Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
Project Acronym: Grant Agreement number: Project Title: PERIPHRIA 271015 Networked Smart Peripheral Cities for Sustainable Lifestyles
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT Policy Support Programme Dissemination Level P C Public Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services
COPYRIGHT
Copyright 2011 PERIPHRIA Consortium consisting of : 1 (Co-ordinator) 2 (Participant) 3 (Participant) 4 (Participant) 5 (Participant) 6 (Participant) 7 (Participant) 8 (Participant) 9 (Participant) 10 (Participant) 11 (Participant) 12 (Participant) Alfamicro Sistema de Computadores Lda TXT eSolutions SpA Karlsruher Institut fr Technologie Intelligent Sensing Anywhere SA Archeometra s.r.l. Athens Technology Center S.A. Politecnico di Milano Malm Hgskola (Malm University) Bremer Institut fr Produktion und Logistik GmbH (BIBA), Bremen DAEM S.A., Athens Comune di Genova Municpio Palmela
The PERIPHRIA project is partially funded under the ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme by the European Community http://ec.europa.eu/ict_psp. This document reflects only the author's views and the European Community is not liable for any use that might be made of the information contained herein. This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission from the PERIPHRIA Consortium. In addition to such written permission, or when the circulation of the document is termed as public,, an acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced. All rights reserved. This document may change without notice.
Index
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................1 1.1 About Cities Networks..........................................................................................................2 1.2. The reference Task in the Dow: Periphria Smart Cities Network..........................................3 2. Towards the Smart Cities Network......................................................................................4 2.1. Towards the Smart Cities Obervatory....................................................................................5 2.2. Pilots and Sponsoring Cities meeting: Palmela Workshop, 5 May 2011................................7 2.3. Networking drivers..............................................................................................................10 2.4. Charter notes.......................................................................................................................14
1. Introduction
[1]
emergence: often the networks have an emerging nature; they are not created with the aim of a new administrative structure; they are rather the result of emergent synergies or awareness of synergy potentials; their organizational structure is not a pre-requisite but rather an emerging property.
From this very synthetic vision some questions arise: what is the way smart cities will innovate their being in networks? what is the role of FI in the networking mechanisms and dynamics; is FI affecting the ways and modes of fluxes? do smart cities have a specific way to develop and govern networks? many of these questions will be explored in Periphria and many others will be discovered. The work carried out in the first months of the Periphria project is mainly oriented to explore the possibilities to make of the Smart Cities Network a reciprocity space where cities can share their smartness making of it a common good and finding in the sharing of experiences an additional element for innovation.
1.2. The reference Task in the Dow: Periphria Smart Cities Network
The aim of this task is to establish a permanent network of Smart Cities adopting the Periphria Arena models, platforms and services, (). The core members of the network consist of the pilot and supporting cities, extended also to cities that join the project network in the role of Supporting City during the projects lifetime, through tight cooperation with the CIP Smart City portfolio partnerships and links with city and regional networks ranging from EuroCities to innovation networks such as ERIK, ERISA, etc. A first cycle of the Task at the beginning of the project explores common interests and the grounds for cooperation, including both Project Partner and Sponsoring Partner Cities. In the second phase responsibles of the core network cities will draw up a draft Network Charter that builds on and takes into account the local governance MoUs defined in Task 3.4 as well as the transfer and validation activities of Tasks 5.4 and 5.5. In order to monitor the network dynamics and its evolution towards larger and more complex net-framework, a permanent Observatory structure will be established, as further described in section B 3.2. This structure monitors the social and territorial dimensions of Future Internet and Living Lab implications for Smart Cities, promoting a disciplinary convergence driven by design thinking. The Observatory will consist of a core network of university and research experts nominated by project partners and selected by the Steering Committee, under the guidance of PoliMi. As an innovative service towards the Periphria network of smart cities, the Observatory aims to constitute a distinctive contribution to the CIP Smart City portfolio. The third phase defines the Periphria Network Charter and Observatory, to be presented at the Final Conference in month 27. This deliverable aims at reporting the results of the starting exploration of common interests and grounds for cooperation carried out by Project Partners and Sponsoring Partner Cities.
