master thesis - smart city strategy and upscaling - tijn kuyper - 10-12-16
TRANSCRIPT
T.S.T. Kuyper
Master Thesis
Msc. IT & Strategic Management
December 10th, 2016
Smart City Strategy & Upscaling: Comparing Barcelona and Amsterdam
© 2016 - Tijn Sebastiaan Toon Kuyper.
Cover Illustration Copyright
- Upper photo: Barcelona, Spain. Photography by Tijn Kuyper (http://www.tijnkuyper.nl)
- Lower photo: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Photography by Siebe Swart Stock Photography
(http://www.siebeswart.nl/). License purchased.
Smart City Strategy & Upscaling:
Comparing Barcelona and Amsterdam
Tijn S.T. Kuyper
The Netherlands / Barcelona
http://www.tijnkuyper.nl
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Barcelona School of Management
Msc. IT & Strategic Management
Supervisor: Didier Grimaldi
December 10th, 2016
I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been written by me in its entirety.
I have acknowledged all the sources of information which have been used in the thesis.
I
Preface
This thesis focuses on the topic of ‘smart cities’ and ‘smart city strategy’ in particular. These concepts
appealed to me ever since I first came in contact with it. My studies have allowed me to explore the
topic along with the many dimensions that it comes with. Through contacts with the business world
and while living in Barcelona, I have witnessed how a city can develop itself by making use of smart
technologies.
I have written this thesis while studying in Barcelona. A city where, at the time of writing, I have lived
for more than a year and which I have come to know well. Back then, when making the decision to go
to Barcelona, I could not have imagined how valuable the experience would turn out to be. Being
immersed into a multicultural environment, learning a new language, discovering new places, meeting
so many new people from all over the world and making new friends. Friends who are there to
celebrate the joys as well as to support me in cases of sadness.
For all of this, I am incredibly grateful. To my parents, I am thankful for your unconditional support
throughout all these years. You have made it possible for me to follow the path that I wanted to follow.
Not only serves this thesis as the final part of my master, it also marks the start of a new phase in my
personal and professional life, a phase I am excited to start. Even though I do not have my near future
plans set in stone yet, I am more than confident that the experiences Barcelona has given me will be
of great value to me throughout the rest of my life.
Barcelona will always be a part of me.
Siempre.
Tijn Kuyper
December 10, 2016
II
III
Summary
One of the strategies used by cities to counter urban planning challenges is to transform the city into
a ‘smart city’. The question then becomes what such a ‘smart city strategy’ would like. Through
consolidating recent smart city strategy research along with the most recent additional resources and
developments available, this study discusses the considerations in designing a smart city strategy as
well as its relation to the possibilities of upscaling smart city pilot projects. This theory is subsequently
applied to the cities of Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and Barcelona (Spain), two fast growing cities
which have both approached the smart city concept in different ways, leading to contrasting results in
the degree of large scale smart city project implementations.
Through its solid technical infrastructure and a comprehensive top-down smart city plan, Barcelona
has achieved numerous technological advancements such as its renewal of the transit system, the use
of smart lighting and the placement of sensors used for optimizing water irrigation and waste
collection. Amsterdam, in contrast, has taken a participatory bottom-up approach, connecting parties
through its platform, resulting in an extensive amount of smart city pilot projects rather than larger
scale implementations throughout the city. The pilot projects are generally aimed towards
environmental sustainability whereas Barcelona’s implementations thus far were focused on
improving the services to its citizens through a technology-push orientation. Through its renewed
digital city strategy, Barcelona is shifting towards social and environmental sustainability, taking the
citizen as a central player. Amsterdam, in turn is looking for ways to balance its bottom-up approach
with changes in the vision of the government on the development of smart city initiatives. This
indicates both cities are moving closer together in terms of their strategic approach to smart cities.
As a result of applying smart city theory on practical developments in the two cities, several conclusions
can be formed. There is no one-size-fits-all framework, but there is room for guidelines and standards.
Each individual strategy leads to different results in the implementation and upscaling of smart city
projects. Technology is not considered to be the issue, but rather the viability of business and
governance models, along with the context sensitivity that projects face. Recommendations based on
this research are to examine upscaling possibilities at the very start of a project, considering the
viability of its business model, funding possibilities specific to upscaling, the use of standards and ways
to counter context sensitivity. Moreover, the overall vision of the planning process of public
institutions should transition towards an iterative and short-cycle approach. Finally, the empowerment
and inclusion of the citizens is shown to become increasingly important and should be considered in
smart city strategy development.
IV
V
Samenvatting
Het omvormen van een stad tot een “smart city” is een van de strategieën die steden gebruiken om
uitdagingen op het gebied van stedelijke planning aan te gaan. Hoe ziet deze strategie eruit? Dit
onderzoek verkent het antwoord op deze vraag. Het verbindt de meest recente studies op het gebied
van smart city strategie met de meest recente additionele bronnen en ontwikkelingen die beschikbaar
zijn. Op deze wijze brengt het onderzoek in beeld wat de overwegingen kunnen zijn bij het ontwerpen
van een smart city strategie en hoe deze te relateren aan de mogelijkheden voor het opschalen van
smart city pilotprojecten. Deze theorie is vervolgens toegepast op de steden Amsterdam (Nederland)
en Barcelona (Spanje), twee snelgroeiende steden die beiden het smart city concept op een eigen
manier benaderd hebben, met verschillende resultaten op het gebied van grootschalige
implementaties van smart city oplossingen als gevolg.
Dankzij haar solide technische infrastructuur en haar geïntegreerde top-down smart city plan heeft
Barcelona op verschillende terreinen technologische vooruitgang geboekt. Voorbeelden hiervan zijn
de vernieuwing van het busnetwerk, het gebruik van slimme verlichting en het plaatsen van sensoren
die gebruikt worden om het bewateringsysteem en de afvalinzameling te verbeteren. Amsterdam
daarentegen, gebruikt een bottom-up aanpak waarbij verschillende partijen samenwerken in een
platform. Deze werkwijze heeft geleid tot een omvangrijk aantal pilotprojecten in plaats van
grootschalige implementaties van smart city oplossingen. De pilotprojecten van Amsterdam zijn met
name gericht op ecologische duurzaamheid, terwijl de implementaties van Barcelona tot op heden
gericht waren op het verbeteren van de diensten voor haar inwoners door middel van een ‘technology-
push’ oriëntatie. De vernieuwde strategie van Barcelona verplaatst haar focus echter en richt zich meer
op sociale en ecologische duurzaamheid waarbij de inwoner centraal staat. Amsterdam, op haar beurt,
is op zoek naar manieren om een balans te vinden tussen de stedelijke bottom-up aanpak en de visie
van de overheid op het gebied van smart city projecten. Dit toont aan dat beide steden dichter bij
elkaar komen in termen van smart city strategie.
Het toepassen van de smart city theorie op de praktische ontwikkelingen in beide steden leidt tot een
aantal conclusies. Er is geen ‘one-size-fits-all’ raamwerk. Er is daarentegen wel ruimte voor richtlijnen
en standaarden. Elke individuele strategie leidt tot verschillende resultaten op het gebied van het
implementeren en opschalen van smart city oplossingen. Niet de technologie zelf wordt gezien als
probleem, maar de haalbaarheid van het verdienmodel, de management- of leiderschapsprocessen en
de mate van context afhankelijkheid van het project. Dit onderzoek beveelt aan de opschaal-
mogelijkheden van projecten vanaf het begin van het proces als thema te betrekken, daarbij rekening
VI
houdend met de haalbaarheid van het verdienmodel, het gebruik van standaarden en manieren om
context afhankelijkheid tegen te gaan. Daarnaast is het ook van belang dat de algehele visie en
benadering van overheidsinstanties zich meer richt op een iteratieve en kort-cyclische aanpak.
Tenslotte valt te constateren dat de betrokkenheid van inwoners steeds belangrijker wordt. Het is van
belang hier nadrukkelijk rekening mee te houden bij het ontwikkelen van een smart city strategie.
VII
Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem statement .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Goal ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Relevance ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Research outline ...................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2 – Literature review ............................................................................................ 4
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Strategy, factors and strategic choices .................................................................................... 4
2.3 Strategic frameworks .............................................................................................................. 5
2.4 Upscaling smart city pilot projects .......................................................................................... 8
2.5 Smart City Strategy & Upscaling ............................................................................................ 10
Chapter 3 – Methodology ............................................................................................... 11
3.1 Research process ................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Selection of case studies ....................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Operationalisation ................................................................................................................. 12
3.4 Research questions................................................................................................................ 13
Chapter 4 – Results: Barcelona and Amsterdam .............................................................. 14
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Strategic choices .................................................................................................................... 15
4.3 SMART Framework ................................................................................................................ 16
4.4 Smart City Reference Model ................................................................................................. 17
4.5 Smart City Strategy and Upscaling ........................................................................................ 23
4.6 Citizen Empowerment and Inclusion ..................................................................................... 25
4.7 Summary................................................................................................................................ 27
Chapter 5 – Conclusions and discussion ........................................................................... 29
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 29
5.2 Discussion, implications and suggestions for further research ............................................. 30
5.3 Reflection............................................................................................................................... 32
References ...................................................................................................................... 34
Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A – Summary of key sources and references .................................................................... 37
VIII
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.1 Introduction
As the world’s urban population is expected to grow significantly over the coming decades (United
Nations, 2011), cities face numerous challenges to manage such change, especially in relation to urban
planning. These challenges arise in the social, environmental and economical areas along with the
objective to improve the citizen’s quality of life. In order to counter these challenges, cities have to
define strategies. A commonly used strategy is to transform a city into a ’smart city’. The definition of
such a ‘smart city’ has been much debated on for over the past years, as thoroughly documented by
previous research (Cocchia, 2014; Hollands, 2008; Neirotti et al., 2014).
Due to the diverse range of contexts, sizes and resources of each city, a one-size-fits-all approach is
not the most effective one (Neirotti et al., 2014; Vanolo, 2013). Cities thus have to design their
individual strategy on how to become ‘smart’, specifically suited to their situation. As noted by
Angelidou (2016), a city that aspires to become ‘smart’ should have an integrated, forward-looking
strategic plan. This plan must define a vision and a methodology based on using digital technologies to
improve urban functions. The question thus becomes what such a ‘smart city strategy’ would look like.
1.2 Problem statement
Aside from the challenges surrounding the definition of a smart city and the ability to objectively
‘measure’ smart city initiatives (Cocchia, 2014; Dameri, 2016; Dameri & Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2014),
another point of debate relates to defining a strategy on how to become a smart city. Over the past
few years, in particular since the enormous growth of interested in smart cities starting in the year
2010, scientific research has discussed a wide range of discussions related to this concept.
Unfortunately, so far, the scientific community has dedicated only little efforts on the subject of smart
city strategies themselves (Angelidou, 2014; Bolici & Mora, 2015). This is also shown in practice by
several initiatives such as the “European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities” or
EIP-SCC (supported by the European Commission) which is working on a project that focuses on the
upscaling and replication of proven smart city solutions during the planning and development phases
of Smart Cities (EIP-SCC, 2016a).
Even though there is no ‘one-best-way’ of designing of such a smart and digital transformation
strategy, there is a definite need for a holistic and comprehensive framework which outlines the
different components of a smart city and which explains which steps should be followed to design such
a strategy (Bolici & Mora, 2015; Letaifa, 2015). It should be stressed that such a framework is not the
2
holy grail to becoming a smart city, and that it should be applied to each city individually depending
on all its contextual factors. It may however provide guidelines for cities to become smarter, and to
increase their successes in terms of larger scale and sustainable implementations of smart city pilot
projects, also referred to as ‘upscaling’.
