7KLVSURMHFWKDVUHFHLYHGIXQGLQJIURPWKH(XURSHDQ8QLRQ¶ …€¦ · Project Title Towards Smart Zero CO2 Cities across Europe Project Coordinator Francisco Rodriguez Tecnalia [email protected]

This project has received funding from the European Union’ s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 691883This project has received funding from the European Union’ s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 691883

Deliverable 2.7: Integrated SmartEnCity Strategy_V1

WP2, Task 2.6

Date of Document

30/09/2016

Deliverable Version: D2.7 V1.0

Dissemination Level: PU1

Author(s): Carolina García (TEC), Koldo Urrutia (TEC), Simon Stendorf (Plan), Pilleriine Kamenjuk (UT), Estefanía Vallejo (CAR), Raquel López (CAR), Sonia Montané (ACC), Patxi Sáez de Viteri (MON)

1 PU = Public

PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

D2.7 – Integrated SmartEnCity Strategy_V1

SmartEnCity - GA No. 691883 2 / 100

Document History

Project Acronym SmartEnCity

Project Title Towards Smart Zero CO2 Cities across Europe

Project Coordinator Francisco Rodriguez

Tecnalia

[email protected]

Project Duration 1stFebruary 2016 - 31

stJuly 2021 (66 months)

Deliverable No. Deliverable 2.7: Integrated SmartEnCity Strategy

Diss. Level Public

Deliverable Lead TEC

Status Working

Verified by other WPs

X Final version

Due date of deliverable

30/07/2017

Actual submission date

28/07/2017

Work Package WP 2 - SmartEnCity Regeneration Strategy

WP Lead TEC

Contributing beneficiary(is)

PLAN, UT, CAR, ACC, MON

Date Version Person/Partner Comments

30/09/2016 V 0.0 Carolina García / TEC Template

14/03/2017 V 0.1 Carolina García / TEC Chapter 4, first contents draft

05/04/2017 V 0.2 Koldo Urrutia / TEC Chapter 5, first contents draft

07/04/2017 V 0.3 Carolina García / TEC First merge of partners contributions

08/06/2017 V 0.31 Koldo Urrutia / TEC Second merge of partners contributions

30/06/2017 V 0.4 Carolina García, Koldo Urrutia / TEC Preliminary draft for internal review

05/07/2017 V 0.5 Carolina García / TEC Consolidated draft for external review

27/07/2017 V1.0 Carolina García Koldo Urrutia / TEC Final Version for submission



Copyright notice

©2016-2018SmartEnCity Consortium Partners. All rights reserved. All contents are reserved by default and may

not be disclosed to third parties without the written consent of the SmartEnCity partners, except as mandated by

the European Commission contract, for reviewing and dissemination purposes.

All trademarks and other rights on third party products mentioned in this document are acknowledged and owned

by the respective holders. The information contained in this document represents the views of SmartEnCity

members as of the date they are published. The SmartEnCity consortium does not guarantee that any information

contained herein is error-free, or up to date, nor makes warranties, express, implied, or statutory, by publishing

this document.

Table of content:

0 Publishable Summary ...................................................................................................10

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................11

1.1 Purpose and target group .......................................................................................11

1.2 Contributions of partners ........................................................................................11

1.3 Relation to other activities in the project .................................................................12

2 Objectives and expected impact ....................................................................................13

2.1 Objective ................................................................................................................13

2.2 Expected impact .....................................................................................................14

3 Overall Approach...........................................................................................................15

4 Integrated urban planning ..............................................................................................16

4.1 Challenges of integrated planning ..........................................................................16

4.1.1 Framework evolution .......................................................................................17

4.1.2 From integrated planning towards measuring and monitoring as tools for

decision making ............................................................................................................24

5 Interaction among smart strategies and integrated planning ..........................................26

5.1 Integrating governance and urban planning ...........................................................30

5.2 Integrating retrofitting and urban planning ..............................................................41

5.3 Integrating energy and urban planning ...................................................................47

5.4 Integrating mobility and urban planning ..................................................................53

5.5 Integrating ICTs and urban planning ......................................................................59

5.6 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................64

6 SmartEnCity strategy: roadmap towards integrated and systemic urban regeneration ..65

6.1 Strategic frame .......................................................................................................65

6.1.1 City &project scales .........................................................................................67

6.1.2 SmartEnCity strategy frameworks ...................................................................68

6.1.3 Phases of the process .....................................................................................68

6.2 SmartEnCity strategy: phases & actions .................................................................72

6.2.1 Phase 0. Strategic. Brief ..................................................................................72

6.2.2 Phase 1. Pre-intervention. Concept & Definition + Design ...............................76

6.2.3 Phase 2. Intervention deployment. Build & Commission + Handover & Closeout

82

6.2.4 Phase 3. Post-intervention. Operation & In-use ...............................................85



7 Conclusions and outputs for other Work Packages .......................................................93

7.1 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................93

7.2 Outputs for other WPs ............................................................................................93

7.2.1 Integrated SmartEnCity Strategy WP2 ............................................................93

7.2.2 Lighthouse deployment projects (WP3, WP4, WP5) ........................................93

7.2.3 Replication to followers and Smart Cities Network ..........................................94

8 References ....................................................................................................................95

8.1 General literature ...................................................................................................95

8.2 Regulatory and policy framework ...........................................................................97



Table of Tables:

Table1: Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................... 9

Table2: Contribution of partners ...........................................................................................11

Table 3: Relation to other activities in the project..................................................................12

Table 4. Dimensions and objectives for a European vision of tomorrow’s cities (RFSC, 2016)

.............................................................................................................................................28

Table 5: Modes of urban climate governance. Source: based on Bulkeley & Kern (2006),

Bulkeley et al. (2011), Carayannis et al. (2012), Carter et al. (2015), Fröhlich & Knieling

(2013) ...................................................................................................................................35

Table 6: Examples of typical stakeholders involved in a strategic energy planning process. 50

Table 7. European Commission reference documents on Mobility. ......................................54

Table 8. Mobility tools developed under existing EU projects ...............................................56

Table 9: Protocols of evaluation: scope and type of KPIs .....................................................87



Table of Figures:

Figure 1. Task 2.6 Workflow .................................................................................................13

Figure 2. Dimension’s common template ..............................................................................29

Figure 3. Framework for governance in the perspective of climate change. Source:

compilated based on Bulkeley et al. (2011), Fröhlich & Knieling (2013), Lange et al. 2013,

Termeer & Dewulf (2014), Termeer et al. (2015),Treib et al. (2007). ....................................32

Figure 4. Replication Strategy Tools (D 8.2.) ........................................................................45

Figure 5. Overview of sectors and technologies and interactions between these in a future

smart energy system. The flow diagram is incomplete since it does not represent all of

components in the energy system (figure from Connolly, Mathiesen and Lund, 2 .................48

Figure 6. Example of steps in a strategic energy planning process (applied in Sonderborg). 49

Figure 7. SmartEnCity Indicators levels ................................................................................57

Figure 8. ICT systems in the city, from pure hardware (sensors) to the more “soft” aspects

(Services) .............................................................................................................................61

