methodological Perspective,” Global Environmental Change 12 (2002) 167 – 184.

A. Aurigi, “Reflections towards an Agenda for Urban-Designing the Digital City,” Urban Design Inter- national 18 (2012) ,http://www.palgrave-journals.com/udi/journal/v18/n2/pdf/udi201232a. pdf. DOI: 10.157/udi.2012.32.

H. Briasoulis, “Who plans whose sustainability? Alternative roles for planners,” Journal of Environ- mental Planning and Management 42: 6 (1999) 889 – 902.

California Institute for Smart Communities, Ten Steps to Becoming a Smart Community (2001). A. Caperna, “Integrating ICT into Sustainable Local Policies,” in C.N. Silva, ed., Handbook of Research on

E-Planning – ICTs for Urban Development and Monitoring (Hershey, New York: Information Science Reference, 2010) 340 – 364.

H.W. Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003).

P. Droege, ed., Intelligent Environments - Spatial Aspect of the Information Revolution (Oxford: Elsevier, 1997).

European Union, Cities of Tomorrow – Challenges, Visions, Ways Forward (European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy, Brussels, October 2011).

R. Fischler, “Case Studies of Planners at Work,” Journal of Planning Literature 15: 2 (2000a) 184 – 195. R. Fischler, “Communicative Planning Theory: A Foucauldian Assessment,” Journal of Planning

Education and Research 19 (2000b) 358 – 368. J. Forester, Planning in the Face of Power (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press,

1989). J. Friedmann, “The New Political Economy of Planning: the Rise of the Civil Society,” in M. Douglass,

and J. Friedmann, eds, Cities for Citizens (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1998) 19 – 35. M. Giaoutzi and A. Stratigea, Regional Planning: Theory and Practice (Athens: KRITIKH, 2011). A.O. Green and L. Hunton-Clarke, “A Typology of Stakeholder Participation for Company Environ-

mental Decision Making,” Business Strategy and the Environment 12 (2003) 292 – 299. R.E. Hall, “The Vision of a Smart City,” paper presented at the 2nd International Life Extension Tech-

nology Workshop (Paris, France, 28 September 2000) ,http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/14000/14800/14834/ DE2001773961.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2014.

HarmoniCOP Project, Public Participation and the European Water Framework Directive – Role of Information and Communication Tools, WorkPackage 3 Report of the HarmoniCOP Project – Harmonising COllaborative Planning, Prepared under contract from the European Commission Contract no EVK1-CT-2002 – 00120, Deliverable Nr. 4, Cemagref, Montpellier, (2003).

J. Howe, “Crowdsourcing: A Definition” (2006) ,http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/2006/06/ crowdsourcing_a.html. Accessed January 16, 2012.

Intelligent Community Forum – ICF, “What is an Intelligent Community?” ,www.intelligentcommunity. org. Accessed October 15, 2007.

J.E. Innes and D.E. Booher, “Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems – A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning,” APA Journal 65: 4 (1999) 412 – 423.

INTEL, Digital Communities Initiative will Help Maximize Wireless Capabilities Worldwide, ,www. intel.com/technology/magazine. Accessed September 16, 2007.

S.P. Jain and W. Polman, “A Handbook for Trainers on Participatory Local Development,” RAP PUB- LICATION 2003/07, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Bangkok (2003).

JESSICA – Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas, JESSICA for Smart and Sustainable Cities, Horizontal Study, Final Report (2012), European Investment Bank, 11 December.

T. Keenan and D. Trotter, “The Changing Role of Community Networks in Providing Citizen Access to the Internet,” Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 9: 2 (1999) 100 – 108.

60 Journal of Urban Technology

A. Khakee, “Evaluation and Planning: Inseparable Concepts,” TPR 69: 4 (1998) 359 – 74. N. Komninos, Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems and Digital Spaces (London and New York:

Routledge, 2002). N. Komninos, “The Architecture of Intelligent Cities,” paper presented at the 2nd International Confer-

ence on Intelligent Environments, Institution of Engineering and Technology (Athens, 5 – 6 July 2006) (Proceedings 13 – 20).

N. Komninos, “Intelligent Cities: Towards Interactive and Global Innovation Environments,” Inter- national Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1: 4 (2009) 337 – 355.

C.L. Manzo, “Beyond House and Haven: toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationships with Places,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 47 – 61.

W. Mitchell, E-topia – Urban Life, Jim-But Not As We Know It (Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2000) ISBN: 9780262133555.

B. Murgante, L. Tilio, F. Scorza, and V. Lanza, “Crowd-Cloud Tourism, New Approaches to Territorial Marketing,” in B. Murgante, O. Gervasi, A. Iglesias, D. Taniar, and B.O. Apduhan, eds, Computational Science and Its Applications, Part II – ICCSA 2011 (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer – Verlag, 2011) 265 – 276.

OECD, Citizens as Partners – Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making (Paris: OECD, 2001). ,http://www.oecdbookshop.org/. Accessed June 15, 2011.

M. Pallot, “Engaging Users into Research and Innovation: The Living Lab Approach as a User-Centered Open Innovation Ecosystem,” Webergence Blog (2009) ,http://www.cwe-projects.eu/. Accessed July 3, 2011.