1.3 Goal
The goal of this study is two-fold. First of all, it further consolidates smart city strategy research,
complemented with the most recent research available. It discusses the current theoretical
considerations in designing a smart city strategy, highlighting the elements of such a strategy and how
they are related to each other. As a result of this discussion, two frameworks based on Letaifa (2015)
and Zygiaris (2012) are further discussed. Moreover, related to the smart city strategy debate lies the
discussion on the possibilities of achieving large scale implementations based on smart city pilot
projects, or ‘upscaling’. The issue of upscaling smart city projects has not been highlighted specifically
in recent research but may be closely related to having a long-term strategic plan. The current gap
between smart city planning and upscaling is illustrated by this research. Based on Winden (2016), the
theory around upscaling smart city pilot projects is discussed.
A second goal of this study relates to applying the theory of the smart city strategy planning
frameworks in conjunction with the debate on upscaling to practical cases. More specifically, this study
applies the theoretical discussion to the cities of Barcelona (Spain) and Amsterdam (the Netherlands).
These cities have been selected because they are both highly ranked and fast growing cities, which
have many characteristics in common while taking a distinctively different approach to smart cities.
This difference in smart city strategy subsequently has led to contrasting results regarding the degree
of large scale smart city project implementations, as discussed in the next chapters. This research
analyses the current and future strategic plans of both cities, based on practical case studies conducted
previously by other researchers and complemented with various other secondary and recently
published sources. The information is consolidated and applied to smart city strategy frameworks and
subsequently linked to the possibilities of upscaling smart city pilot projects.
Finally, by applying practical case study examples to the theoretical debate, lessons learned can be
deduced and recommendations can be made for both cities and potentially for other cities to improve
their strategic approach in order become smarter cities.
3
1.4 Relevance
The insights provided by this research have both theoretical and practical implications. From a
theoretical point of view, the consolidation of the available smart city strategy literature
complemented with the latest available developments make this exploration valuable for future
research in an attempt to further clarify the debate on smart city strategy making and upscaling. By
applying the theory to the cities of Barcelona and Amsterdam, the frameworks gain more strength in
terms of validity. Additionally, by linking smart city strategy making to the possibilities of upscaling
smart initiatives to larger scale implementations, a new string of debate is opened up for further
research.
From a more practical point of view, this study is relevant to practitioners on multiple levels
(governmental institutions and practitioners in the field of technology and innovation) in multiple
ways. By using case studies from Barcelona and Amsterdam, practitioners can see how cities can
benefit from having a strategic plan in terms of becoming a smarter city through upscaling smart city
initiatives. By illustrating how cities formulate their strategies, and by showing the development of
specific cases within the two cities, recommendations can be given which are useful to both cities along
with other cities that aspire to become ‘smart’.
1.5 Research outline
The overall research question of this study is thus: “how have Barcelona and Amsterdam approached
the smart city concept in terms of strategic planning, and how has their approach impacted their ability
to upscale smart city pilot projects?”. This general research question is further refined in the third
chapter. To be able to compare and differentiate between distinctive strategic approaches, the next
chapter defines the concept of smart city strategy and it highlights the most important elements based
on the most recent research available. Moreover, the concept of ‘upscaling’ in relation to smart city
pilot projects is discussed in order to differentiate between the different results in both cities.
The third chapter explains the methodological approach that is taken in this research. The following
chapter subsequently applies the theory on smart city strategy and upscaling to specific cases found
in both Barcelona and Amsterdam. The fifth and final chapter then summarizes the results and forms
conclusions. It provides lessons learned from both the theoretical research along with developments
that were found in practice in both cities.
4
Chapter 2 – Literature review
2.1 Introduction
The previous chapter introduced the topic of this study by explaining how smart city strategy is a
subject which lacks extensive research. Moreover, the introduction also related the smart city strategy
to possibilities to upscale smart city pilot projects. In the current chapter, the debate on the concept
of smart city strategy and upscaling is further explored through a literature review. The most important
elements are highlighted, including the discussion of two frameworks for developing a smart city
strategy as well as the latest developments on upscaling smart city initiatives research.
2.2 Strategy, factors and strategic choices
Strategic planning for smart city planning still remains an abstract idea (Angelidou, 2014). One of the
reasons for this lies in the multi- and interdisciplinary challenges that such a planning process inevitably
comes with.
Charoubi et al. (2012) explain this further by outlining factors that are essential to envisioning smart
cities. These factors are grouped into eight
clusters: management and organization,
technology, governance, policy, people and
communities, the economy, built
infrastructure and finally the natural
environment. The two layers, as illustrated
by Figure 1, represent the difference in
impact or influence the factors have. They
indicate that technology, management and
policy are most directly influential on the
success of smart city initiatives.
Angelidou (2014) approaches smart city strategic planning by outlining four strategic choices which
can be made when developing smart cities. The first strategic choice relates to having a national or
local strategy. In case of a national strategy, the focus lies on country or nation level whereas a local
strategy focusses more on neighbourhoods, municipalities, cities, a metropolitan area or possibly even
a region. The main advantages of a local strategy include the ability to respond accurately to local
demand and to flexibly manage the initiatives with local partners. In such a strategy however, cities
Figure 1 Smart City success factors framework by Charoubi et al. (2012)
5
will need to find a way to align their local level strategies with those developed at a more national
level.
The second strategic choice as defined by Angelidou (2014) refers to the urban development stage of
the city, either being existing or a new city (also called ‘greenfield cities’ or ‘planned cities’). Generally
speaking, the more developed countries in the world are focussed more on regenerating urban areas
rather than developing new cities. In the developing countries however, opportunities arise to design
a new city from scratch since this allows for the development of a smart city vision from its inception,
the integration into the physical design of all infrastructure and perhaps most important, the ability to
replicate standard approaches. Developing from an existing city point of view however provides the
opportunity to use open innovation techniques, including an active ecosystem of stakeholders.
Challenges in existing cities relate to the complexity in managing the ecosystem of stakeholders, the
already present infrastructure which may be outdated and finally the prioritisation of ‘issues’ that need
to be addressed in the city.
A third strategic choice which can be made when developing a smart city concerns the difference
between hard and soft infrastructure oriented strategies. In the case of a soft infrastructure strategy,
the focus lies on enhancing social and human capital, knowledge, inclusion, participation, social
innovation and so on, whereas in a hard infrastructure strategy, the focus lies on improving areas such
as transport, water, waste and energy systems. The majority of research however states that
technology (hard infrastructure) is not enough and that cites need to take advantage of all human
capital and knowledge that is available.
Finally, the fourth and final strategic choice which can be made when developing a smart city concerns
the reference area, which can be either economic sector-based on geographically based. In the first
approach, which is considered to be the mainstream approach, cities aim to become smart by
enhancing socio-economic aspects of everyday life (business, housing, commerce, governance,
education, and so on). A geographically based reference area focusses on geographically-determined
districts and clusters such as business districts, education areas, research and development clusters or
specific smaller areas such as neighbourhoods.
2.3 Strategic frameworks
Both the success factors (Charoubi et al., 2012) and the strategic choices (Angelidou, 2014) as outlined
above clarify the different considerations that policy makers can make in order to transform cities into
smarter cities. They however do not provide guidance on the overall strategic process, referring to the
6
designing and implementation of a strategy to transform cities into smart cities. In the following
section, two frameworks are discussed which do contribute to clarifying such strategic process.
These two framework are both different and provide individual insights in possible approaches to
planning a smart city strategy. The ‘SMART framework’ by Letaifa (2015) for example describes the
strategic planning of a smart city as a process, whereas the ‘Smart City Reference Model’ by Zygriaris
(2013) consists of various layers which can each be approached individually and which together form
the elements for an overall smart city strategy.
2.3.1 SMART Framework
Based on an extensive literature and inductive qualitative research in three major cities (Montreal,
London and Stockholm), Letaifa (2015) developed a SMART framework to illustrate how these cities
have designed their smart city strategy. It should be noted that even though the three cities all follow
a similar strategizing process, each city has a distinctive strategy corresponding to the city’s vision,
identity and values.
SMART, in this framework, is an acronym for Strategy, Multidisciplinarity, Appropriation, Roadmap and
Technology and they represent the strategic phases that a city may go through. The ‘strategy’ phase
refers to the designing and steering of a common vision for the city, which requires strong leadership
and a thorough understanding of the community. This phase is followed by ‘multidisciplinarity’ which
is about the mobilisation of resources in various areas and from various stakeholders in order to
support the smart city co-creation process. Next is the appropriation phase which focusses on gaining
social acceptability to ensure project adoption and success. This is usually done by providing creative
playgrounds. After this phase, a roadmap phase details the workflow on how to transform the city.
Finally, to put implement this roadmap, transformative technologies are required. It is interesting to
note that Letaifa (2015) explicitly mentions the position of technology as being after the definition of
the strategic plan and clarification of objectives, along with the comment that technology should not
be a goal in itself.
Finally, the elements of the SMART model each belong to a specific level: macro, mezzo or micro. The
definition of a strategy and mobilizing multidisciplinary resource belong to the macro level, whereas
the appropriation and roadmap phase belong to the mezzo level. The technological transformation
then belongs to the final level, the micro level. Figure 2 illustrates this model.
7
2.3.2 Smart City Reference Model
In order to create a holistic framework which includes conceptions, policies and processes related to
smart city planning, Zygiaris (2012) developed a Smart City Reference Model. This model consists of
seven layers, which each highlight important aspects of smart city strategy and its interrelation. It is
important to note that this model can be applied to a city individually and independently since each
layer can be tailored to the local features and priorities of a city. Based on Zygiaris (2012), the seven
layers are briefly summarised in Table 1.
# Layer name Description of the layer
0 The City
Context of a city determining its ability to absorb smart features.
Elements include the city’s urban infrastructure, its governance and
urban planning processes, as well as its overall identity and vision.
1 The Green City Layer The sustainable focus of a city referring to a city’s vision, goals and the
environmental impact of ‘smart’ solutions.
2 The Interconnection Layer The innovation support capacity of cities through physical internet
infrastructure and its ability to connect communities, sectors, devices,
etc.
3 The Instrumentation Layer The ‘hardware’ layer of cities, comprised of its real-time connection
outlets such as various sensors and meters which provide real-time data.
Figure 2 Partial SMART Framework. Adapted from Letaifa (2015)
8
4 The Open Integration Layer Referring to the provision of open and distributed information storage,
for all available systems implemented with different technologies.
5 The Application Layer Combining the different layers, creating intelligence and optimizing the
use of the real-time data stream assets provided by cities.
6 The Innovation Layer The positioning of a city to become an attractive innovation hub for doing
business, including its social relations in networks and communities.
Table 1 Smart City Reference Model by Zygiaris (2012)
As shown in Table 1, The City Layer (Layer 0) refers to a city’s urban resources, structures, services,
stakeholders and overall ecosystem. In this layer the innovative character of the ecosystems is not
necessarily related to being smart. In layer 6 however, The Innovation Layer, the innovative character
shows as it uses the resources of the other layers in between (Layers 1 to 5). Zygiaris (2012) thus
concludes that the planning agenda starts from the city’s readiness to implement smart policies.