Figure 9. Main lines of SmartEnCity strategy ........................................................................65

Figure 10. Main lines and phases of SmartEnCity strategy ...................................................66

Figure 11. Task 2.6 Workflow ...............................................................................................67

Figure 12. Diagram of phases, scales and categories. Split into actions of SmartEnCity

strategy (next page) .............................................................................................................69

Figure 13. Diagram of phases, scales and categories. Split into actions of SmartEnCity

strategy (next page) .............................................................................................................71

Figure 14. Strategic phase steps ..........................................................................................72

Figure 15. Steps of stakeholder mapping .............................................................................73

Figure 16. Pre-Intervention process scheme. .......................................................................76

Figure 17. Model within an integrated approach ...................................................................79

Figure 18. Advanced decision-making and project definition within integrated planning .......80

Figure 19. Scheme of the Intervention deployment steps .....................................................83

Figure 20. Scheme of the Post-Intervention steps ................................................................86

Figure 21. Wrap up diagram of the process. split into steps of SmartEnCity strategy (next

page) ....................................................................................................................................90



Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation/Acronym Description

CIOP City Information Open Platform

EC European Commission

EIP-SCC European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities

ERDF European Regional Development Funds

EU European Union

EV Electric Vehicle

FP7 7th Framework Programme

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information System

ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

ISEAL International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling

IUP Integrated Urban Planning

IRS Integrated Regeneration Strategy

IoT Internet of Things

KPI Key Performance Indicator

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LH Light House

LTE Long Term Evolution

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

RES Renewable Energy Source

SCC Smart Cities and Communities

SEAP Sustainable Energy Action Plan

SEC SmartEnCity Towards Smart Zero CO2 Cities across Europe

SUMP Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats



UN United Nations

WP Work Package

Table1: Abbreviations and Acronyms



0 Publishable Summary

The overall objective of Work Package 2 titled “SmartEnCity Regeneration Strategy” is the

development and consolidation of and integrated and systemic urban regeneration model

towards Smart and Zero Carbon City concepts.

This deliverable defines the methods and process that will be applied not only in the

Integrated Urban Regeneration Strategy of the three SmartEnCity Light House cities, as well

as in the definition of the Urban Regeneration projects of the two follower cities

Previous deliverables of this Work Packages have been the basis to build this first version of

the SmartEnCity Regeneration Strategy. Specifically deliverable D2.4, “City needs and

baseline definition process and methods” provides recommendations to define the

governance framework that encompasses integrated management, citizen engagement, and

regeneration strategy of SmartEnCity LH projects.

The deliverable has been divided in three main chapters, structuring the lecture from a

general and more theoretical overview through the concepts that have built the urban

regeneration along more than three decades and the smart city concept in Europe, to a more

specific chapter in which the SmartEnCity Regeneration Strategy is explained.

Regarding this main structure, chapter 4, called Integrated Urban Planning provides a

general overview of the evolution of the European regulation framework in the different areas

that have contributed to build an Integrated Urban Planning and Smart City policy.

Chapter 5 links that previous general framework with the SmartEnCity dimensions

(governance, retrofitting, energy, mobility and ICTs) providing a theoretical analysis on how

these dimensions have been defined and how they have evolved.

Finally, chapter 6 defines the first version of the SmartEnCity Regeneration Strategy, defining

on one hand the whole structure that build the strategy (main dimensions, processes and

phases) and on the other hand the specific definition and conceptualization of the processes

(step by step) that contribute to consolidate the strategy. This first version is going to be fed

up with the real practice of the three Light House cities (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Sonderborg and

Tartu), with the aim of addressing in the final version of the SmartEnCity Regeneration

Strategy.

The sources used to elaborate this deliverable have been mainly European regulatory

documents like communications, white papers, charts, strategies, etc. Also general literature

in the field of Smart City and its main domains (urban planning, urban regeneration,

governance, energy, mobility, ICTs) has been reviewed.



1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and target group

This deliverable defines the methods and process that will be applied not only in the

SmartEnCity (SEC) Regeneration Strategy of the three SEC Light House (LH) cities, as well

as in the definition of Urban Regeneration projects of the two follower cities (Lecce and

Asenovgrad). It contains two main inputs, first, a comprehensive review of the European

regulation framework, aiming to understand how the integrated planning has evolved to

smart strategies and second, the first stage of the SmartEnCity strategy as a roadmap

towards integrated and systemic urban regeneration mostly focused on identifying a

preliminary framework in which common actions and processes are defined as a basis to

work with during the LH cities projects deployment.

The output of Chapter 6 will support, as a methodological framework, the interventions

deployed in WP3, WP4, and WP5, as well as the replication material developed in WP8,

fostering a more integrated planning in follower cities and cities part of the network.

1.2 Contributions of partners

Table2 depicts the main contributions from partners in the development of this deliverable.

Participant short name

Contributions

TEC General structure and coordination, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4&5

UTAR Chapter 4.1 Challenges of integrated planning Chapter 4.2 Interaction among smart strategies and integrated planning Subchapter 4.2.1 Integrating governance and urban planning

ACC Subchapter 4.2.2 Integration of retrofitting in urban plans Chapter 5 SmartEnCity strategy: roadmap towards integrated and systemic urban regeneration

Plan Energi Subchapter 4.2.3 Integrating energy and urban planning

CARTIFF Subchapter 4.2.4 Integrating mobility and urban planning Chapter 5 SmartEnCity strategy: roadmap towards integrated and systemic urban regeneration

MON-LKS Subchapter 4.2.5 Integrating ICTs and urban planning

Table2: Contribution of partners



1.3 Relation to other activities in the project

Umbrella

Table 3 depicts the main relationship of this deliverable to other activities (or deliverables)

developed within the SmartEnCity project and that should be considered along with this

document for further understanding of its contents.

Deliverable

Number

Contributions

D2.1 Review of regulatory gaps and recommendations to facilitate city

transformation processes

D2.2 Recommendations for updating Standards and generating new ones

D2.3 New business models, procurement schemes and financing mechanisms for

smart city projects

D2.4 City needs and baseline definition process and methods

D2.5 Integrated Management models for large scale Smart City transformation

projects

D2.6 Citizen Engagement Strategy and deployment plan

D2.8 Final version of the Integrated and systemic SmartEnCity urban regeneration

strategy

D3.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz Integrated planning report

D4.2 Tartu Integrated planning report

D5.2 Sonderborg Integrated planning report

D8.2, D8.9 Replication Toolkit

D8.6 Updated IUP-s for each LH city and developed IUP-s for each follower city.

D8.10 Replication Roadmap for each lighthouse and follower city

Table 3: Relation to other activities in the project



2 Objectives and expected impact

2.1 Objective

General objective

The overall objective of WP2 “SmartEnCity Regeneration Strategy” is the development of the

first approach of integrated and systemic urban regeneration model towards Smart and Zero

Carbon City concepts.

Task 2.6 on Integrated Planning (Development of Integrated Urban Plans) is devoted to

define the complete SmartEnCity regeneration strategy that will be applied in the three LH

cities interventions, as well as in the development of the integrated plans of the follower

cities. The first deliverable of the task (D2.4) was focused on the earlier stages of any urban

regeneration project: diagnosis and partnership definition. As part of Subtask 2.6.4, this

subtask aims to integrate all previous activities into the final integrated methodology to

develop strategies and plans for the identification of optimal options for the transformation of

European cities into Smart Cities.