Ch.-A. Papadopoulou and M. Giaoutzi, “Crowdsourcing as a Tool for Knowledge Acquisition in Spatial Planning,” Future Internet/Special Issue: NeoGeography and WikiPlanning 2014, 6: 1 (2014) 109 – 125.

Ch.-A. Papadopoulou and A. Stratigea, “Traditional vs. Web-based Participatory Tools in Support of Spatial Planning in ‘Lagging-Behind’ Peripheral Regions,” in G. Korres, E. Kourliouros, G. Tsobano- glou and A. Kokkinou, eds, Socio-Economic Sustainability, Regional Development and Spatial Planning: European and International Dimensions & Perspectives, (Mytilene: Aegean University, 2014) 164 – 170. ISBN: 978-960-93-6040-1.

A.G. Pereira and S.C. Quintana, “From Technocratic to Participatory Decision Support Systems: Responding to the New Governance Initiatives,” Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analy- sis 6: 2 (2002) 95 – 107.

D.J. Reed and A. Webster, “Architectures of Motility: ICT Systems, Transport and Planning for Complex Urban Spaces,” in C.N. Silva, ed., Handbook of Research on E-Planning – ICTs for Urban Development and Monitoring (Hershey, New York: Information Science Reference, 2010) 365 – 387.

J. Saad-Sulonen and L. Horelli, “The Value of Community Informatics to Participatory Urban Planning and Design: A Case Study in Helsinki,” The Journal of Community Informatics 6: 2 (2010). ,http:// ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/579/603. Accessed February 11, 2013.

C.N. Silva, “The E-Planning Paradigm – Theory, Methods and Tools: An Overview,” in C.N. Silva, ed., Handbook of Research on E-Planning – ICTs for Urban Development and Monitoring (Hershey, New York: Information Science Reference, 2010) 1 – 14.

A. Steventon and S. Wright, Intelligent Spaces: The Application of Pervasive ICT (London: Springer, 2006). A. Stratigea, “Participatory Planning and Sustainable Local Development: A Methodological

Approach,” paper presented at the 2nd National Conference of Urban and Regional Planning and Regional Development (Volos, 24 – 27 September 2009) (Proceedings 43 – 51).

A. Stratigea, “Energy Sustainable Communities: A Challenge for Planning the Development of Moun- tainous Regions,” paper presented at the 6th Interdisciplinary Conference on the Integrated Devel- opment of Mountainous Regions, National Technical University of Athens (Metsovo, 16 – 19 September 2010).

A. Stratigea, “The Concept of ‘Smart Cities’ - Towards a Community Development?” in H. Bakis, ed., Digital Territories – Case Studies, Special Issue, NETCOM, 26: 3 – 4 (2012) 375 – 388.

A. Stratigea and M. Panagiotopoulou, “Smart Cities as a New Paradigm for Serving Urban Sustainabil- ity Objectives – A View in the Mediterranean Experience,” in G. Korres, E. Kourliouros, G. Tsobano- glou and A. Kokkinou, eds, Socio-Economic Sustainability, Regional Development and Spatial Planning: European and International Dimensions & Perspectives (Mytilene: Aegean University, 2014) 213 – 220. ISBN: 978-960-93-6040-1.

J. Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (New York: Doubleday, 2004). W. Tao, “Interdisciplinary Urban GIS for Smart Cities: Advancements and Opportunities,” Geo-spatial

Information Science 16: 1 (2013) 25 – 34. N. Taylor, Urban Planning Theory Since 1945 (London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd., 1998).

Tools and Technologies for Planning the Development of Smart Cities 61

J. A. Throgmorton, Planning as Persuasive Storytelling: the Rhetorical Construction of Chicago’s Electric Future (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996).

D. Toppeta, The Smart City Vision: How Innovation and ICT Can Build Smart, “Livable,” Sustainable Cities, Report of The Innovation Knowledge Foundation (2010) ,http://www.inta-aivn.org/images/cc/ Urbanism/background%20documents/Toppeta_Report_005_2010.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2014.

Voluntary Services Overseas – VSO, Participatory Approaches: A Facilitator’s Guide (London: VSO, 2004). D. Walters, “Smart Cities, Smart Places, Smart Democracy: Form-Based Codes, Electronic Governance

and the Role of Place in Making Smart Cities,” Intelligent Buildings International 3:3 (2011) 198 – 218. J. Wilson, Web 2.0 for Urban Designers and Planners, Master Thesis, (Massachusetts Institute of Technol-

ogy – MIT, September 2008). World Bank, The World Bank Participation Sourcebook (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1996).

Websites Smart Cities – http://www.smartcities.info/ CISCO – http://www.cisco.com/ SmartSantander – http://www.smartsantander.eu/ 21 Computech Inc. – http://www.21computech.com/gis.php Smart Crowds Trento Territorial Lab – http://www.smartcrowds.net/ Smart Campus – http://www.smartcampuslab.it/

62 Journal of Urban Technology

Copyright of Journal of Urban Technology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.