2.4 Upscaling smart city pilot projects
Notably, the strategy literature discussed so far does not appear to include any elements relating to
the upscaling of smart city project initiatives. The ability to move from smart city pilot projects to large
scale implementations in cities remains a problem, recognised by both the academic world as well as
in practice, and is crucial for a city to sustain its growth toward becoming a smarter city (Deloitte, 2015;
Schaffers et al., 2011; Winden, 2016).
Projects appear to be built specifically suitable to match a local demand. When attempting to
transform the local project into a city wide implementation, various issues arise in terms of funding,
conflicting interests from the already established parties, non-supportive legislation, regulation or
policy frameworks, as well as the lack of capacity in terms of manpower, skills and systems (Winden,
2016). As suggested by both scientific research (Angelidou 2014; Winden, 2016) and practice (Deloitte,
2015; EIP-SCC, 2016), it is important for smart city strategies to include plans on how to upscale smart
city initiatives right from the start of the planning process in order for the pilot to be successful and in
order to support and sustain the city’s growth on the long run.
Through a review of three strands of literature (transition management, business studies and
development studies), Winden (2016) proposes a distinction between three types of upscaling in smart
city projects: roll-out, expansion and replication. It is important to note that these types of upscaling
9
are different but not mutually exclusive as a project may scale into different directions at the same
time.
2.4.1 Roll-out
The first type of upscaling, roll-out, refers to a situation in which technologies, product or solutions are
easily adoptable because they do not challenge the current state-of-the-start. As such, projects that fit
in this situation can be brought to the market (market roll-out), applied widely in an organisation
(organisational roll-out) or applied to an entire city (city roll-out). In this type of upscaling, new
partnerships or major behavioural or organizational changes are not required, and no significant
modifications to the solution have to be made before they can be further implemented. Barriers in the
form of regulations and legal restraints are usually the limiting factor. Issues may arise from the need
for operational resources and funding (especially because of European procurement regulations).
2.4.2 Expansion
Another type of upscaling, expansion, refers to a situation where the solution is not a single product
controlled by one organisation, but instead it is a co-production that highly depends on a close
alignment of partners. This type of upscaling can be achieved by in several ways: by adding partners,
by enlarging the geographical area covered by the solution or by adding functionality to the solution.
Expansion comes with some complications since the solution was developed by partners, thus
increasing transaction and coordination costs when trying to expand due to the need for negotiations.
2.4.3 Replication
Replication, the final type of upscaling, is the most problematic one of the three types. In this situation,
a pilot project solution is replicated in another context (organisation, part of the city, another city). As
a result of a new context, the replication process becomes complex (for example due to legal,
organisational or partner reasons. Moreover, the solution is never the exact copy of the original pilot
project and needs to re-designed in order for it to be applied to the new context. The lack of standards
in Smart Cities is the main reason why replication becomes complex in this case, along with issues in
knowledge transfer and communications.
These three types of upscaling are graphically illustrated in Figure 3, by plotting them against the
context sensitivity of each type. “Replication”, for example shows the highest extent of context
sensitivity whereas “roll-out” shows the lowest extent of context sensitivity.
10
Figure 3 Types of upscaling. Reprinted from Winden (2016, p. 8).
2.5 Smart City Strategy & Upscaling
As noted, the ability to upscale smart city pilot projects remains an important issue as illustrated by
initiatives started by the EIP-SCC (EIP-SCC, 2016a) as well as theoretical research. Upscaling is closely
related to smart city strategy. This relation originates from the key factors, the lessons learned from
previous upscaling experiences in the focal city. These lessons learned should be incorporated in smart
city strategy, especially in the discussions on implementing solutions on larger scale.
The relationship between smart city strategy and upscaling is also illustrated by a recent development
within the EIP-SCC (2016b), in which two initiatives have joined forces. One which focused on upscaling
and replication and the other which focused on the planning and implementation of smart city
strategies. Moreover, the close relation between the two fields is also confirmed by the preliminary
results of currently ongoing research by the EIP-SCC and JPI-Urban Europe (M. Noll, personal
communication, November 16, 2016), suggesting a need to plan upscaling from the start of a project.
11
Chapter 3 – Methodology
3.1 Research process
The first goal of this research consist of reviewing the available literature on strategic smart city
planning and its relation to upscaling smart city pilot projects, as well as applying this theory to practice
by using case studies in the cities of Barcelona and Amsterdam. In order to do so, approximately 25
scientific journals are referenced (all published in scholar journals and peer-reviewed), complemented
with numerous other papers such as working papers, conference papers and other publications (such
as press releases), which date back from as recent as weeks to a few months old and will therefore
contain the most recent debates on the main topics central to this research. As the smart city concept
is developing at a high pace, primarily scientific references from the past three years (2013 and more
recent) are used. The majority of secondary sources that are used are from the present year (2016).
In addition, some references are made to information collected in the form of personal
communications from practitioners and researchers in the smart city field, most of whom were present
during the Smart City Expo World Congress 2016 in Barcelona. Some of the personal communications
were collected during a workshop organized by the EIP-SCC and which took place during the congress.
This workshop consisted of discussions between people working in public administration, researchers,
businesses, NGOs and so on. The aim was to identify bottlenecks, ways forward and concepts to move
from demonstration and pilots to larger scale implementation (further discussed in Appendix A). These
personal communications provided additional insights as well as acknowledgements of the recent
research and developments in the field of smart city strategy and upscaling.
To apply the theoretical discussion to practice, scientific and non-scientific studies on both cities are
used and these are supported by additional sources from various different interest groups in the smart
city ecosystem of both cities. The theoretical debate is applied by outlining specific developments in
both cities, which show the different approaches both cities take and how these different approaches
impact the results in terms of being able to upscale their smart city initiatives.
3.2 Selection of case studies
Barcelona and Amsterdam are both cities which have invested and continue to invest in smart city
strategies. Over the past years, Amsterdam has consistently been ranked in the top 10 of Europe’s
smartest cities (IESE, 2016), and both cities have won various awards in the smart city field including
the European Capital of Innovation (iCapital) award for Barcelona in 2014 and for Amsterdam in 2016
(European Commission, 2016a). Moreover, both cities have extensive documentation available in the
12
form of previously conducted scientific research along with various other secondary sources which
provide valuable insights.
To further illustrate the differences between both cities in terms of smart city strategy and upscaling,
specific developments (strategy making processes, pilot projects, debates in both theory and practice,
etc.) from both cities are discussed. This selection is based on the applicability of the theory on the
practical example as well as the availability of information on these specific developments. When
analysing each element of the frameworks in relation to the practical examples, several considerations
are made. First of all, after collecting numerous case study examples the most relevant are selected
based on the presence of the elements described by theory. Secondly, a comparison is made to assess
whether or not a similar practical example was present in the other city. Finally, the practical example
is also selected based on its relevance to upscaling in particular.
3.3 Operationalisation
Throughout this research, three main topics are discussed: “smart cities”, “smart city strategy” and
“upscaling”. In order to avoid confusion, and to be clear about the meaning of each of these topics, a
definition is given of each of them, which is subsequently consistently used throughout the remainder
of this research.
The definition of a smart city is a much debated one as illustrated by an extensive literature review by
Cocchia (2014) and as of yet there is no widely accepted definition of a smart city but in general it is
agreed that smart city initiatives aim to improve the integration of information technology with the
city to improve urban services or the quality of life (Angelidou, 2016; Cocchia, 2014; Winden et al.,
2016). Moreover, Angelidou (2016) identified four main characteristics (with underlying domains):
central role of technology, human and social capital advancement, business sector advancement and
networking. These characteristics are also resembled in the Smart City Reference model by Zygiaris
(2012) as outlined above, and this is also scope through which the ‘smart city’ is defined in this
research.
The definition of a smart city is important because it determines how cities approach the concept, and
subsequently how they define their strategic approach. As shown in the next chapter, both cities define
smart cities differently and therefore their approach to the development of such a city is distinctive.
Moreover, Winden at al. (2016) started a discussion on the definition of a smart city project, arguing
in favour of developing a more precise terminology to distinguish among different types of projects.
Such a differentiation between different types of projects is not made in the present research.
13
The second concept, “smart city strategy”, in the context of this research refers to how cities approach
the concept of ‘smart cities’. Due to the mulitidiscplinarity of smart cities, a city’s approach can be
outlined in various ways such as by using the two frameworks from Letaifa (2015) and Zygiaris (2012),
discussed in the previous chapter. This includes the vision of a city as well as its ‘plan’, which in turn
consists of various other components. These frameworks are used in this research in order to be able
to make a comparison between both cities.
Finally, based on Winden (2016) and Deloitte (2015), the definition that is used for upscaling is the
ability to transition from smart city pilot projects to larger scale implementations in areas outside of
the initial experiment context. The distinction of Winden (2016) between the three different types of
upscaling (roll-out, expansion and replication) as outlined in the previous chapter are also used in this
research.
3.4 Research questions
The overall research question of this research is: “how have Barcelona and Amsterdam approached
the smart city concept in terms of strategic planning, and how has their approach impacted their ability
to upscale smart city pilot projects initiatives?”. This question can be further refined and divided into
further sub-questions, them being:
Smart City Strategy
- How do Barcelona and Amsterdam approach the concept of smart cities?
- How are these strategies similar and how are they different?
Upscaling
- To what extent are both cities currently able to upscale their pilot projects?
- How has their individual approach impacted the ability to upscale smart city pilot projects?
Recommendations
- What are the recommendations for both Barcelona and Amsterdam to improve their ability to
upscale smart city pilot projects?
- What other recommendations can be made to cities in general who aspire to become smart in
relation to smart city strategy and upscaling?
14
Chapter 4 – Results: Barcelona and Amsterdam
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapters have outlined the current debates around smart city strategy, how smart city
strategy can be formed and how it relates to the concept of upscaling. In the current chapter, the
theoretical debate on smart city strategy and upscaling is applied to two cities. Amsterdam, the capital
of the Netherlands, and Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia in Spain. With populations of respectively
nearly 800,000 and more than 1,600,000 (United Nations, 2014), both cities face numerous urban
challenges related to urban planning.
Even though both cities may appear to be similar in various smart city areas, such as the amount of
smart city initiatives and number of characteristics associated with such an initiative (Manville et al.,
2014), they do significantly differ in terms of smart city strategy. Amsterdam for example embraces a
bottom-up strategy, based on smart growth, start-ups, liveability and digital social innovation through
its Amsterdam Smart City platform, founded in 2009 (European Commission, 2016b; Letaifa, 2015).
Barcelona on the other hand, designed a comprehensive top-down smart city master plan which
includes both technology and efficiency-oriented targets, as well as human capital advancement
through the development of the knowledge economy (Angelidou, 2015).
Recent developments however show that both cities are moving closer together in terms of their
strategic approach for developing their cities. During the Smart City Expo World Congress of 2016, First
Deputy Mayor, Gerardo Pisarello, and the Technology & Digital Innovation Commissioner of Barcelona,
Francesca Bria, presented Barcelona’s city vision for 2017-2020. This vision is based on four themes:
Barcelona as a Common City, as a Democratic City, as a Circular City and finally as a Creative City. In
strong contrast with their previous approach taken over the past years, a technology push drive, the
current vision actively focusses on democratic principles, involving all citizens, promoting socio-
economic growth and citizen empowerment, as well dealing with social issues relating to tourism and
gentrification. Their goal is to take more advantage of open data and public innovation (Ajuntament
de Barcelona, 2016a).