Figure 1. Task 2.6 Workflow

This IRS has the ambition of being the starting point for the transformation of European

cities, starting with the SmartEnCity LH pilots and the followers. This strategy is based on

strongly focusing on the following items that are being developed in their related tasks:

developing citizen participation methods;

stakeholder involvement;

advanced diagnosis;

alignment with policy;

regulation and standards;

optimal technology and innovative solutions selection;

governance models;



ICT integration and smart management;

district and building energy retrofitting;

technologies for energy supply and use;

Sustainable mobility.

After the deployment of the demonstration sites, this subtask will be worked out further away

in order to refine the methodology, based on evaluation results from demo implementation,

addressing on the Integrated Urban Regeneration SmartEnCity Strategy final version (D2.8),

as a systemic approach for SmartEnCity Urban Transformations, deepening also on the

Investment and financing models; and the evaluation of impacts and quality of life.

2.2 Expected impact

This deliverable is intended to be applied in the SmartEnCity urban regeneration strategy

definition of the three LH cities, and defines a path for defining the intervention strategy and

hence the proposed projects of the two follower cities. In a wider sense, this deliverable can

be useful for any European city willing to devise a smart urban regeneration project.as a

helping guide for the implementation of the SmartEnCity strategy replication.



3 Overall Approach

Task 2.6 on integrated planning requires the coordination of several inputs from other WP2

tasks. This diagnosis focused deliverable also requires a specific coordination with Task 7.1

on evaluation plan, in charge of designing the whole system of indicators of the project.

The deliverable has been divided in three main parts dedicated to a general framework of the

Integrated Urban Planning, the relation between smart city strategies and the integrated

planning and the first approach of the SmartEnCity (SEC) Regeneration Strategy.

Chapter 4, called Integrated Urban Planning provides a general overview of the evolution of

the European regulation framework in the different areas that have contributed to build an

Integrated Urban Planning and Smart City policy, it is a review of the Smart City concepts

and strategies

Chapter 5 is a theoretical analysis on how the main dimensions of the SEC project

(governance, retrofitting, energy, mobility and ICTs) have been defined and how they have

evolved towards an integrated strategy.

Chapter 6 is the first approach to the strategy which will integrate all needed actions to

develop SEC-strategy based projects, with the ultimate purpose of transforming any city into

a Smart Zero Carbon City

The sources used to elaborate this deliverable have been mainly European regulatory

documents like communications, white papers, charts, strategies, etc. Also general literature

in the field of Smart City, and its main domains (urban planning, urban regeneration,

governance, energy, mobility, ICTs) has been reviewed.



4 Integrated urban planning

4.1 Challenges of integrated planning

Urban regions and cities face many opportunities, but there are emerging problems as well.

For example, concentration of people is associated with more sustainable use of land and

resources (e.g. public transport, infrastructure, etc.), economic growth, spread of knowledge

and social capital. At the same time, due to the convergence of people and sustaining life in

the city new concerns about the environment arise. Cities consume 75% of primary energy

(UN-Habitat 2017) and are large emitters of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions putting

pressure on the environment. The impacts can be seen directly in the cities (e.g. local

pollution, congestions, and heat islands) or indirectly in other regions (e.g. land grabbing,

signs of climate change).

The future cities of Europe are executing very different technological, economical,

administrative and social principles compared with today practice. The European Union

moves towards low-carbon economy. According to Roadmap 2050 Europe will reduce its

GHG emission up to 95%. This will redefine every aspect of modern lifestyle – the way we

eat, the way we move around, the way we travel, the way we work, the houses we build and

the cities we live in. Nowhere will these changes be as fundamental as in the urban

settlements.

Related to urban areas Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,2014b, p.25) has

emphasised the following points regarding human settlements, infrastructure and spatial

planning:

“Urbanization is a global trend and is associated with increases in income, and higher

urban incomes are correlated with higher consumption of energy and GHG emissions

(medium evidence, high agreement)”;

“The next two decades present a window of opportunity for mitigation in urban areas,

as a large portion of the world’s urban areas will be developed during this period

(limited evidence, high agreement)”;

“Mitigation options in urban areas vary by urbanization trajectories and are expected

to be most effective when policy instruments are bundled (robust evidence, high

agreement)”.

As can be seen from the previous points, mitigation activities related to energy efficiency and

specifically GHG emission reduction are important in decreasing the impact of anthropogenic

factors of climate change, emphasising the need for the implementation of urban-scale

mitigation strategies and activities.

Hence as a first conclusion SmartEnCity project is focused on energy efficiency improvement

and GHG emission reduction actions which are closely related to Climate Change mitigation.

Since cities are being main areas in the territory where energy is consumed and GHG

emissions are being produced, the projects aims are related to the development of energy

efficient urban areas – i.e. cities that are sustainable, smart and resource-efficient –

intertwining topics that cover energy, mobility, retrofitting, ICT and citizens.



4.1.1 Framework evolution

The urban policies have evolved through a comprehensive overview defined on the basis of

the sustainable development paradigm. Understanding the evolution of this comprehensive

framework is key to define any integrated strategy. The aim of this subchapter is trying to

build up a time line of the main strategic documents (charts, protocols, etc.) with which

understand not only the current urban policy framework, but also the main global challenges.

This evolution is divided as follows:

The 1970s energy crisis and the cities´ decline (before 1980)

The birth of sustainability (late 70s –late 80s)

Strategies after the Brundtland report (90s-00s)

Strategic planning: Urban competitiveness through Lisbon Strategy (00s-10s)

After the Leipzig Charter and the financial crisis (after 2010s)

The 1970s energy crisis and the cities´ decline.

The 1970s oil crisis and its consequences (market crash, soaring inflation and high

unemployment) knocked the global economy and helped trigger a global decline of

industrialized cities.

The Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements was the first international document

dealing with “the extremely serious condition of human settlements”. The increasing

difficulties to reach the basic needs in urban contexts are closely linked with social and

economic development, as well as environmental.

Key issues as inequitable economic growth, human dignity, social justice, were permanently

present in this first UN-Habitat conference. In the same way the Amsterdam Chart,

considered as the first consensus document of the countries that composed the Council of

Europe regarding urban regeneration (Matesanz 2016), stated the importance of social

integration for better conditions of the development of our towns.

This chart was also innovative including the multi-scalar approach, considering not only the

building value but also the urban fabric as a whole and a comprehensive approach including

governance, citizen participation, environment, social or finance mechanisms, valuing all the

dimensions that converge in neighborhoods.

Additionally, the UN-Habitat declaration added the environmental approach, in particular the

“irrational exploitation of all environmental resources, whether non-renewable or renewable

in the long term” or “the heritage of mankind and its protection is the responsibility of the

whole international community”

Both documents opened the path for the elaboration and implementation of integrated

policies and programs for human settlements, preparing spatial strategy plans to guide the

socio-economic efforts linking and harmonizing them with policies on industrialization,

agriculture, social welfare and environmental and cultural preservation.