[3]
[4]
[5]
ManyLLexperienceslookattechnologiesasstrategicagentsorvehiclesforinnovation.Theybasically investigate how innovative technologies can provide people new answers to their explicit or implicit socioterritorialneeds;orhow,insofar,theyareabletoproducerelevantinnovationsintheproduction, useandreproductionofthecityastheproductofthecontinuousinteractionbetweenspaceandsociety. Yet,manyexistingLLexperiencesshowterritorialorientationinthefluxes,forces,trajectories,domains that they enable or activate and suggest some basic questions: can these fluxes, forces, trajectories, domains be investigated, intercepted, captured? What effects do they have on urban spaces and territories? Can they be aligned, steered effectively towards urban and territorial innovation? How? Thesequestionsrisesespeciallywhenexploringthepossibilitytopushtheterritorialdimensionofsuch experiences. Moreover cities and territories have a significant role in the way people conceive and locate their activities and/or shape their behaviors. Consequently more questions arise investigating innovative potentials to be assigned to the territorial dimension: is the way citizens look at and use specific territoriesrelevantinthewaycitizensneedsarecreatedandemerge?Cantheterritorialbecomean agent of innovation? Can it have a role in the innovation of technologies? Can the contribution and exchange between the territorial dimension and the technologies be enriched in LL experiences consideringanewconceptofterritorialdriveninnovation? Answerstothesequestionsareembeddedinactionandhavecharacteristicslinkedtotheveryspecific natureofopeninnovationprocesseswhicharelocated(asstrictlyrelatedtotheircontextsandderiving specific features from those), (often) emerging at the micro level and therefore not available to be planned, . This means thatanswers can only be developed within these innovation process within a participant observation approach that is considering that the observation cannot be carried out withoutanystrictinvolvementintheLivingLabdynamics.ThisisthemaingoaloftheObservatorybeing launched at the European Level within the framework of the Periphria Project. The Observatory will takeonanactiveroleintheobservedprocesses,actingasaparticipantobserversearchingforbinding opportunitiesbothamongsmartexperiencesfromtheinsideoftheopeninnovationprocess. This structure aims at disclosing the social and territorial dimensions of Living Lab implications promoting a disciplinary convergence driven by design thinking. The Observatory will be initially establishedastheScientificBoardoftheprojectandwillevolveintoapermanentinteracademicentity collaboratingwiththeEuropeanSmartCitiesNetworkandwiththeEnollinordertocapturethesocial andterritorialdimensionsofopeninnovationprocesses(theiremergence,dynamics,mechanisms,and evolution).ItsmaingoalswillbetocapturethepotentialofLLspacesaslieuxderesources(human, technicalandeconomic)forsociodigitalterritorialinnovationinadesignthinkingperspective,andto enhancethenetworkingcapacityofpeopleinplaces. ItwillbeorganizedandmanagedasametaLLwhereexistingorplannedLLcancollaborativelyexplore and develop their territorial potentials. The observatory will deal with Smart Cities and other technology driven LLs in a collaborative learning perspective: colearning observation; self acknowledgment, revealing and awareness; knowledge sharing and cocreation; and coevolving supporting technologies will be the main observational goal and at the same time the basic frameworkingkeysfortheobservatorystructure.
*** Themeetingstartedformthecontentofthetextaboveanddiscussedsomeissuesappearing relevanttotheparticipants:implementation,policyframework,scalingup,androleofpublic institutions. Implementation3 has been suggested as a key issue to be analyzed and addressed by the observatory. This issue is very wide: it goes from the activation of Living Labs to the FI economy, but also from the codesign approach to openinnovation. Implementation is heavily context dependent and requires a significant reflection in terms of transferability of concepts and lessons learnt from virtuous experiences, of context resources (knowledge, technology infrastructures, organizational and decision making framework), of policy infrastructures. The issue of implementation opens to at least two related issues: the most
3
PetraTurkama(AALTOUniversity)hassuggestedthiskeyissuetobediscussed.