Moreover, Ger Baron, CTO of Amsterdam, discussed the city’s vision for the next few years which
focusses even more on the participation of the citizens as well as the inclusion of start-ups and small
and medium enterprises (SMEs), rather than the larger corporations (Baron, G., personal
communication, November 15, 2016). He noted that the government needs several transformations
in order to support and embrace this vision of including smaller parties to take a lead in contributing
15
to smart city initiatives. In a way, the call for a more defined vision by the government can be
recognised here. This is supported by the fact that within the government of Amsterdam, a cross-
department group is writing some programs and plans focussing on circular economy and smart
mobility (Osieck, M., personal communication, November 15, 2016). Amsterdam’s circular economy
program for 2016-2018, with a perspective on the goals for 2025, has been published in mid-December
of 2016 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016c).
Further differences between the individual approaches of each city are now outlined by going through
the theoretical frameworks discussed in the second chapter. In each individual element of the
frameworks, a comparison is made between the two cities, thereby showing the overlap as well as the
contrasts that exist between the two approaches.
4.2 Strategic choices
Regarding the first two choices described by Angelidou (2014), having either a national or local strategy
and being a new or an existing city, both Barcelona and Amsterdam are similar. They both have very
specific local focus by first assessing the initial state of the city’s digital status and defining the needs
and priorities. Both cities assign specific areas of the city to experiment and locate smart city pilot
projects, within the geographical limits of the city.
Additionally, both cities make use of the existing resources such as its infrastructure. An example is
Amsterdam’s Climate Street project which encompassed the implementation of several smart and
energy-saving technologies in the street, such as smart meters, energy displays and smart lighting. In
Barcelona, the neighbourhood of Poblenou was transformed into Barcelona’s Urban Living Lab, the
22@Barcelona district (Capdevila & Zarlenga 2015). Moreover, Barcelona’s extensive fibre-optic
infrastructure served as the foundation for the large scale implementations of smart city related
technologies in the areas of water irrigation, energy and waste management and mobility. Finally, both
cities have also been working on classifying current developments and innovations in the city, to then
assess whether or not they can be considered to be part of the ‘smart city’ umbrella (M. Osieck,
personal communication, November 15, 2016).
The third strategic choice described by Angelidou (2014) refers to the difference between hard and
soft-infrastructure orientation. As discussed later on, Barcelona’s strategy thus far has resulted in
major advancements in the hard-infrastructure areas. Its redesign of the transit system, the use of
smart lighting, the placement of sensors, water irrigation as well as heating and cooling systems are
examples of this (Data-Smart City Solutions, 2016). The soft-infrastructure orientation has been
16
somewhat underbalanced but present nonetheless. Through enabling and facilitating collaborations
between the public and private sector as well as the development of an innovation ecosystem, the city
utilises knowledge as the core of economic growth. Its renewed digital city vision for the years is far
more oriented towards enhancing the city’s soft-infrastructure. Compared to Barcelona, Amsterdam’s
approach is more balanced between hard and soft-infrastructure orientation, with a stronger focus on
the latter. This is already evident from the Amsterdam Smart City platform, a public-private
partnership elaborated upon in the next section. In addition, the city closely collaborates with various
interest parties and above all its citizens. Moreover, it is has set up a new knowledge institute
(Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions) which is also elaborated upon later.
In terms of the last strategic choice outlined by Angelidou (2014), having a sector-based versus a
geographically based reference area, both cities are similar. Both Barcelona and Amsterdam aim to
transform specific economic sectors focussing on enhancing socio-economic aspects of everyday living
(such as businesses, housing, governance, and education) regardless of its geography. The presence of
a more historic city centre in both cities also means that these geographical areas (on a local level) gain
specific attention in that these areas are more complicated to transform due to its complex
infrastructures (this compared to areas which are already undergoing urban renewal).
4.3 SMART Framework
As outlined before, the SMART framework is divided into three strategic levels: macro, mezzo and
micro. In this application of the framework to Barcelona and Amsterdam, only the macro level is
considered as these are most relevant to the topic of this study. The other levels become more
interesting when focussing on specific projects. The macro level consists of two strategic steps as
defined by Letaifa (2015): strategy definition and mobilizing multidisciplinary actors and resources.
With regard to the strategy definition, Amsterdam in particular is driven by both a European and a
subsequent national translation of the sustainability goals as set out by the European Commission.
These goals are subsequently transformed into specific ambitions or goals for the city, in this case set
out by the Amsterdam Economic Board (AEB, 2015). While these goals drive the roadmap and while
they provide some guidance, the majority of the smart city initiatives in Amsterdam start through the
Amsterdam Smart City Platform which contains user initiated proposals or ongoing projects. So far,
130 official partners are linked to the platform and more than a hundred projects have been initiated
(personal communication, Osieck, M., November 15, 2016) The platform therefore serves as space
which connects all interested stakeholders in order to launch the projects as pilots. The team of
Amsterdam Smart City then assesses these different projects in order to identify those which are
17
suitable for larger scale implementations. The government itself is therefore not strictly guiding the
development of smart city initiatives, but it can play different roles in smart city project such as being
the initiator, facilitator, financer or customer (Winden et al, 2016). Moreover, Ger Baron stated that
the main challenge for a government, and in particular the city of Amsterdam, lies in the need of
changing the planning culture. An example is taking more of a six-months iterative approach rather
than the usual three or four-year cycle approach (Fast Moving Targets, 2014; Baron, G., personal
communication, November 14, 2016). This need is also recognized by Bolici and Mora (2015).
In contrast, the city of Barcelona took a different approach back in 2011, when mayor Xavier Trias
decided to design a single strategy for the city (Mora & Bolici, 2016). Part of this strategy was the
formation of a dedicated department in the government, Area Urban Habitat, which combined all the
departments dedicated to planning, infrastructure, housing, urban services and environment. Their
Smart City plan was included in their overall strategic framework of the city, which was aligned with
several other regional and European strategies. As described extensively by Mora & Bolici (2016), the
procedure leading to the implementation of any project was structured in a precise manner, defining
the needs, objectives, scope and functional requirements. The acceptance of such project was then
decided upon by the political body. Citizens were called upon to propose and carry out project ideas.
Finally, and notably in contrast with Amsterdam’s approach, Barcelona’s strategy was based on a
continuous process of review and change, rather than closed phases, especially during the
development stages.
Considering the mulltidisciplinarity step of the SMART framework, both cities involve stakeholders
from various backgrounds. In the case of Barcelona, the Urban Habitat department is formed by
stakeholders from the different sectors which are involved in smart city initiatives. Amsterdam’s
platform connects all stakeholders involved such as public organisations (e.g. the city administration),
private companies, utilities, non-governmental organisations (e.g. associations), knowledge
institutions and citizens, thereby bringing together people with different expertise and backgrounds.
Citizen involvement and further co-creation processes are not directly present in the majority of
Barcelona’s smart city projects. Having said that, some initiatives such as the Open Data initiative was
initiated through citizen input (March & Ribera-Fumaz, 2014). The topic of citizen’s empowerment and
inclusion within smart city projects is further discussed in the final section of this chapter.
4.4 Smart City Reference Model
To further illustrate the differences in strategic approach between Barcelona and Amsterdam, the
Smart City Reference Model by Zygiaris (2012) is now applied to these cities.
18
0 - The City Layer
The city of Amsterdam is characterised by historic infrastructures. For example, Amsterdam’s
electricity grid dates back to the period in time during which the city had its own electrical department
and its own telephone utility. Tis grid is still used to switch the streetlights on and off. Since this system
is analogue, implementing smart lighting initiatives would require major investments to make them
use IP connections. Moreover, the power utility has been privatized in the 1990s and any change to
the lightning system would require negotiation with the companies managing the street lights. The city
also has various other locations, more commonly outside the city centre, which are currently
undergoing urban renewal and which therefore do provide more possibilities to conduct smart city
pilot projects. Examples are IJburg, Amsterdam-Noord and the Green Living Lab in Amsterdam Zuid (an
area in the south of Amsterdam).
Barcelona on the other hand has more possibilities to make fundamental changes to its infrastructures
as it has various areas which are undergoing far-reaching urban renewal processes (such as
22@Barcelona in Poblenou). Since the Olympic Games in 1992, the city has undergone city-wide
reforms and has regenerated under-developed areas. It has followed an integrated planning approach,
combining various underlying plans (such as the Industrial Heritage Protection Plan) into a holistic and
comprehensive city renewal approach. Moreover, the area of Eixample is considered to be a district
with high-quality architecture egalitarian design, while still providing ease of access to the underlying
infrastructure (Zygiaris, 2012).
1 - The Green City Layer
Aside from their focus on Open Data, Amsterdam’s other primary area of interest relates to
environmental sustainability. The city’s strategy is strongly driven by several goals relating to increasing
energy efficiency, reducing CO2 emissions and creating an overall more sustainable way of living in the
city (AEB, 2015; Angelidou, 2016; Fitzgerald, 2016; Zygiaris, 2012). These goals are agreed upon in
Amsterdam’s Sustainability Agenda (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016b) which outlines how the city aims
to achieve those goals. Examples are the use of renewable energy sourced from solar panels and wind
turbines, as well as its goal to achieve as much emission free traffic as possible by 2025. Another
notable recent development is the creation of Green Living Lab, located in the nature in the southern
area of Amsterdam (Amsterdam Zuid). It is a place where scientists, entrepreneurs and creatives meet
to explore, stimulate and promote healthy urban living (http://www.greenlivinglab.org/).
19
Through several large scale implementations of smart technologies, Barcelona has achieved significant
energy, waste, and water savings as discussed in the third layer of the framework. The city deals with
an increasing amount of air and noise pollution, mostly as a result of traffic. It has therefore presented
a new mobility plan that outlines 58 measures which are to be applied between the years of 2017 and
2020 (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016b). The measures are similar to that of Amsterdam and include
setting up low emissions zones, restrictions on the most polluting vehicles, the promotion of public
transport and traffic calming, as well as the development of so-called superblocks and the triplication
of the amount of bike lanes. Barcelona’s new digital city strategy also targets sustainability through
the theme of ‘Barcelona as a Circular City’. It must be noted however, that this strategy is more
oriented towards social sustainability (such as reducing the digital divide) in comparison to
Amsterdam, which in turn is more oriented towards environmental sustainability (such as reducing
CO2 emissions).
2 - The Interconnection Layer
The innovation support capacity of Barcelona is supported by a strong physical internet structure. The
foundations of this infrastructure lies in the 500 kilometres of fibre optic cable within the city. This
network was initiated approximately 30 years ago, when the city connected two municipal buildings
through (early) fibre technology, and has now provided 90 percent fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) coverage
while serving as a backbone for the city’s smart city systems (Data-Smart City Solutions, 2016).
Moreover, the Barcelona Wi-Fi service allows residents and visitors to connect to the internet using
strategically placed Wi-Fi access points throughout the city.
Amsterdam started the development of its fibre network in 2005, at which time fibre was only sparsely
used in public uses such as a metro network. The city faced, and is still facing, numerous challenges in
the densest parts of the city (the centre), as initial architectural decisions did not consider the need for
this type of wiring. The city provides full high-speed broadband coverage through fibre-to-premise
along with other technologies such as VDSL. In other areas of the city, the implementation of FTTH is
further developed and still ongoing. In addition, by the end of 2015, the Netherlands reached a nearly
universal national LTE coverage, allowing 99.6% of the homes to make use of this high-speed mobile
network (European Commission, 2016c). Moreover, the Amsterdam Internet Exchange (AMS-IX) is the
second biggest internet exchange point in the world (based on data throughput), making the city a
highly important player in the internet infrastructure worldwide.