The birth of sustainability

The concept of sustainable development, which began to be formulated in the 1970s under

the term "eco-development" and which was shaped over the next two decades, is based on

the finding that nothing grows indefinitely in nature, but when certain thresholds are reached,

collapse and degradation take place in every process and degraded or fragmented

components become part of new development processes2.

This perspective, which places human welfare at the center of the stage, is one of the

fundamental elements in ecological thinking and also in the idea of sustainability. In fact, it is

part of the most widespread definition of sustainable development, contained in the famous

document Our Common Future, prepared in 1987 by the United Nations World Commission

on Environment and Development and better known as the Brundtland Report.

In the European level the European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter, in 1983 at the 6th

Session of the CEMAT in Torremolinos (Spain), proposed a more coordinated effort of the

implementation of various sectorial policies and the several levels of decision-making in EU.

In addition, it invoked the need for a more balanced socioeconomic development of the EU

regions, the improvement of the quality of life, the responsible management of natural

resources and protection of the environment, and a rational use of land (EC, 1983: 14-15)

(Medeiros, E 2014).

With this framework several documents were developed dedicated to the environmental

topics (air pollution, greenhouse gases reduction, etc.), in parallel the beginning of the first

phase of the Urban Pilot Projects as antecedent of the URBAN community initiative took

place. This initiative has funded more than two decades integrated urban regeneration

projects in different European cities

The trivialization of sustainability for decades did not achieve in the deconstruction of its

strongest structure as a tool of social, economic and environmental transformation. Since

1987 the sustainable urban development has been presence in different urban policies as an

umbrella for their integration.

Strategies after the Brundtland report

The 90s begun with the publication of the Green Paper on the Urban Environment in which

four main pillars described the essence of the European urban development approach:

The economic dynamic: the city is synonymous with proximity, providing the multiple

contacts and activities that make it an information hub and creative centres. It is this ability to

assemble the economic actors involved in all stages of production, research and consumption

that draws firms to the urban centres;

The social dynamic: the city brings together a wide variety of social facilities (nurseries,

hospitals, social service agencies, etc.) whose role is becoming increasingly important as

populations are marginalized by underemployment, unemployment and poverty. Indeed, the

concentration of social problems makes it possible to define and pursue specific rather than

general remedial policies.

The cultural dynamic: as in the social sphere of which it is a part, the city's cultural role

depends on density, proximity and choice. These factors facilitate the 'production' of culture as

2 http://habitat.aq.upm.es/boletin/n14/acver.html#UNO

http://habitat.aq.upm.es/boletin/n14/acver.html#UNO



much as its 'consumption'. In addition, the historic heritage of the city allows unique economic

activities linked to culture, including tourism;

The political dynamic: more than any other place, the city must respond directly to demands

by its citizens for 'good government'.

In this document the fact that the 'urban system' is a complex and interrelated whole, is

highlighted.

Effective management of our urban environment requires a strategy based on an overview of

the urban system, with integrated decision making in key areas. Few cities possess an

administrative structure that can ensure such integration, so it is a main barrier to deal with in

all urban projects. Besides, the interrelation between the city and its hinterland requires

therefore that policies should be generated within a broad context which has a concern for

the planning of the region as a whole.

During this decade, several charts and initiatives agreed that quality of life, public health,

environmental concerns, social cohesion, principles and values should become integrated

elements of all European and national policies that have an impact on cities and towns. At

the appropriate scale, whether on the local, national or European level, these should be

developed through urban visions “that consider and integrate economic, social and

environmental forces” (conference on Strategies for Sustainable Cities in The Hague, 1999).

With the aim of encouraging the conception, exchange and implementation of good practices

related with sustainable urban development at the local level several monitoring and

assessment methods providing appropriate information were developed. Of all of them, the

Local Action Plans (Agenda 21), defined internationally in Río declaration (1992) and

subscribed in Europe through the Aalborg Charter (1994), have been the one with higher

impact along European cities.

The environmental awareness, and its specific regulations, related with climate change

continue as a cardinal point year after year. Also governance and sustainable mobility

acquired importance in all documents.

Strategic planning: Urban competitiveness through Lisbon Strategy

The aim of the Lisbon Strategy, launched in March 2000 by the EU heads of state and

government, was to make Europe "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based

economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs

and greater social cohesion". In 2000, the strategy was based on economic and social pillars.

One year later, at the European Summit in Gothenburg, a third pillar has been added: the

environmental dimension.3 This strategy included the ICTs as a “major challenge and a

significant opportunity for job creation”, intending to improve “the quality and quantity of jobs

in the European Union in the short and medium term through the impact of ICT”

URBAN II initiative 2000, as a follow-up to Urban I in 1994-99, Urban II aims more precisely

to promote the design and implementation of innovative models of development for the

economic and social regeneration of deprived urban areas. It also strengthened information

and experience-sharing on sustainable urban development in the European Union.

3 https://portal.cor.europa.eu/europe2020/Profiles/Pages/TheLisbonStrategyinshort.aspx



The urban and territorial programs spread in this decade, coexisting with other previous

programs such as the Local Action Plans or the subsequent Environment Action

Programmed. The Commission tried to ensure consistency, complementarity and synergy

between the Community activities and projects to implement a cooperation framework

between different programmers and initiatives, in particular the URBAN initiative. As well, the

thematic strategy on the urban environment highlighted “the cross-cutting nature of urban

management issues means that any strategy for improving the urban environment needs to

be coordinated with the other environmental policies concerned. As well, included climate

change policy (sustainable construction to improve energy efficiency, urban transport plans,

etc.), protection of nature and biodiversity (reducing urban sprawl, converting industrial

wastelands, etc.), quality of life and health (reducing air pollution and noise, etc.), sustainable

use of natural resources and prevention and recycling of waste.”

In 2007 the informal meeting of Ministers was held in Leipzig, where two documents were

adopted: Territorial Agenda of the European Union: towards a more competitive and

sustainable Europe of diverse regions and the Leipzig Charter. The Territorial Agenda

maintained the main lines defined in the European Spatial Strategy (1999) in which the

polycentric territorial distribution, cooperation, governance, clustering and network, climate

change and ecological structures reinforcement are rooted topics. The Leipzig charter insists

in defining strategies for an integrated urban development involving multiple stakeholders

and multiple thematic fields. (Environmental – mobility, energy efficiency, waste

management-, Social – identity, cohesion, inclusion-, economic – attractiveness, investment,

employment and innovation -,and politics – services, institutional quality, citizen participation,

governance and public-private cooperation) (Matson 2016)

After the Leipzig Charter and the financial crisis

The period 2007-2013 saw the mainstreaming of the ‘urban dimension’ in cohesion policy, as

a result of which all urban areas have become potential beneficiaries of EU structural funds.

EU ministers have continued the political agenda for urban development in Europe which

fosters, as we have seen in previous sections, the integrated approach to urban development

that is needed to overcome the limitations of a sectorial and fragmented approach to urban

questions.