[6]
important and general can be to barriers for the digital economy (ex. lack of skills, interoperability, and investments; ); the key ingredients of emergence in LL and open innovation dynamics that requires implementation be strongly situated and hard to be generallycodified. Implementation is related to the other issues discussed in the Palmela meeting. The policy framework4isconsideredrelevantfortworeasonsatleast:firstapolicyframeworkcanhelp the development of a framework for observing LL dynamics; second exploring policy frameworks can be a way to find out commonalities and similarities that can be used in addressingimplementation. Implementationhastobediscussedalsointermsofthescaleofthesociodigitalinnovation dynamics activated. Usually LLs are acupunctural initiative or emergences that find great resistancetoaffectthelargerscaleatmanylevels:social,spatial,institutional,environmental. Without the scalingup perspective, the significance of LLs with respect to sociodigital innovation risk to be limited, constrained at a very local level without acquiring the connotationofarelevantchange.Scalingupneedsnetworking:exchange,activationofflows, collaboration,learningarekeyingredientsofscalingupaswellasnetworkingneedsscaling upforbecomingasignificantdynamics. Scalingup and networking open the discussion up to the role of public institutions. Public institutions are key actors of our societies but are more and more less powered (especially facingthecurrenteconomiccrisis)withrespecttothedynamicsofcitiesandsocieties.Since long time their role is demanding for innovation but it is evident that change is hard to be activated especially in contexts heavily constrained by bureaucratic frameworks. Public institutioncanrethinktheirroleand,startingfromtheneedsforscalingupandnetworking of openinnovation environments (like LLs), setup mixed partnerships capable to activate theirinnovation. Many questions arise but one is clearly relevant: where is the territory? Territory emerged fromthediscussionastheunavoidablemilieuofLLdynamicswheresociodigitalinnovation cantakeplaceifamultiplicityofbalancespublic/private,bottomup/topdown,macromicro, emergence/intentionalityisaligneddynamicallytowardssustainability(throughvergence5?).
2.2. Pilots and Sponsoring Cities meeting: Palmela Workshop, 5 May 2011
The Smart Cities I Workshop has been carried out in Palmela in May 5. Three sponsoring cities have attended the meeting: Palermo,LeForteandBudapest.The WS had two main goals: transfer pilot city Arenas to sponsoring cities exploring similarities and commonalities among cities at the base of a collaboration capturing possible roles for the Observatory In the first part of the day, the vision of the Periphria project has been discussed in depth in order to set up a common ground of principles and perspectives. During this discussion some elements of shared understanding could be envisaged.
4 5
IssuesuggestedandsupportedbyKrassimiraPaskaleva(KITpartnerofPeriphria). TheconcepthasbeenproposedbyBernardCorbineau(MarnelaValleUniversity).
[7]
Smart cities are those encompassing modern urban production by highlighting the growing importance of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the production of social and environmental capital; open collaboration (need for connectedness -- cities-rural.areas-territories --), broadband deployment (need for applications after the infrastructure, impact on business attractiveness) and creativity and open innovation (need for experimental Future Internet environments to stimulate innovation) are the main ingredients of smart cities. Living Labs as user-driven open eco-systems engaging and motivating stakeholders, stimulating collaboration, creating lead markets and enabling behavior transformation are key socio-digital micro infrastructures of smart cities.
Later on Arena Models have been presented so that the five Periphria Arenas could be starting points for the discussion among the cities while exploring similarities and commonality in the second part of the day. In the following the key notes of the discussion are reported (contributions by cities are explicated). The discussion has been opened clarifying the need to focus on concrete actions that cities could do together that could also be translated to the level of strategic issues facing the cities. It was also suggested to keep in mind the need for some form of alliance or network that would allow cities exchange best practices. Each sponsoring city has been asked to identify what, if anything, they had heard was of interest to them in the pilot cities presentations about their Arenas and emerging services. Budapest identified two areas of common ground: with Bremen on parking with Athens in terms of its greener city initiative, especially in relation to recycling and sustainable living issues. Then the discussion moved on EUs Danube Strategy both in terms of rediscovering and cleaning up the river and for re-integrating the city. This raised the issue of the river not just as a kind of integrating the Smart Street Arena but for promoting cross-border co-operation between countries that were part of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire in terms of shared cultural identities.