20
3 - The Instrumentation Layer
Through its fibre network, Barcelona in particular has been able to build out individual Internet of
Things systems across urban services through its large scale implementation of sensors, actuators and
other technologies. Examples can be found in waste management (smart waste bins that monitor
waste levels and optimize collection routes, along with possibilities to detect potentially hazardous
materials), water irrigation (remotely sensing and controlling water irrigation in parks, allowing to
adjust irrigation levels in specific areas of the park) and smart lighting (the transformation of more
than 1,100 lampposts to use LED while also serving as a host for sensors and other services such as a
Wi-Fi hotspot) (Data-Smart City Solutions, 2016).
Amsterdam in turn focusses on innovative technologies for energy consumption monitoring and
renewable energy production (Angelidou, 2016). As a world leader in encouraging alternatives to car
travel and in its electric vehicle infrastructure, possibilities for innovative solutions are present in smart
mobility. As of late 2015, the city is using GPS data from an Amsterdam-based navigation software and
technology provider to help manage traffic flow in real-time (Fitzgerald, 2016). Though not as largely
scaled as in Barcelona, Amsterdam has also implemented smart lighting in several areas. Characterised
by using bicycles as a common mode of transport, the city also has several pilots running which
implement technologies such as solar panels and smart lighting into bike lines. A recent example is a
pilot running in the port area of Amsterdam, which tests bicycle paths that are lit by a highly innovative
system that runs on solar energy and wind energy generated on-site (Port of Amsterdam, 2016).
Through a mobile application, cyclists will be able to adjust the intensity of LED lighting themselves,
depending on the time of year and the weather conditions.
4 - The Open Integration Layer
Both cities developed various platforms which provide access to open and distributed data, allowing
its visitors to use it for further applications such as mobile applications. Barcelona for instance has
created two platforms: “OpenDataBCN” and “Transparencia”. The first platform provides access to a
large collection of data from various field such as population, economy and business, urban
environment and so on. The second is a platform created to provide transparency in all on-going
projects of the Barcelona City Council. It could be considered a hub which provides its visitors links to
information and documents that give information on all kinds of relevant topics related to the
government (regulations, plans, updates, etc.). Similarly, Amsterdam also has a platform dedicated to
Open Data which provides access to the data collected by the government as well as other various
organisations such as commercial companies, associations and public institutions. Moreover, it actively
21
supports the development of further applications based on this data through an initiative called
DataLab.
Barcelona is planning on taking the collection and integration of data one step further. As outlined by
the theme ‘Barcelona as a Common City’ in their strategy for 2017-2010 (Ajuntament de Barcelona,
2016a). This theme contains a project which focusses on the development of “an open, distributed and
public infrastructure of city data, at the same time as developing a strategy that involves citizens,
companies, communities and the academic world, with a clear policy that promotes democracy.”
(Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016a). This project includes a platform, CityOS, which serves as tool to
manage and analyse the city’s data, in addition to the data collected from Sentilo (the city’s sensor and
actuator platform).
In December 2016, both Barcelona and Amsterdam will start with a 3-year pilot project called DECODE
(Decentralised Citizens Owned Data Ecosystem), which is a platform where citizens can manage the
access of their personal online information to third parties (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016a; personal
communication, Bria, F., November 25, 2016). This platform is financed by the European Horizon 2020
plan and will be further refined and tested by entrepreneurs, hackers, and other stakeholders in the
innovation field through ‘Hackatons’ and other ‘Open Challenges’. In addition, over the next years,
Barcelona will be starting with various other pilots that have privacy by design in mind (personal
communication, Bria, F., November 25, 2016; Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016a).
5 - The Application Layer
In the application of the open data, both cities are rather similar as well. They offer numerous
applications which make use of the various sources of information provided by the open data
platforms. For example, both cities offer applications in several areas such as transit and parking
services (Data-Smart City Solutions, 2016; Fitzgerald, 2016; Zygiaris, 2012). More specifically, in the
Netherlands (and thus Amsterdam), the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railways) has recently
included a ‘trainradar’ in their mobile application, allowing users to view in near real-time exactly
where each train in the Netherlands is currently riding, what type of train it is, what the specific train
is composed of (how many carriages for instance) along with its trajectory and corresponding stops
(Nederlandse Spoorwegen, 2016). Moreover, Amsterdam’s focus on sustainable solutions is also found
in the presence of (and favourable regulations regarding) electric vehicles and its charging stations.
22
In Barcelona, in addition to the city’s free Wi-Fi network, numerous bus stops are equipped with
several technological services such as QR codes to download transit apps, interactive screens and USB
ports to charge mobile devices. The city also makes great use of its data collected through sensors and
other sources for example by having an optimized waste collection route (based on the sensor data
gathered from the waste containers), as well as the data gathered from its ‘Bicing’ service (its bicycle
sharing platform) to optimize the availability of bicycles at their ‘Bicing’ stations. In both cities, smart
city applications are continuously growing and expanding.
6 - The Innovation Layer
Barcelona and Amsterdam are similar in that both cities provide an environment for smart city
initiatives to grow. Amsterdam is an attractive place to do business because of its stable and growing
economic climate along with a relatively stable political situation. The advantageous regulations and
support for start-ups makes Amsterdam an attractive city to start doing business. Similarly, though
putting less focus on capital attractiveness (Angelidou, 2016), Barcelona also provides numerous
opportunities for social collaboration and has become the European city with the highest density of
co-working spaces per inhabitant and one of the main hubs for co-working in Europe. (Capdevila &
Zarlenga, 2015). A specific example in relation to this is ‘Barcelona Activa’, an organisation responsible
for the promotion of economic development of the city as well as for designing and implementing
employment policies for citizens (Barcelona Activa, 2016). Moreover, Barcelona is known for its
position as a host for numerous technology-oriented congresses such as the Mobile World Congress,
the Smart City Expo World Congress and the Internet of Things World Congress.
Differences exist in terms of the city’s political and economic climate. Barcelona in general has suffered
more from the economic depression starting in 2008 compared to Amsterdam (Charnock et al., 2014;
March & Ribera-Fumaz, 2014). Moreover, the political stability in Barcelona (partly related to
Catalonia’s wish to become independent) is lacking compared to Amsterdam’s more stable political
situation. Both cities have however succeeded in developing and executing a smart city strategy in
their own way. Moreover, Barcelona’s digital city approach for the next few years seems to address
several of the upscaling barriers that are discussed in the next section.
The transformation of the Poblenou neighbourhood into an innovative district which houses facilities
for intensive knowledge-based activities is one of the results of Barcelona’s strategic approach that
was taken thus far (Zygiaris, 2012). It serves as an urban living laboratory to test new technological
solutions. The economic relevance to Barcelona’s own citizens is however debatable (Capdevila &
23
Zarlenga, 2015; March & Ribera-Fumaz, 2014), especially since it was financed by 230 million dollars
of the taxpayer’s funds. As part of Barcelona’s new Digital City strategy, it is planning on launching a
network called “DSI4BCN”, Digital Social Innovation for Barcelona, which brings together social
entrepreneurs, hackers, communities and academics working in areas such as the collaborative
economy, open democracy, citizen participation and digital rights (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016a).
In Amsterdam, a notable development related to the innovation layer is the creation of an
international technology institute. As a result of a collaboration between Delft University of
Technology, Wageningen University, and MIT, the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan
Solutions (AMS) was founded (Fitzgerald, 2016). The institute consists of an intensive collaboration
between academic partners (mentioned above), societal partners (including the Amsterdam Smart City
platform) along with various industry partners (such as IBM, CISCO, Alliander, KPN and Shell) (AMS,
2016). It has about a dozen ongoing projects, analysing how the available data for various city functions
can be put to use. Awaiting accreditation, AMS expects to start its first Master program in September
2017. The institute also offers various Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).
4.5 Smart City Strategy and Upscaling
In general, Barcelona is an example of a ‘smart city’ with larger-scale implementations of technological
solutions. This in contrast with Amsterdam, which is typically characterised as a city with numerous
ongoing pilot projects but as of yet with few larger scale implementations. One of explanations for this
lies in the strategic approach both cities have taken to develop themselves into ‘smart cities’. While it
is too straight-forward to say that top-down approaches in smart city strategy lead to more large-scale
implementation, whereas bottom-up approaches lead to more pilot projects, Barcelona’s and
Amsterdam’s individual strategy have led to these results.
As a result of Barcelona’s smart city strategy over the period of 2011 to 2015, it has achieved several
major implementations relating to transit such as the redesign of its bus network (TMB, 2016) as well
as to water irrigation and smart lighting (March & Ribera-Fumaz, 2014). The push of technologies in
this case, has resulted in more extensive implementations compared to the situation in Amsterdam.
There, the bottom-up approach has led to a large amount of pilot projects which are considered more
experiments rather than large scale implementations (Angelidou, 2016).
Both cities, however, faced challenges with regard to upscaling. Winden et al. (2016) conducted a
research on 12 smart city projects in Amsterdam, outlining the lessons learned from these projects in
24
terms of its rationale, the value creation, the partnerships that were established, user involvement,
upscaling and other key insights.
A specific example from Amsterdam is the ‘Climate Street’ project, which entailed the process of
applying various technologies to a substantial and busy shopping street with the aim reduce energy
use and waste. This project involved numerous partners and stakeholders, of which the biggest group
was considered to be the private companies which provided the technologies. While in the end a smart
energy meter was commercialised and sold over 100,000 times, the project was project was
discontinued after two years because of the lack of ownership and funding (Winden et al., 2016). In
this case, even though there was a clear goal, there was a lack of a viable business model. Moreover,
due to high context-sensitivity (in terms of technologies, partners and other interest groups), there
was also a lack of possibilities to replicate this project in other parts of the city or country.
Another example, this time more successful, is the ‘Energy Atlas’ project. Driven by Amsterdam’s
environmental and sustainability goals, the ‘Energy Atlas’ provides detailed local-level data in an
accessible way, to establish baseline information on energy consumption and generation (Winden et
al., 2016). Moreover, tools and applications were added to identify opportunities for energy savings.
There was thus a very viable business model here, as many stakeholders (such as the utilities providers,
knowledge institutes and the public organisations) found the Energy Atlas to be perfectly suitable for
their individual needs. As the ‘Energy Atlas’ is considered to be unique and internationally unrivalled
as of yet, numerous other Dutch municipalities expressed their interest. Consequently, as a result of
the efforts by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, parts of the Amsterdam
Energy Atlas will be provided nationwide (Winden et al., 2016). There are however various challenges
to this expansion process, as many more partners need to be involved (to provide the data) as well as
involvement of other governing bodies in national, provincial and city levels, along with the potential
of adding more functionalities which would require additional resources.
In Barcelona, concrete examples of upscaling challenges can be found in a project outlined by March
& Ribera-Fumaz (2014). This project entailed a new way of heating and cooling buildings, based on a
district network, with the goal to significantly reduce energy usage and emissions. This project was
conducted in the 22@Barcelona district in Poblenou, and in 2012 they achieved implementations in
approximately 80 (office) buildings with significant positive results with regard to energy efficiency and
emission reduction. It has however faced challenges in replicating the technology to other areas
undergoing urban redevelopment, as well as to the more established and residential parts of the city
25
(depending on the cost relative to using a central heating, which for one is not common in Barcelona).