The territorial agenda 20204 of the EU identifies major opportunities and challenges relating

to territorial development:

more exposure to globalisation and structural changes caused by the global economic crisis;

new challenges for European integration and growing interdependence of regions;

diverse demographic and social challenges, and spatial segregation of vulnerable groups;

climate change and environmental risks;

energy challenges;

loss of biodiversity, vulnerability of natural, landscape and cultural heritage

4 Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020.Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable

Europe of Diverse Regions. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development. 19th May 2011 Gödöllő, Hungary



These issues all require integrated solutions that a place based approach to policy making

can deliver.

The Europe 2020 Strategy5 is intended as a ‘wake-up call’ and is presented in the belief that

the crisis will function as a driver for future and more radical collective commitment by the

EU: ‘Business as usual would consign us to a gradual decline, to the second rank of the new

global order’. ‘Innovation’ is chosen as a key word for boosting a cohesive EU in the global

arena, strengthening the single market and social inclusion. The Toledo Declaration of June

2010 emphasized the role of cities in contributing to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth

through an integrated approach6 Territorial cohesion was included in the Lisbon Treaty7.

The Lisbon Agendas growth and jobs on the one hand and the Gothenburg Agenda on

sustainable development (2005) focus on social inclusion on the other – have been

channeled into a new thematic strategy for Europe 2020. The Europe 2020 strategy

responds to the European and global post-crisis challenge by proposing seven flagship

initiatives8 to catalyze progress under each priority theme, with three main goals: smart,

sustainable, inclusive growth.

Smart growth has been interpreted in different ways: in most cases smart growth has meant

that projects should focus on scientific, technological and economic excellence first and then

distribute the spoils of success afterwards, rather underestimating that there are ways of

including social and environmental elements in the equation from the outset. With this

general framework raised in 2012 the Smart Cities and Communities initiative

The 7th Environment Action Program (EAP 2016) will be guiding European environment

policy until 2020. In order to give more long-term direction it sets out a vision beyond that, of

where it wants the Union to be by 2050:

It identifies three key objectives:

to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital

to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy

to safeguard the Union's citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and

wellbeing

Four so called "enablers" will help Europe deliver on these goals:

better implementation of legislation

better information by improving the knowledge base

more and wiser investment for environment and climate policy

full integration of environmental requirements and considerations into other policies

Two additional horizontal priority objectives complete the programme:

to make the Union's cities more sustainable

5 EU 2020 strategy: www.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

6 5 http://www.mdrt.ro/userfiles/declaratie_Toledo_en.pdf

7 6 The Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) was adopted in December

2007. See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=O 8 Innovation Union, Youth on the move, A digital agenda for Europe,

Resource efficient Europe, An industrial policy for the globalization era, An agenda for new skills and jobs, European platform against poverty.



To help the Union address international environmental and climate challenges more

effectively.

Through this framework the evolution Community wellbeing framework, Sustainable cities

strategies or Smart Cities approach are in themselves integrated maps of key community

priorities that show progress in each key field and how different issues fit together.



Figure 1. Integrated planning strategies time line

This figure shows the evolution of the European regulatory and political framework focused on those dimensions that have contributed to build the

actual smart city concept, in which ,sustainability, integrated planning, quality of life or equity are included. There have also been included those

dimensions that constitute the SmartEnCity project: From this schemes it is possible to highlight how the integrated urban regeneration has been

present for several decades in different charts and programmes through the urban planning and environmental regulation. Since 2000 the different

dimensions took presence in the urban policy framework, including the smart city concept as a specific policy (before that date it was included in

other regulatory frameworks as a part of a whole), the number of documents multiplied and the integrated urban regeneration strategies became

transversal dimensions

EUROPEAN LEVEL EUROPEAN LEVEL

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

IU

*21 Local Agenda

Our Common Future (Brundtland, 1987)

Montreal Protocol , on

substances that deplete the ozone

layer (UNEP, 1987)

Green Paper on the Urban

Environment (EU, 1990)

Kioto Protocol (EU, 1997)

The Rio declaration on environment

and development (UN 1992)

Towards an urban agenda in

the European Union (EU, 1997)

Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union A Framework

for Action (EU, 1998)

II European Urban Charter (EU 2008)

I European Urban Charter (EU 1992)

5th European Community environment programme: towards

sustainability 1993-2000 (EU 1992)

Aalborg Charter. European Sustainable Ci ties (EU 1994)

Leipzig charter on sustainable

European ci ties (EU 2007)

URBAN Comunity Initiative

1994-1999 (EU 1994)

ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective (EU, 1999)

Torremolinos Charter.

European regional/ spatial planning (EU 1983)

Revised Lisbon Strategy on the Functioning of the EU (EU 2005)

Toledo Declaration (eu 2010)

Habitat I I . Conference on Human

Settlements, Estambul (UN 1996)

Lisbon Strategy (EU 2000)

European Charter of the

Architectural Heritage (EU, Amsterdam 1975)

6th European Environment Action Programme (EU 2002-2012)

4th Environment Action Programme (EU 1987-1992)

3th Environment Action

Programme (EU 1982-1986)

II URBAN Comunity Initiative (EU 2000)

Cities of Tomorrow (eu 2010)

Information and Communications Technologies to facilitate the

trans ition to an energy-efficient, low-carbon economy (eu 2009)

Habitat I II . Conference on Human

Settlements, Quitol (UN 2016)

Basque Declaration. New

Pathways for European Ci ties and

Towns (EU 2016)

7th European Environment Action

Programme (EU 2016)

Smart Cities and Communities,

EIP ( EU 2012)

Roadmap for Information and Communications Technologies for

water management (EU 2015)

European Multi Stakeholder

Platform (MSP) on ICT standardisation (EU 2011)

URB

ENV

ICTs

SC

MB

Rol ling Plan for ITCs (EU 2013)




Habitat I . Conference on

Human Settlements, Vancouver (UN 1976)

Digi tal Agenda for Europe (EU 2010)

Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth (EU 2014))

Together towards competitive and

resource-efficient urban mobility (EU 2013)

Fi rs t Phase of Urban Pi lot

Projects (EU, 1989)

Thematic s trategy on the

urban environment (EU 2006)

EU Sustainable Development

Strategy (EU SDS, 2001)

Review Sustainable Development

Strategy (EU SDS, 2006)

Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (EU 2008)

White paper: European transport policy

for 2010: time to decide (EU 2001)

White paper: Roadmap to a Single

European Transport (EU 2011)

Green PaperTowards a new culture for

urban mobility (EU 2007)

Action Plan on Urban

Mobi lity (EU 2009)

New Guidelines for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (EU 2014)

Integrated Urban framework

Urban frameworkg

Envirnmental framework

ICTs framework

Smart City framework

Mobility framework



4.1.2 From integrated planning towards measuring and monitoring as tools for decision making

“If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it”

(Lord Kelvin, Sir William Thomson )

The EU regulation framework comprehensive approach has been present along several

decades, with higher presence in the last two. Also the scientific literature has developed

specific discussions around the fact of developing integrated planning policies in urban

contexts to achieve social, economic, environmental challenges. All this knowledge and

strategies and programs have landed in the urban practice with continuous improvements

but still so far from a common practice on a comprehensive city-oriented performance.

