European Smart Cities:
the need for a place related Understanding
Rudolf Giffinger
Department of Spatial Development,
Infrastructure and Environmental Planning
Centre of Regional Science
Operngasse 11, 6. Stock
1040 Wien
+43 1 58801 26621
http://www.srf.tuwien.ac.at/
Creating Smart Cities
Edinburgh Napier University
June 30 / July 1, 2011
Focus in this contribution
Need for positioning
• Urbanisation and technological innovations
• territorial perspective on smart city
Place based Smart City Ranking (SCR) approach
• Ranking based on urban characteristics
• Basic features and results for medium sized cities
•
Identifying a city’s specific profile
–
drawing lesson / Evidence based Outlook: Smart metropolitan development • Enhanced concept in territorial perspective
•
metropolisation and polycentricity
• 2 hypotheses on smart metropolitan development
2
introduction
technology based urban development • Urbanisation and industrialization • Metropolisation and competitiveness
differentiation of urban development
• cities and metropolises show different standards
• only 10% of all European regions show corresponding standards of a knowledge society according to different indicators What should we understand under ‚smart city‘?
Why a place based approach regarding territorial development?
Which challenges for research and for governance ?
3
Smart City Ranking
Need for positioning
• Urbanisation and technological innovations
• territorial perspective on smart city
Place based Smart City Ranking (SCR) approach
• Ranking based on urban characteristics
• Basic features and results for medium sized cities
•
Identifying a city’s specific profile
–
drawing lesson / Evidence based Outlook: Smart metropolitan development
• Enhanced concept in territorial perspective
•
metropolisation and polycentricity
• 2 hypothesis on smart metropolitan development
4
Why medium sized cities?
Medium sized cities
• Usually forgotten in discussion about • Challenges of globalisation and Trends of metropolisation
An important group of cities in Europe 27+NO+CH
Source of data:
Nordregio (2004),
Espon project 1.1.1
5
Medium sized cities: EU27+NO+CH
Importance in Europe:
•
•
270 million Europeans live in city regions > 100,000 residents
120 million live in city regions with 100,000 ‐ 500,000 residents
Selection of the city sample
Cities
1
Functional Urban Area in Europe (EU27+NO+CH)
1,595
2
100,000 – 500,000 inhabitants
584
3
At least 1 University
364
4
Catchment area less than 1.500,000 persons
256
5
Covered by the Urban Audit database
94
6
Consolidation and adaptation by the project team
70
Smart City Ranking Approach
 for 70 medium sized cities in Europe
• to identify the position in a comparable way
• to elaborate the profile of cities on different levels
• to discuss future challenges
6
Definition of Smart City: www.smart‐cities.eu
Smart City
Characteristics:
Smart Economy
Smart People
Smart Governance
Smart Mobility
Smart Environment
Smart Living
Endowments
Activities
(Local conditions)
(Application)
„A Smart City is a city
well performing in these
6 characteristics, built on the
‘smart’ combination of endowments and
activities of self-decisive, independent
and aware citizens.”
up-to-now: drawing a picture of the
current state of a city.
perspective: a relaunch based on more
recent data is planned
 stimulating discussion through
showing profiles and changes over time
7
Description of Smart City: www.smart‐cities.eu
Smart Economy
Smart People
Smart Governance
Smart Mobility
Smart Environment
Smart Living
Smart‐City rank:
result of 6 characteristics
6 characteristics:
Smart City
Characteristics
result of group of factors
Factors
31 factors:
Indicators
result of group of indicators data base:
75 indicators
8
Characteristics & bundles of factors
Smart City:
6 characteristics are defined
through bundles of factors
in a comprehensive way
31 factors are
operationalised through
bundles of indicators (in
total 75 ind.)
9
Ranking based on data 2001/2004
Ranking: best performing cities
‐ Luxembourg, Denmark, Finland Ranked groups of
smart cities
‐ poor in transition countries
‐ Ljubljana already on 17th place
Cities show different performance in its characteristics
10
Smart City Ranking Results: www.smart‐cities.eu
11
Smart City Ranking: drawing lesson
Good to have a look ‐ at ‚smart living‘ in Linz
‐
Cultural facilities, individual safety or Touristic attractivity
‐ …or at any other city perfoming better ..…
… an effective way how a city may learn good practice
in a specific field from another city …
12
Smart City Ranking: evidence based strategy
Characteristics at a first glance ‐Some strenghts in
‐
Smart economy, people and governance
‐Clear weaknesses in
‐
Smart environment and living
Factor values indicating low performance facilitate more evidence
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
International accessibility
Sustainable innovative and safe transportation system
Attractivity of nat. conditions
Pollution
some factors of smart living
Are there specific issues which are clearly interlinked factors? Are there specific topics which indicate strengths or weaknesses?
Which strategic projects may meet specific challenges?
13
Outlook
Need for positioning
• Urbanisation and technological innovations
• territorial perspective on smart city
Place based Smart City Ranking (SCR) approach
• Ranking based on urban characteristics
• Basic features and results for medium sized cities
•
Identifying a city’s specific profile
–
Lesson drawing / Evidence based Smart metropolitan development
• Enhanced concept in territorial perspective
•
metropolisation and polycentricity
• 2 hypothesis on smart metropolitan development
14
Smart City Ranking approach for metropolises metropolisation
• a process of attracting • high ranked functions
• in particular knowledge intensive new activities
• jobs and residents polycentricity
• a process of allocation of specific metropolitan functions
• based on a cities specific assets and potentials regarded as specific area based advantages • often far beyond city borders in a larger metropolitan region
SCR approach in a territorial perspective will describe the characteristics of its territorial capital in these two dimensions
• recently done in ESPON project POLYCE
15
policy relevance of a place based approach technological
innovations
economic
restructuring
sociodemographic
processes
Inclusion
Metropolisation
smart
metropolitan
development
Polycentricity
Competitiveness
governance
Policy advice
‐ identifying and
assessing impacts of
three macro‐trends
‐ Assessing the
meaning of techno‐
logical innovations
regarding competiti‐
veness and inclusion
Research • regarding economic restructuring & sociodemographic issues already sufficient?
• but scarce knowledge on innovation processes
• dependent on spatial diffusion and local adaption processes
16
Conclusions: from evidence to governance of smart city development
enhanced smart metropolitan approach
‘Smart metropolis’ indicates the capability of a city with its metropolitan region to cope with the challenges of competitiveness and inclusive development steered by the attraction of metropolitan functions and through polycentric development which is enforcing its territorial cohesion. Besides, this capability is not related to local facilities of endowment as potentials only, but it also considers covering the activities of self‐decisive and independent citizens in terms of awareness and participation of a city’s inhabitants in addressing and activating new potentials and supporting and strengthening existing assets.
17
2 hypotheses (1) Even in next decades on the global level the process of urbanization and metropolisation is driven by and dependent on technological innovations. But only those cities will show ‘smart development’ in form of a balance between competitiveness and inclusion which are capable to introduce, adapt and diffuse technological innovations according to territorial conditions and needs.
(2) In particular, a place based Smart City Ranking approach which considers metropolisation and polycentricity in a territorial perspective will foster ‘smart metropolitan development’. This is in particular realized through governance initiatives based on …
• drawing lesson
• not reasonable to follow best‐practice strategies at random
• relevant evidence • in form of comparative benchmarking or of differentiated profile assessment, and
• activating potentials and enhancing existing assets
18
Thank you for your attention
www.smart‐cities.eu
www.polyce.eu
[email protected]
19