[8]
Le Forte agreed that water was an issue there too, mainly in terms of its use to extract oil in
American drilling operations. But this also raised the issue of law requiring the laying fibre optic cable when putting in new water pipes. But it is not clear who has to take responsibility on this.
Le Fortes virtual urbanisation project was identified as being closest to aspirations being pursued in Malmo and Palmela. It has a project for a virtual museum linking cities that provide a particular form of grindstone for windmills. Genoa suggested that this notion of a virtual museum could be used to link their example of the jardino italiano with Palermo. And in turn this could have a link
with Archometras work on Venetos 4,300 villas. This lead on to the discussion of cities as being the place of processional routes - and of opportunities for smart routes linked serious games.
Le Forte has a search engine that allows learners to develop learning paths -- and this lead to discussion of the construction of smart pathways through cities, for example, for cultural heritage tourism. Malmo said that it had worked with school children on their own out-door pathways through the neighbourhood, with citizens deciding what it is interesting for visitors to see. So the linking theme here of movement through space -- of people, water and wind emerged here. There was another theme around the peripheral location and lack of integration of immigrant communities. But as Genoa, Palermo and Malmo reported such peripheral location, lacking integration, could be in the centre of cities as well as on the edge. So there was also an emergent theme of re-integration of parts of the cities through linking together the existing Arenas or introducing new over-arching Arenas in order, for instance, to recomposing fractured cultural identities. Finally Genoa introduced the notion of how, in a time of reduced public sector spending, we could use the Arenas to intercept private sector finance to support the Public Commons or PPPPs (Public/Private/People Partnerships). Two meta- challenges have been identified throughout the discussion: reinvention of the public sector and its interaction with citizens and businesses especially in terms of experimentation about linking new forms of public procurement to innovation systems in a LL partnership environment; open data -- public administrations opening up their raw data so that others can make useful services out of it. The role of the Observatory has been investigated together with the city representatives and discussed in several terms: should the Observatory role be that one of an external observer capable to supply a detached point of view? or better should it behave as a consultancy agency? should the Observatory have the role to bust networking and scaling up? in this case, what kind of intervention tools should it have? should the Observatory play the role of supporting the creation of public-private partnerships compatible with open innovation ecosystems as LLs are? how can it conceive this role? [9]
finally, should the Observatory be the space where smart cities can collaborative learn to force scaling-up and spread socio-digital innovation?
[10]
Malmo
Bremen
Athens
Lowinteraction betweenvisitors andcitizens Intercultural integration Information access Intercultural integration Low participation
Genova
Palmela
Peripherieswith lowconnection tourbancenters Information access Intercultural integration Culturalheritage conservation Intercultural integration
Palmela
Information access Intercultural integration Intercultural integration
Palermo
Intercultural integration
Palermo
Leforte Budapest
Movement
LeForte
Water Urbangreening
Urbangreening
Water
[11]
Athens
Genova
Palmela
SquaresandCity hallasplacesfor participation SquaresandCity hallasplaces wherecitizens meetpublic institutions Publicmobile attendingdeskas gora
Virtualmuseums
Palermo
LeForte
Urbanpaths
Riverasastreet
[12]
Malmo
Bremen
Athens
VisitorsSocial Network Eforumande participation services Participation services Publicdisplays Publicmobile attendingdesk
Genova
CulturalServices
Locationbased mobileservices
Palmela
Palmela
CulturalServices
Palermo
Watermetering
LeForte
Locationbased services
[13]
BY SIGNING THIS CHARTER, CITIES ARE COMMITTED TO: 1. set up together a network of Smart Cities in order to support and implement in their respective territories the principles of Smart Cities and the Living lab approach. 2. share a common platform for smart cities services 3. encourage new cities to join the Network
[14]
Statementoforiginality:
This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotationorboth.
[15]