Although the notion of integration is expressed in policy documents (see 4.1.1) as if it is a

single concept, in the real world integration has a number of meanings and interpretations:

In terms of policy management, integration is about organising and coordinating the policy

fields in a specific area including the formation of partnership and promoting citizen

participation (horizontal integration);

In terms of governance, integration is about bringing together vertical policies from different

levels of government and applying them coherently in an area-based initiative (vertical

integration)

In terms of geography it can be used to address the issue of sustainable urban development

at different geographical scales, such as neighbourhood, municipality or city region.

The combination and interrelation of these aspects is the most difficult and challenging task

for a city but is necessary to achieve a genuinely integrated approach. There are still several

barriers (CITYkeys 2015, FosterREG 2017) identified which difficult an integrated urban

planning approach, some of them are:

lack of human and financial resources for that higher complexity actions to create

multidisciplinary teams;

lack of vertical and horizontal public coordination in urban regeneration projects;

Lack of planning at the district or neighborhood level. Current urban planning practice

does not automatically integrate social, environmental or economic aspects from the

beginning;

lack of diagnostics and planning instruments at neighborhood level that hinders the

incorporation of integrated planning at this level;

lack of culture of measuring so many different indicators in the higher levels of cities;

lack of integrated set of smart city key performance indicators;

lack of reliable data available yet;

A number of political decisions need to be taken in order to (per case):

define a smart city strategy & its goals;

define the operational structure and its mandate;

select a performance measurement system;



facilitate collaboration and gathering of data;

define handling, privacy and dissemination policies;

A comprehensive city-oriented performance platform, including sets of key performance

indicators

Easy to understand and present results;

More, better-quality, more dynamic sources of open data;

Adequate resources to consistently lead and run performance measurement;

Technical guidance on how to select, set-up and run such a framework;

On our experience both technical and political criteria must be and are commonly balanced

on indicators choice. The implementation of a City Information Open Platform (CIOP) should

facilitate a decision making process for all the departments of city administration. It is

necessary to identify the added value the CIOP can provide to their daily planning tasks, as a

data management, processing and collection hub. As a result, the data which is intended to

both feed and provide the platform will be systemically updated and integrated in

department’s decision-making, integrating the information coming from the CIOP into urban

planning processes.

The common, and arguably more useful, approach has been to construct a comprehensive

suite of indicators, which can provide a clear picture of progress and wellbeing in a particular

nation or region. This is the approach taken by the EU with the proposal of the 2001of the

European Union’s Social Indicator Framework, which requires public national reporting on a

range of ‘triple bottom line’ indicators.

This renewal of interest in community indicators has been fuelled by a recognition that their

potential significance extends well beyond monitoring community trends and outcomes.

Many governments at all levels have increasingly explored the potential for community

comprehensive indicators to act as a springboard for community-based planning and

development projects, and for stimulating and focusing discussions on community, regional

and national goals and priorities

With the OECD project of developing a more comprehensive social indicator framework a

new perspective appeared. This led to an expansion of ABS social statistics, the publication

of consolidated Social Indicators and Social Trends volumes, and proposed Department of

Social Security Indicators of Community Wellbeing. Although the ABS continued to collect a

wide range of important social data, the idea of an integrated national social indicators

framework foundered along with the OECD project in the early 1980s.



5 Interaction among smart strategies and integrated planning

Introduction

There is not one agreed definition for smart city, since the approach to the smart city is

somewhat different for various perspectives (cf. Albino et al. 2015, Chourabi et al. 2012,

Meijer & Bolívar 2016, Nam & Pardo 2011). For example, technology prone descriptions

accentuate the importance of technology and ICT in the development of a smart city, and

there are others that accentuate social aspects like learning and governing. Albino et al.

(2015) speculate that the reason for unclear definition might be that the smart city has been

conceptualized within the “hard domains”, where the ICT has a functional role and “soft

domains” where the use of ICT is not decisive. What is considered important is that “smart

city assessment must take into account that cities have different visions and priorities for

achieving their objectives, but they must promote an integrated development of different

aspects, both hard and soft” (Albino et al. 2015, p. 18).

Historical development of the concept of the smart city can be described by the interweaving

of technology and knowledge. The importance of technology in the development of cities and

city planning has been described through three phases (Angelidou 2015): 1) technological

advancement and society – the importance of technological visions as people/visioners

defined urban futures through the advancement of technology; 2) knowledge and innovation

economy – learning and the increase of knowledge have ushered the way to massive

development and use of technology, and 3) recent trends that can be described with terms

like technology push and demand pull and defined through demand and supply. The former

“implies that a new solution/product is ushered into the market as a result of quickly

advancing science and technology, i.e. it is driven by supply, regardless of the expressed

needs of society”, and the latter “refers to solutions/products being developed and

commercialized as a result of scientific research responding to the demand on the side of

society” (Angelidou 2015, p. 99).

Why the concept of smart city is important is that we no longer can continue the same model

that was the basis for the development of cities today starting back from the Industrial

Revolution, but rather focus on more efficient approach that would allow sparing the

resources (Murgante& Borruso 2015). Thus, we need smarter programming and planning in

management of the resources. The most important questions would be: “what constitutes a

smart city?”, “what makes a city ‘smart’?” and “what it means to be ‘smart” in an urban

context?” (Albino et al. 2015, Angelidou 2015). The importance of smart city framework has

risen due to the sustainable development aspirations – technology as a way to implement

more efficient solutions and create a liveable city (Chourabi et al. 2012).Putting these

aspects together, the literature on smart city has evolved to a point that the main

components of a smart city constitute of technology, people and institutions (cf. Meijer &

Bolívar 2016, Nam & Pardo 2011).

As previously explained, there are different approaches to the concept of smart city. We have

adopted the balance of three main dimensions – technology, people and institutions as

summarised by Nam & Pardo (2011) and turn the focus towards the smartness in urban

planning (Murgante & Borruso 2013). “Technology” stands for technology perspective where

the focus is on infrastructure, information, connections & innovation. “People” stands for



education, learning, knowledge, innovation and creativity. Institutional dimension stands for

community, different stakeholders, governance and smart growth.

Although there is neither explicit definition nor recognized theory on Smart City (Albino,

Berardi & Dangelico, 2015; Harrison & Donnelly, 2011), there are similarities among the

variety of projects and some classification efforts have been undertaken. Despite the

difficulty to keep track of the many Smart City projects launched in recent years, there is a

series of topics and fields shared by many of these projects, as well as certain regional

differences (Neirotti, De Marco, Cagliano, Mangano & Scorrano, 2014). The diversity of

Smart City projects can be analysed in terms of topics, methods, agents, design and

implementation processes, or business models (Giffinger & Gudrun, 2010; Angelidou, 2014).

The European Commission has proposed a vision of Smart City focused on the intersection

of three major topics: energy, transport and communication, with an approach that highlights

the potential environmental and sustainability dimensions of Smart City, not present in the

previous definitions (Kramers, Höjer, Lövehagen & Wangel, 2014).