This example illustrates the need to carefully consider the business model in smart city pilot projects.
As stated by Winden et al. (2016), each project shows its own upscaling potential depending on the
type and goal of the project. Roll-out opportunities are usually found in living-lab projects such as the
‘Climate Street’ in Amsterdam and the ‘district heating’ project in 22@Barcelona. Other projects can
be expanded by adding new partners or functionalities such as in the case of the Amsterdam Energy
Atlas. Context sensitivity is a common problem when attempting to replicate projects. However,
sometimes the working methods and procedures and specific technologies may be replicated in other
projects (such as the ‘Climate Street’ in Amsterdam and the ‘district heating’ project in Barcelona).
All examples this in this chapter could have benefitted from a situation where upscaling was considered
at the very start of the project. In such a situation, decisions can be made about what parts of the
project may be suitable for scaling up, and what kind of resources are needed to achieve that (in terms
of partnerships, competencies, processes). More importantly, Winden at al. (2016) note that the
creation of a viable business model is considered key to the continuation and upscaling of the project.
Commonly, for example, projects create sustainable or social value that is worthwhile for the city. This
value is however challenging to translate into financial gains for some project partners. Finally, even
though upscaling remains a significant challenge, the lessons learned from each individual project are
of great value for new initiatives that are undertaken. In the case of the Climate Street for example, a
‘blueprint’ was published highlighting the technologies which were used as well as the lessons learned.
4.6 Citizen Empowerment and Inclusion
Related to the end-user considerations in upscaling and decisions surrounding the strategic approach,
lies the discussion of citizen empowerment and inclusion. This discussion is relevant since one of the
barriers of upscaling relates to not accurately having the end user in mind when developing smart city
initiatives (as discussed above in the example of district heating in Barcelona). Moreover, Barcelona’s
recently published digital city strategy of 2017-2020 puts strong focus on the inclusion and
empowerment of citizens (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016a).
While Barcelona’s approach is sometimes recognised and referred to as the “Barcelona model”, it is
faced with numerous challenges in the socio-economic areas (Charnock et al., 2014; March & Ribera-
Fumaz, 2014). The strategic approach that was taken during the years of 2011-2015, favouring
collaborations with bigger private sector corporations (March & Ribera-Fumaz, 2014), resulted in only
limited citizen involvement (Capdevila & Zarlenga 2015). Due to the economic recession and the
26
growing problems resulting from the increasing amount of tourism, the understanding of citizens on
the government’s spending on technology just for the sake of technological and economic growth was
questioned (March & Ribera-Fumaz, 2014; NacióDigital, 2016).
Barcelona’s new digital city strategy attempts to change this by shifting the focus from just
implementing technologies into the city, into the question of how these technologies can be used to
solve challenges in the areas of housing, sustainable transport, healthcare and education, using the
citizens as the central player (NacióDigital, 2016; Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016a). The goal is to move
to a more democratic, equal and sustainable smart city, which makes the most of innovation
opportunities based on data to improve the city and lives of its citizens. Moreover, as part of the
Municipal Plan 2015-2019, Barcelona also provides a platform (“Decidim Barcelona”) where citizens
can actively contribute to discuss and decide upon issues that together form the Barcelona they want,
with the goal to build an open, transparent and collaborative city (https://www.decidim.barcelona/).
The platform is now growing stronger as it has become a more relevant platform in Barcelona’s future
city strategy.
Amsterdam on the other hand, because of its bottom-up approach, is inherently more involved with
the various partners including its citizens. However, in the majority of the cases analysed by Winden
et al. (2016), citizens were not considered a central player and were rarely an official part of the
partnerships. They note that there are more end users to a smart city project than just citizens and
that there are several dimensions which are key to successful user involvement. The relation between
the Amsterdam Smart City and the involvement of the citizens of Amsterdam is further researched by
Capra (2016). This research examines the characteristics of governance present in Amsterdam Smart
City, and how this relates to a typology of citizen participation defined by previous research.
Moreover, Winden et al. (2016, p. 120) note that “many smart city solutions fail because they overlook
(or underestimate) the reluctance of people and organisations to change their behaviour and routines:
the human-technology interaction”. They stress the importance of showing how a technological
solution is valuable to an individual person. This should be considered during the early development
stages of a project in order to create awareness and facilitate the behaviour change and enlarging of
acceptance of new solutions by its potential users. Additionally, the use of personal data of citizens
creates numerous concerns with regard to privacy. This can also be seen in the ‘Energy Atlas’ project
in Amsterdam, in which it was made sure that data could not be traced back to individual clients.
Barcelona’s new strategy and its various platforms as outlined above also addresses these concerns.
27
4.7 Summary
Table 2 summarises the approaches both cities have taken. For both cities, a distinction is made
between the results so far, along with the planned approach for the near future. In particular, the
differences between both cities are stressed rather than their similarities.
Barcelona Amsterdam
Direction of
strategy
So far: comprehensive and integrated top-
down master plan.
Planned: more balanced approach through
four main themes, with the citizen as a
central player.
Bottom up approach, connecting
stakeholders through their Amsterdam
Smart City Platform, with the purpose of
developing and implementing shared ideas
and solutions for the city.
Main focus So far: improving services for citizens,
technology push. Open Data.
Planned: social sustainability, focus on
current socio-economic issues such as
housing, healthcare and education.
Driven by environmental sustainability
goals such as increasing energy efficiency,
reducing CO2 emissions and creating an
overall sustainable way of living.
Use of Open Data.
Planning
horizon
So far: longer term master plan with
continuous process of review and change.
Planned: continuous process of involving
citizens into decision-making.
So far: longer term planning from
government point of view.
Planned: moving to shorter and more
iterative cycles.
Strategic
choices
Local orientation, use of existing resources
with various areas undergoing urban
renewal.
So far: major advancements in hard-
infrastructures areas. Limited but present
orientation on soft-infrastructure.
Planned: Focus on soft-infrastructure.
Local orientation, use of existing resources
with limited areas undergoing urban
renewal.
More balanced orientation between soft
and hard-infrastructure, with a stronger
focus on the latter.
SMART
Framework
Smart City strategy integrated in overall
planning of the city. Precise definition of
needs, objectives, scope and requirements.
Dedicated department in the government.
Driven by local translation of both
European and national sustainability goals.
Government is not strictly guiding the
development of initiatives but plays
different roles.
28
Limited but existent co-creation with
citizens and other smaller parties.
Cooperation with larger commercial parties.
Integration of stakeholders (public and
private companies, NGOs, knowledge
institutions, citizens) through its platform
Smart City
Reference
Model
More possibilities to adjust infrastructures.
Various areas undergoing far-reaching
urban renewal.
Several large scale implementations, leading
to energy, waste and water savings.
Strong physical internet structure. Extensive
use of sensors, actuators and others
technologies. Smart lighting and water
irrigation.
Platforms for open data and transparency.
Planned: developing public infrastructure
using city data (CityOS). DECODE pilot.
Various applications using open data. High-
tech bus stops.
Favourable business environment.
‘Barcelona Activa’. Host of congresses.
DSI4BCN initiative, stimulating digital social
innovation.
Historic infrastructures complicate larger
scale implementations. Some areas of
urban renewal.
Strong focus on environmental
sustainability. Sustainability agenda.
Physical internet structure complemented
with wireless access. Technology used for
energy monitoring and renewable energy
production.
Platform for open data. Actively supports
development of further applications.
DECODE pilot.
Numerous applications in transit. Electric
vehicles and charging stations.
Favourable business environment. Stable
economic and political climate. Knowledge
institute dedicated to metropolitan
solutions (AMS).
Citizen
empowerment
and inclusion
So far: limited citizen inclusion and
empowerment. Criticism.
Planned: citizen as central player.
Explicit involvement of citizens through its
platform, though not usually involved in
pilot projects.
Smart City
Pilot Projects
& Upscaling
So far: numerous large scale
implementation of smart city initiatives.
Planned: more focus on initiatives
developed by citizens as well as their
inclusion.
Limited large scale implementations. Large
extent of pilot projects.
Numerous barriers to upscaling including
context sensitivity, lack of viable business
model and ownership as well as funding.
Table 2 Comparison between Barcelona and Amsterdam
29
Chapter 5 – Conclusions and discussion
5.1 Conclusions
The main research question of this study was “how have Barcelona and Amsterdam approached the
smart city concept in terms of strategic planning, and how has their approach impacted their ability to
upscale smart city pilot projects?”. In order to answer this question, a literature review was conducted
which outlined the dimensions and multidisciplinarity of smart city strategy and the upscaling of smart
city pilot projects This theoretical debate was then applied to two practical examples of Smart Cities:
Barcelona and Amsterdam. This chapter outlined both the current strategic approach that both cities
have taken thus far, and also its plans for in the near future. It included numerous specific case studies
of projects and developments in both cities.
A first overall conclusion is that there is no one-size-fits-all framework for smart city strategy making.
This research applied two frameworks, of which its applicability is discussed in the next section of this
chapter. There is however room for guidelines and best practices, shown both by initiatives undertaken
by the EIP-SCC along with recent scientific research (Bolici & Mora, 2015; Winden et al, 2016). Zooming
in on Barcelona and Amsterdam, while they are similar, both cities each adapt their individual strategy,
resulting in different results with regard to the implementation and upscaling of smart city projects. In
general, Barcelona’s integrated top-down smart city strategy focussing on technological and economic
development has thus far resulted in several large scale implementations in the areas of transit, water
irrigation, lighting and waste management. This in contrast with Amsterdam’s bottom-up approach,
focussing on environmental and economic sustainability and the use open data, which has resulted in
a large variety of smart city pilot projects and, only to a much smaller extent, larger-scale
implementations.
Interestingly, both cities now appear to be moving closer together in terms of their strategic approach
to smart cities. Barcelona’s Digital City strategy for the next few years is strongly oriented towards
social sustainability and citizen involvement, in contrast with the technology-push approach that was
taken initially. Amsterdam, in turn is looking for ways to balance its bottom-up approach with changes
in the vision of the government on the development of smart city initiatives.
Specifically looking at the upscaling possibilities of smart city pilot projects, several conclusions can be
drawn based on the developments over the past years in both cities. First of all, it is widely agreed that
technology itself is not the issue when it comes to upscaling, but rather the viability of business and
governance models. This is also shown from the case studies in Barcelona and Amsterdam as outlined
30
in the previous chapter. Further challenges with regard to upscaling originate from the issue of context
sensitivity. The majority of smart city pilot projects are highly sensitive to its context; the particular
situation in which the project is conducted in terms of the technologies, partners, funding, governance
and so on. This hinders the ability of a project to be replicated. As stated by Winden et al. (2016),
possibilities in the replication of smart city projects can be found in the replication of its working
methods and the use of specific technologies or tools. The lessons learned from each individual smart
city pilot project, especially when unable to proceed to larger scale, are therefore valuable. In this way,
future projects can learn from the actions that were taken and why, allowing to avoid making the same
mistake again.
Finally, the involvement and inclusion of key users (not limited to citizens) of smart city initiatives
remains an important challenge. Barcelona’s technology-push strategy has resulted in major
technological and economic advancement while at the same time, in conjunction with external factors
such as the economic depression starting in 2009, caused major concerns by its citizens. Even though
in Amsterdam’s projects the citizens were seldom central, the key aspect of understanding the needs
and wants of the end users remains a critical issue in upscaling processes. As noted by Winden et al.