In any case, every Smart City Project is a combination of more or less mature technologies

applied to different fields. In recent years there has been a great deal of foresight studies

from technology companies, trying to figure out new fields and possibilities for their

technological developments, beginning to design specific products and services for the city.

At the same time, the first implemented projects have shown the limitations of the traditional

approach: the proper functioning of the city depends more on the correct interaction of the

different existing tools than on the addition of new superb tools (Molina, Arana & Jiménez,

2015). In this sense, specific challenges may be identified for integrating smart technologies

in the urban context: “It is not one single technology, but rather a set of socio-technical

systems that need to interact in an intelligent way, in order to deliver a broad set of benefits

to an individual network of beneficiaries” (Smart Impact, 2015:14-15).

Smart City should be conceptualized as a tool at the service of a vision, a city project at the

service of a transformation strategy. This means not to replicate but to generate genuine

projects adapted to local conditions: each city, town or region should find its own Smart

project, supported by their own strengths and opportunities, taking into account the

multidimensional nature and interrelated problems of urban phenomenon (Molina, Arana &

Jiménez, 2015).

In fact, integrated approaches have been considered a prerequisite for urban sustainability in

Europe as they involve “spatial, temporal and factual coordination and integration of diverse

policy areas and planning resources to achieve defined goals using specified (financial)

instruments” (Leipzig Charter, 2007). Moreover, all governmental and non-governmental

players relevant to urban development should get involved in a comprehensive way from the

earliest stages of any project, including local residents and private agents and stakeholders.

After the recommendations of Leipzig Charter (2007) on applying an integrated approach to

urban planning, LC-FACIL URBACT II network defined a Reference Framework for

Sustainable Cities (RFSC 20079) that establishes 30 objectives distributed in 5 dimensions

(see Table 4).

However, district-level approaches may be much more bounded. Table 9 displays the

number of indicators used by different district-level urban development certification tools (see

9 http://rfsc.eu/



Section 7.1 for a more detailed description). In that comparative chart we can see a core of

traditional categories (environmental, social and economic) shared by all the certification

systems, while there is a variety of complementary, more specific domains only included in

some of the systems. Mobility and governance would be the most extended of these

complementary domains, while energy becomes a specific domain only in one of the

systems (although the more popular one).

Next table explains relation between dimension and objectives for European vision of

tomorrow´s cities.

Dimension Objective

Spatial 1. Develop sustainable urban planning and land use

2. Ensure spatial equity

3. Encourage territorial resilience

4. Preserve and enhance architectural, cultural and urban heritage

5. Promote high quality and functionality of public spaces and living environment

6. Develop alternative and sustainable mobility

Governance 7. Ensure an integrated territorial strategy

8. Foster sustainable administration and financial city management

9. Implement a process for assessment and on-going improvement

10. Increase citizen participation

11. Strengthen governance in partnership

12. Facilitate capacity building and networking

Social 13. Ensure social inclusion

14. Ensure social and intergenerational equity

15. Build up a supply of housing for everyone

16. Protect and promote health and well-being

17. Improve inclusive education and training

18. Promote culture and leisure opportunities

Economical 19. Stimulate green growth and the circular economy

20. Promote innovation and smart cities

21. Ensure connectivity

22. Develop employment and a resilient local economy

23. Encourage sustainable production and consumption

24. Foster cooperation and innovative partnerships

Environmental 25. Mitigate climate change

26. Protect, restore and enhance biodiversity and ecosystems

27. Reduce pollution

28. Adapt to climate change

29. Manage natural materials resources sustainably and prevent waste

30. Protect, preserve and manage water resources

Table 4. Dimensions and objectives for a European vision of tomorrow’s cities (RFSC, 2016)

A common approach for Smart dimensions and the integrated planning

In the following subchapters it is explained the format that should be used in the planning

process of Smart City actions or smart solutions in different domains. They aim to develop a

more specific focus on the relations between the Smart dimensions such as: i) governance,

ii) retrofitting, iii) mobility, iv) energy and v) ICTs and the integrated planning framework. All

of them have common template summarized in the next figure:



Figure 2. Dimension’s common template

Dimension (governance/ retrofitting / energy/ mobility / icts/)

This refers to each domain or area of an integrated planning strategy. In this case we are

going to take into account: energy, mobility, retrofitting, ICTs and governance as being core

issues in SmartEnCity project, but depending on the aim of each specific project, it could also

include other dimensions as the socioeconomic, health, cultural heritage, environmental, etc.

E.g.: Mobility dimension of the city: city analysis/consideration from mobility’s point of view

Dimension´s concept

The dimension definition or conceptualization, in relation with the urban and smart city

challenges. This definition should develop the state of the art of each dimension, trying to

have a general overview of the main meanings an its evolution through the last years (time

line)

Links with other dimensions of the city

Chourabi et al. (2012) have listed eight core components or critical factors of smart city

initiatives. These include: management and organization, technology, governance, policy,

people and communities, economy, built infrastructure and natural environment. They find it

is important to consider all of these factors when assessing the extent of smart city and even

comparing different smart city initiatives and cities.

Linkages between different dimensions are clue for an integrated strategy. In urban context it

is necessary to understand how actions in one dimension should affect the others, thus to

understand synergies and conflicts between different issues and in consequence, to help in

the decision making process. Thinking the relation between the five dimensions analyzed in

this chapter seems necessary to be able to develop a comprehensive strategy (E.g. figure:

interaction of mobility dimension with other dimensions).

Scales

The scales, in urban contexts, used to be defined in relation with the administrative

boundaries. For an integrated planning strategy the city is thought as a system in which all

the scales are connected beyond the boundaries. Each dimension should consider which the

PRE- POST-

PRE- POST-

ACTION

ACTION

LINKS WITH OTHER CITY

DIMENSIONS

MEASUREMENTS

DIMENSION'S CONCEPT TOOLS

SCALES

CITY DISTRICT

DIMENSION



main action scale is, but also how these actions affect to the different urban system levels.

As main scales of study, city level and district level are considered, touching upon building

scale if really necessary. In deliverables D3.1, D4.1, and D5.110 of the SmartEnCity project a

city diagnosis has been performed for the three lighthouse cities (LH) (Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Sonderborg and Tartu), including specific sections for each dimension (energy/ built

environment/ mobility/ ICTs/ citizen engagement)

Tools

Here relevant tools concerning each dimension should be identified and discussed in order to

enhance and facilitate the performance of each dimension, also considering its synergies

with other city dimensions. All contributors, with expertise in each dimension, are intended to

provide valuable tools coming from their professional experience as well as receiving some

input from D8.2 Replication Toolkit_V1 (M18), currently under development. Tools can be

identified for different phases of the project:

1. Strategic, 2. Pre-intervention; 3. Actions/interventions; 4. Post-intervention.

Measurements

As described in Work Package 7: Monitoring and evaluation of the SmartEnCity project, the

evaluation framework allows analyzing interventions performance in the different dimensions.