(2016), creating awareness and understanding requires a different approach than involving citizens in
testing and acceptance processes prior to upscaling. Conclusively, such considerations should be
included at the very start of developing smart city projects and thus also in the overall smart city
strategy.
The next section discusses the implications of these findings, followed by a reflection on the research
process which outlines the considerations and assumptions of this study
5.2 Discussion, implications and suggestions for further research
5.2.1 Theoretical implications
Through a literature review, the concepts of smart city strategy and upscaling were reviewed. This
provided clarification into the meaning and underlying elements of these concepts, as well as two
frameworks which could be used as a foundation for smart city strategy. These frameworks, the SMART
framework by Letaifa (2015) and the Smart City Reference Model by Zygiaris (2012), were then applied
to Barcelona and Amsterdam. This resulted in various theoretical implications.
First of all, with regard to the applicability of the frameworks, the SMART framework was found to be
more suitable when developing a smart city project rather than an overall (holistic) smart city strategy.
The Smart City Reference Model in turn provided more extensive information and insights into the
31
elements of a smart city strategy as a whole. It should be noted however that, based on the approaches
taken by the two cities in this research, several elements are lacking. First of all, the Smart City
Reference Model does not contain explicit references to the leadership or governance strategies (or
the organisation of a smart city). The SMART model does include this, although on project level, in the
accountability part of the framework. Moreover, both models lack on social sustainability topics.
Although the Smart City Reference Model does address this partially in its fifth layer, this layer is based
on the underlying layers, thereby taking a focus on technological foundations rather than explicitly on
the needs and wants of the end users. Finally, thus far the frameworks seem to have been applied to
only a handful of different cities. It is therefore recommended to further apply this model to other
cities, preferably cities which appear to be radically different to those already researched, in order to
increase the theoretical validity of both frameworks.
Discussing the relation between smart city strategy and the upscaling of smart city projects, several
theoretical implications were found. The relation between smart city strategy and upscaling processes
originates from the lessons learned of individual smart city pilot projects. These provide valuable
insights which can be used to adapt a strategy. Moreover, there are several barriers which can be
encountered when trying to upscale pilot projects, the most important of them being the lack of a
viable business model. In relation to smart city strategy this means that such consideration should be
made right from the start when initiating new smart city initiatives. Furthermore, the lack of
understanding the end-user and citizen involvement (as described above) also indicate the need to
carefully examine what activities can be undertaken in order to reduce or overcome these barriers.
Finally, the results of this research also indicate the phenomenon of blurring boundaries between
bottom-up versus top-down strategic approaches, along with that of the design versus usage of smart
city solutions. As shown by the examples of Barcelona and Amsterdam, an increasing amount of
importance is given to balance of top-down involvement and bottom-up participation. The implication
here is that there is no single ‘best’ approach to be taken, instead a continuous cycle of careful
considerations should be made focussing on issues relating to user involvement and empowerment.
The results of the research conducted by Capdevila & Zarlenga (2015) also supports this, stating that
both perspectives are complementary and that their combination can reinforce the collaboration
between different city stakeholders
5.2.2 Practical implications
The discussions above also have practical implications, the most important of them being the need to
include specific considerations in the overall strategic approach as well as during the very beginning of
32
developing smart city initiatives. Such considerations relate to topics of governance but also to
upscaling in particular. This research has indicated the need to plan the upscaling process right from
the start when developing new smart city initiatives. More specifically, one should consider the context
sensitivity, debating whether a local solution, or even parts of it, can also be applied on a broader scale
in a different context, and which resources would be required to do so. Moreover, the funding
specifically for upscaling projects can be considered as well since there may be possibilities in EU funds
or opportunities in EU regulations as shown by the EIP-SCC Funding Guide (https://eu-
smartcities.eu/funding-guide). There are also technical and organisational limitations when upscaling
projects, such as the lack of standards and incompatibilities with infrastructures and technologies. By
taking a more holistic and comprehensive approach, a city can reduce or even overcome those
limitations. Finally, it is strongly recommended for individual smart city pilot projects to create lessons
learned in order to learn from the past and to adjust overall strategy where possible.
The discussion in the previous chapter has also given insight into the advantages and disadvantages of
making particular choices with regard to governance and user involvement. Currently it seems that
both cities are moving closer together when it comes to citizen empowerment and inclusion, with a
stronger focus on social sustainability (concerning issues such as the digital divide). The use of open
data and citizen’s data is a topic that becomes more and more relevant, and that requires more
attention in the overall strategic approach of cities that aspire to become smart. The digital city
strategy of Barcelona could be considered a leading example of such an emphasis on social
sustainability.
A final practical implication relates to the overall vision and planning process of public institutions
(mostly governmental organisations) that want to support the city in becoming smart. As shown by
examples from both cities, a change towards an iterative and short-cycle approach (planning for six
months rather than for multiple years in advance for example) may add considerable value. Similarly,
and based on Winden et al. (2016), it can be recommended for a partner ecosystem to not be fixed or
inward-looking, but instead be open for new partners to enter the project when required
competencies changes or when project evolves into a new stage (Bolsius, V., personal communication,
November 15, 2016). A continuous cycle of iterative decision making is thus a recommended approach.
5.3 Reflection
To answer the main research question of this study, the most recent developments in both scientific
literature as well as numerous other sources were used, including personal communications with
practitioners in the smart city field. The majority of these sources were no older than two years, with
33
numerous of them dating back no more than a month. This indicates that the most recent debates and
developments were selected. The application of the theoretical debate not only strengthened the
validity of the theory developed thus far, but it has also provided practical implications which are of
value to practitioners on various levels and in various functions with the field of Smart Cities.
Despite these robust foundations however, there are several limitations to this research, as with any
study. First of all, the use of secondary sources implies the consolidation of information that was
already researched before. In this study however, the selected sources were used to further develop
the discussion on smart city strategy by making a comparison between two cities, especially in relation
to the possibilities of upscaling smart city pilot projects. Also, the fact that the majority of the sources
were very recent resulted in a new application of the existing theoretical research. More specifically,
new developments and examples were selected rather than reusing the original sources.
Moreover, another limitation lies in the selection of case studies and specific examples to illustrate
theoretical debates as this selection may be biased towards a specific point of view or direction. This
limitation is attributable to the broad definition and multidisciplinarity of the smart city concept as it
involves a wide range of elements, therefore providing a wide range of potential sources of
information and directions. To counter this limitation, specific considerations were made during the
selection process of these sources, as outlined in the third chapter.
A final limitation can be found in the broadness of this research as it has covered a broad range of
topics related to smart cities, smart city strategy and upscaling of smart city pilot project. This, again,
can be explained by the multidisciplinarity of the smart city concept, as well as to the flux of recent
developments such as the announcement of Barcelona’s new digital city strategy as well as the
publication of the research by Winden et al. (2016), leading to a shift in focus to concepts such as
citizen empowerment and inclusion. Topics which are becoming more and more important in today’s
technological era.
34
References
Amsterdam Metropolitan Solutions (2016). Partners. Retrieved from http://www.ams-institute.org/partners/
AEB (2015). Onze ambitie voor 2025 [Our ambition for 2015]. Retrieved from:
https://www.amsterdameconomicboard.com/nieuws/onze-ambitie-voor-2025
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2016a). Mesura de govern: Transició cap a la Sobirania Tecnològica. Pla “Barcelona
Ciutat Digital”. [Government Measure: Transition to Technological Sovereignty. "Barcelona Digital City"
Plan]. Retrieved from: http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/estrategiadigital/en
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2016b). The fight against air pollution. Retrieved from: http://mobilitat.ajuntament
.barcelona.cat/en/noticia/the-fight-against-air-pollution
Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41, S3–S11. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007
Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106.
doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.004
Angelidou, M. (2016). Four European Smart City Strategies. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(4),
18-30. doi:10.11114/ijsss.v4i4.1364
Bakıcı, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2012). A Smart City Initiative: the Case of Barcelona. Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135–148. doi:10.1007/s13132-012-0084-9
Barcelona Activa (2016). Who are we. Retrieved from: http://www.barcelonactiva.cat/barcelonactiva/en/all
-about-barcelona-activa/who-we-are/index.jsp
Bolici, R., & Mora, L. (2015). Urban regeneration in the digital era: how to develop smart city strategies in large
European cities. TECHNE-Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, (10), 110-119.
doi:10.13128/Techne-17507
Capdevila, I., & Zarlenga, M. I. (2015). Smart city or smart citizens? The Barcelona case. Journal of Strategy and
Management, 8(3), 266–282. doi:10.1108/jsma-03-2015-0030
Capra, C. F. (2016). The Smart City and its Citizens: Governance and Citizen Participation in Amsterdam Smart
City. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 5(1), 20-38. doi:10.4018/IJEPR.2016010102
Charnock, G., Purcell, T. F., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2013). City of Rents: The limits to the Barcelona model of urban
competitiveness. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), 198 217.
doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12103
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., … Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding
Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.615
Cocchia, A. (2014). Smart and Digital City: A Systematic Literature Review. Progress in IS, 13–43.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06160-3_2
Dameri, R. P., & Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. (2014). Smart City and Value Creation. Progress in IS, 1–12. doi:10.1007
/978-3-319-06160-3_1
Dameri, R. P. (2016). Smart City Definition, Goals and Performance. Smart City Implementation, 1–22.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45766-6_1
35
Data-Smart City Solutions. (2016). How Smart City Barcelona Brought the Internet of Things to Life. Retrieved
from: http://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/how-smart-city-barcelona-brought-the-internet
-of-things-to-life-789
Deloitte (2015). Smart cities, not just the sum of its parts. Retrieved from: https://www2.deloitte.com/content
/dam/Deloitte/xe/Documents/strategy/me_deloitte-monitor_smart-cities.pdf
EIP-SCC (2016a). Scaling up & Replication of Smart City Plans. Retrieved from: https://eu-smartcities.eu/content
/scaling-replication-smart-city-plans-0
EIP-SCC (2016b). Interview with Margit Noll and Judith Borsboom. Retrieved from: https://eu-smartcities.eu
/content/interview-margit-noll-and-judith-borsboom-0
European Commission (2016a). Amsterdam is the European Capital of Innovation 2016. Retrieved from:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/ index.cfm?pg=newsalert&year=2016&na=na-080416
European Commission (2016b). The European Capital of Innovation Award 2016 – more about the finalists!.
Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=icapital
European Commission (2016c). Broadband Coverage in Europe 2015. Mapping progress towards the coverage
objectives of the Digital Agenda. doi:10.2759/22968
Fast Moving Targets (2014, September 10). Ger Baron over het belang van een CTO voor Amsterdam. [Ger Baron
on the importance of a CTO for Amsterdam] [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=oX3NIUg_P64
Fitzgerald, M. (2016). Data-Driven City Management. A Close Look at Amsterdam’s Smart City Initiative. MIT
Sloan Management Review (May 2016, Reprint number 57470).
Gemeente Amsterdam (2016a). Europees project geeft zeggenschap over online persoonlijke data. [European
project provides control over online personal data]. Retrieved from: https://www.amsterdam.nl
/bestuur-organisatie/organisatie/ruimte-economie/amsterdam-europa/nieuwsberichten/europees
-project-0/
Gemeente Amsterdam (2016b). Amsterdam outlines new sustainability measures. Retrieved from:
https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/organisatie/ruimte-economie/ruimte-duurzaamheid
/ruimte-duurzaamheid/making-amsterdam/sustainability/
Gemeente Amsterdam (2016c). Circulair innovatieprogramma. [Circular innovation program]. Retrieved from:
https://www.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/802010/circulair_innovatieprogramma_2016-2018_met
_een_doorkijk_naar_2025.pdf
Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12(3), 303–320.
doi:10.1080/13604810802479126
IESE (2016). IESE Cities in Motion Index 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/ST-0396
-E.pdf?_ga=1.197097902.327005896.1477928057
Letaifa, S. B. (2015). How to strategize smart cities: Revealing the SMART model. Journal of Business Research,
68(7), 1414–1419. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.024
Manville, C., Cochrane, G., Cave, J., Millard, J., Pederson, J. K., Thaarup, R. K., ... & Kotterink, B. (2014). Mapping
smart cities in the EU (Report no. PE 507.480). Retrieved from European Parliament:
36
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/507480/IPOL-ITRE_ET
(2014)507480_EN.pdf
March, H., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2014). Smart contradictions: The politics of making Barcelona a Self-sufficient
city. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 816–830. doi:10.1177/0969776414554488
Mora, L. & Bolici, R. (2016). The development process of smart city strategies: the case of Barcelona. In Rajaniemi,
J. (Ed.), Re-city. Future city - combining disciplines. (DATUTOP; Vol. 34). Tampere: Tampere University of
Technology, School of Architecture. Retrieved from: http://urn.fi/urn:isbn:978-952-15-3625-0
NacióDigital (2016). Francesca Bria: “Volem posar el ciutadà al centre del debat tecnològic" [“We want to put the
citizen at the centre of the technological debate"] [Interview]. Retrieved from:
http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/117620/
Nederlandse Spoorwegen (2016). Zien waar jouw trein rijdt. [See where your train is riding]. Retrieved from:
http://nieuws.ns.nl/zien-waar-jouw-trein-rijdt
Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City
initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25-36. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.010
Port of Amsterdam (2016). Self-illuminating bicycle path powered by solar and wind energy. Retrieved from:
http://www.portofamsterdam.com/Eng/Self-illuminating-bicycle-path-powered-by-solar-and-wind
-energy.html
Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Smart Cities and the Future
Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
431–446. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20898-0_31
TMB (2016). What is the new bus network? Progress update. Retrieved from: https://www.tmb.cat/en/about
-tmb/transport-network-improvements/new-bus-network/evolution
United Nations (2011). Population distribution, urbanization, internal migration and development: An
international perspective. New York: United Nations Department of Economics and Social affairs.
Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/PopDistribUrbanization
/PopulationDistributionUrbanization.pdf
United Nations (2014). United Nations Demographic Yearbook 2014. Table 8. New York: United Nations Statistics
Division. Retrieved from: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/
Winden, W. van. (2016). Smart city pilot projects, scaling up or fading out? Experiences from Amsterdam
(Working Paper). Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296431497
Winden, W. van, Oskam, I., Buuse, D. van den, Schrama, W., Dijck, E. van (2016). Organising Smart City Projects:
Lessons from Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Hogeschool van Amsterdam.
Vanolo, A. (2013). Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy. Urban Studies, 51(5), 883-898.
doi:10.1177/0042098013494427
Zygiaris, S. (2012). Smart City Reference Model: Assisting Planners to Conceptualize the Building of Smart City
Innovation Ecosystems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 217–231.
doi:10.1007/s13132-012-0089-4
37
Appendices
Appendix A – Summary of key sources and references
1. Summary of interview with Vivienne Bolsius and Maaike Osieck
Vivienne and Maaike are both working for the Amsterdam Smart City platform. Vivienne is working as
a Business Development Manager since 2012, and Maaike as a Communication Manager since 2009.
The interview started with the question if both interviewees were familiar with Barcelona’s approach
to smart cities, which immediately lead to the debate on how the governance of both Amsterdam
Smart City and Bacelona’s Smart City department are structured. Due to its public-private nature, the
Amsterdam Smart City platform is not fully dependent on the government, making it a more stable
approach to smart city development.
The interview then focussed on the debate around upscaling smart city pilot projects. The interviewees
were asked what they considered as the most important requisite for successful upscaling of initiatives.
The first answer indicated the need for a viable business case, followed by a discussion on funding and
the procurement of smart city solutions, as there are various (perhaps outdated) regulatory
restrictions which makes add complexity to this process. In relation to this, the comment was made
that projects should be a continuous process which remains open for changes (such as the technology
used or the different partners which are participating).
With regard to comparing Barcelona and Amsterdam, the interviewees indicated that there is a very
explicit difference in approach (coming from Amsterdam’s bottom-up approach), acknowledging that
to some extent, various programs and plans are currently being written which focus on circular
economy and smart mobility. Moreover, in relation to comparing cities, the various smart city rankings
were discussed along with the definition of a smart city. An interesting result was the importance
Amsterdam gives to collaborating with numerous knowledge institutes, including the development of
its own university dedicated to metropolitan solutions.
As a result of the discussion on Amsterdam’s bottom-up approach, the topic of citizen inclusion was
highlighted. A noticeable comment relates to the vision of Amsterdam that projects initiated by citizens
are considered to be just as important as those initiated by larger commercial companies. Having said
that, both interviewees indicated that there are still many improvements to be made in this area, by
trying to find way to involve citizens more into the smart city movement.
38
2. Summary of EIP-SCC workshop
The workshop by the EIP-SCC titled “Accelerating urban transition: Tapping the full potential of Smart
City and Community pilots” took place on November 16th, 2016, during the Smart City Expo World
Congress 2016 in Barcelona, Spain. It was co-organised by JPI Urban Europe, the ERA-NET Smart Cities
and Communities and the Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology. The aim of the
workshop was to bring together people working in public administration, researchers, business, NGOs
and civil society to jointly discuss measures to fully exploit the potential of Smart City pilot and
demonstration projects, in order to identify bottlenecks as well as ways forward and concepts to move
from demonstration and pilots to larger scale implementation. The workshop consisted of a number
of presentations followed by open-table discussions on three topics: business models, governance and
participation, including some guiding questions for each of these topics.
With regards to business models, the main conclusions were that the need for a business model is
more important for commercial companies rather than cities, as cities do not get paid to upscale the
solution (e.g. to replicate it in another city). The priority of cities is usually that of a local situation,
rather than a more generic solution that may be applicable to other contexts as well. This incentive is
more present in the private sector. Usually, cities do not think about upscaling from the start, and not
in their day to day activities. This may be important however, as successful upscaling stories can be
considered a selling point. With regards to governance, there were several discussions on the balance
between bottom-up and top-down approaches, discussing Amsterdam and Barcelona in particular.
Moreover, the economic and political stability of a city (or country) was also considered. In addition,
the extent of collaboration between the government and other parties (private sector, knowledge
institutions and other organisations) was discussed, with the conclusion that an integration of those
parties stimulated the discussion on upscaling. Finally, with regard to budget and time horizon
planning, the conclusion is that a shorter-cycle and more iterative approach is beneficial for successful
completion and upscaling of a smart city project.
3. Abstract of Letaifa (2015)
“The purpose of this study is to clarify how to design and implement strategies for building smart cities. Despite
extensive research on cities' successful transformation into smart cities, a gap exists on how these cities' services
shift toward smart services and on the methodology that the cities follow in transforming these services. This
qualitative study builds on an integrative literature review and case studies to propose a methodological
framework for the implementation of smart cities.” (Letaifa, 2015, p. 1414).
39
4. Abstract of Zygiaris (2012)
“The objective of this paper is to address the smart innovation ecosystem characteristics that elucidate the
assembly of all smart city notions into green, interconnected, instrumented, open, integrated, intelligent, and
innovating layers composing a planning framework called, Smart City Reference Model. Since cities come in
different shapes and sizes, the model could be adopted and utilized in a range of smart policy paradigms that
embrace the green, broadband, and urban economies. These paradigms address global sustainability challenges
at a local context. Smart city planners could use the reference model to define the conceptual layout of a smart
city and describe the smart innovation characteristics in each one of the six layers. Cases of smart cities, such as
Barcelona, Edinburgh, and Amsterdam are examined to evaluate their entirety in relation to the Smart City
Reference Model.” (Zygiaris, 2012, p. 217).
5. Abstract of Winden (2016)
“In many cities, pilot projects are set up to test or develop new technologies that improve sustainability, urban
quality of life or urban services (often labelled as “smart city” projects). Typically, these projects are supported by
the municipality, funded by subsidies, and run in partnerships. Many projects however die after the pilot stage,
and never scale up. Policymakers on all levels consider this as a challenge and search for solutions. In this paper,
we analyse the process of upscaling, focusing on smart city projects in which several partners –with different
missions, agenda’s and incentives- join up. First, we review the extant literature on upscaling from development
studies, business studies, and the transition management literature. Based on insights from these literatures, we
identify three types of upscaling: roll-out, expansion and replication, each with their own dynamics, context
sensitivity and scaling barriers. We illustrate the typology with recent smart city projects in Amsterdam. Based on
desk research and in-depth interviews with a number of project stakeholders and partners of the Amsterdam
Smart City platform, we analyse three projects in depth, in order to illustrate the challenges of different upscaling
types. i) Energy Atlas, an EU-funded open data project in which the grid company, utilities and local government
set up a detailed online platform showing real-time energy use on the level of the building block; ii) Climate Street,
a project that intended to make an entire urban high street sustainable, involving a large number of stakeholders,
and iii) Ikringloop, an application that helps to recycle or to re-use waste. Each of the projects faced great
complexities in the upscaling process, albeit to a varying degree. The paper ends with conclusions and
recommendations on pilot projects and partnership governance, and adds new reflections to the debates on
upscaling.” (Winden, p. 2, 2016).
6. Abstract of Winden et al. (2016)
“Getting smart city solutions off the ground is not just about developing and applying technology:
it demands new networking and management competencies. Solutions are not developed and
implemented by one single company, but take shape in networks, at the intersection of technologies
and industries, and with the involvement of citizens/end users. For example, when the grid company
wants to introduce smart meters and displays into homes, it must work together with housing
corporations, with citizens, and with technology partners. It needs not only technological and ring
40
skills, but also the competences to involve communities and communicate effectively. Collaboration
among multiple stakeholders is key in the development of innovative technology-driven solutions for
sustainability in cities.
In this study, we analyse a number of smart city projects in Amsterdam, in their wider context. We analyse smart
city projects from a managerial angle. We want to understand how partnerships are formed, how they work, and
what challenges they face. We focus on the following questions: How do organisations with different
agendas, collaborate on smart city projects? What challenges do they face? What kind of value is created?
How are risks and returns shared, and how are users involved? What is the upscaling dynamic of smart city
solutions, if any? How can smart city projects be managed professionally?
The goal of this study to establish insight in current practices and lessons learned across a broad
range of smart city projects in Amsterdam in three key themes in urban sustainability: energy,
mobility, and circular economy. The projects analysed here did not develop in isolation, but are
shaped by their context: the Amsterdam region. To interpret smart city projects in Amsterdam, it is
important to have insights into Amsterdam’s wider ‘ecosystem’ consisting of key players, as well
as relevant policies/ambitions, legal frameworks, network organisations, connectors, and funding
sources. Thus, we also describe and analyse the wider smart city ecosystem.”
(Abstract copied from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310451169_Organising_Smart_City_Projects
_Lessons_learned_from_Amsterdam)