This evaluation framework includes evaluation plan, monitoring program and data collection,

trying to take a picture of each dimension, intending to bundle key information to assess the

overall performance. Different measurement procedures can be more suitable for different

phases of the project, presenting specificities regarding each dimension:

1. Strategic 2. Pre-intervention; 2. Actions/interventions; 3. Post-intervention.

5.1 Integrating governance and urban planning

Governance dimension

Individuals have the ability to change their behaviour but as always, there are the differences

in values, beliefs, knowledge, lack of information, opportunities, etc. that affect our decisions

and impact the way we behave and evaluate our actions (Thøgersen & Ölander 2003; Stern

2000). To be the most effective in a sense of decreasing the negative anthropogenic effect

on the environment and help society adapt to the changing conditions and environments, our

actions towards more sustainable development need to be orchestrated. Governance can

provide a framework for achieving these results (Lange et al. 2013).

Defining governance is complicated since it is much nuanced. The literature does not provide

a unified definition, but rather includes aspects or perspectives that can be taken into

account. Kooiman (2003) adopts the social-political governance where at the heart of

governing are the interactions between different stakeholders (the state, the market, civil

society) and collective responsibilities. For example, the governance has been described by

different relationships between state intervention and societal autonomy in the continuum of

public authority and societal self-regulation (Treib et al. 2007). The goal of governance is to

10

These deliverables are part of the LH work programme deployment



implement collective goals or interests (e.g. sustainability) by different entities (Lange et al.

2013, p. 406). Adopting public values agreed upon different stakeholders sets the framework

for good governance, and can help to achieve this (cf. Kernaghan 2003), but they also

indicate the interactions how the decisions are made.

Starting from the 1990s a shift from a government based approach where authorities

provided solutions to the problems and the processes were started leading to a more

collaborative approach (Murgante & Borruso 2013). The focus has shifted away from

regulating (i.e. laws, sanctions, etc.) to influencing social change by using softer steering

mechanisms (i.e. voluntary programmes, negotiations, etc). This has given rise to the

discourse of old and new governance, led to new issues, complexities and different types of

governance practices (Termeer et al. 2010) and raised the question about the relations

between state and society (Lange et al. 2013).

The forms of realizing collective goals via collective action can be defined as modes of

governance and in the contemporary context these have been described as complex,

multiple and simultaneous (Lange et al. 2013). The approach to governance can be

hierarchical governance, co-governance or self-governance that describes the level of state

intervention, practices between different parties and capacity to manage interactions

(Kooiman 2003).

In the context of governance and cities we are talking about city governments and urban

governance as well as central government and governance on a country or higher level (i.e.

EU). The latter affects the local level mainly with their legislation, regulations and strategies.

Urban governance is a form of modern state intervention as the emphasis is on making cities

inclusive, taking into account the diversity that is present in cities and providing dialogue and

partnership between different sectors of urban society (Obeng-Odoom 2012, p. 210). Urban

planning is “the process of managing changes in order to achieve particular objectives as

regards the urban system” (Witherick 2001, p. 278) and is regularly managed at a local level.

Associated with the changing conditions of the environment and the society, the notion of

“sustainable urban development” has come into focus of urban planning. This calls us to

adopt a system approach and implement a more integrated approach towards urban

development (Yigitcanlar & Teriman 2015).

“Urban settings have substantial impacts on people’s lifestyles, behaviours and consumption

patterns” (Yigitcanlar & Teriman 2015, p. 349). Thus, urban planning can be an instrument to

direct life in cities – achieving the balanced development of the city and better life quality for

its citizens but also taking into account the environment – covering a wide spectrum of topics

(i.e. technical and social) like land use, energy policy, buildings and infrastructure, mobility

and transport, etc. Governance and urban planning are strongly interconnected with different

strategies (e.g. sustainable development strategies, smart city strategies) and urban planning

and urban strategies should set the development perspectives for a longer time period.

Given rise to the sustainability issues governance can help to achieve the sustainability

objectives (Lange et al. 2013), but this is realised only if the need to add sustainable

development and environment in governance is acknowledged (Lafferty 2004).

Further the chapter will focus on governance from a sustainable development and urban

planning perspective – more specifically, adopting climate change and smart city

perspective. The former is important in this context, since one of the aims of SmartEnCity

project is to decrease the carbon foot print of cities but at the same time to contribute to the

growth of sustainable and inclusive cities in environmental, social and economic



perspectives. The latter is important, since in order to achieve those goals the project has

adopted the smart city concept.

Climate change governance

Due to the acknowledgment of climate change, cities and governments have started to work

on both mitigation and adaptation strategies, although the latter is somewhat scarce in

practice (Bulkeley et al. 2011). The framework for handling governance in a climate change

context is brought in next figure and is elaborated further on in the text.

Figure 3. Framework for governance in the perspective of climate change. Source: compilated based on Bulkeley et al. (2011), Fröhlich & Knieling (2013), Lange et al. 2013, Termeer & Dewulf (2014), Termeer et al. (2015),Treib et al. (2007).

The governance of adaptation to climate change can be described as a multi-scale, multi-

sector and multi-actor challenge (Dewulfet al. 2015):

multi-scale challenge – describes the connections between different scales or levels of

governance (global, regional, local, etc.), on what level to address and institutionalize the

responsibility and how is the work between different levels organized. For example, although

the decisions to participate in climate improving measures(i.e. UNFCCC) are done on a state

level, the real and most important actions and improvements are done on a local scale that is

the closest to the people (Bulkeley & Kern 2006);

multi-sector challenge – describes the connections and interactions between different

policy sectors in climate change adaptation to increase the importance of the topic;

multi-actor challenge – describes the roles, responsibilities and interactions of

different actors (public, private, NGOs, research institutes).

Strategies and actions regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation can be

conceptualised under climate change governance (Fröhlich & Knieling 2013). Fröhlich and

Knieling (2013) have included four demands that the climate change governance includes:



boundary-, level- and sector-comprehensive requirements – the need for

comprehensive and coordinated strategic approaches that are not dependent on

certain limitations (e.g. spatial/territorial boundaries);

diversity of stakeholders – climate change governance is multi-level, cross-sectoral,

comprehending multiple stakeholders (public, private, NGOs, etc.) that have different

perspectives and interests, adopting a broad variety of approaches and solutions;

longevity – managing climate change requires long-term strategic thinking,

contribution and investment;

uncertainty – the strategies need to consider the liability of the natural and social

environment and must react according to the change.

The success to respond to these challenges can be described by governance capabilities

(i.e. the policy makers’ ability to observe, act accordingly and the governance system’s ability

to enable such observing and acting), and responding to the demands of climate change

governance is dependent on the governance capabilities (Termeer & Dewulf 2014, Termeer

et al. 2015):

reflexivity – the ability to take into account multiple perspectives, opinions and

understandings that all affect how a problem is being approached;

resilience – the ability to adapt to constantly changing environment (problems,

solutions and context) without losing its identity and reliability;

responsiveness – the ability to react to changing demands and having balance

between different public values;

revitalization – the ability to “recognize and unblock counterproductive patterns in

policy processes, and thus to reanimate actors and to enhance processes of

innovation needed” (Termeer et al. 2015, p. 686);

scale-sensitivity – the ability to “observe and address cross-scale and cross-level

issues” (Termeer & Dewulf 2014, p. 39).

The governance modes describe the governing process. In table 5 there are listed five

modes of urban climate governance where the focus is on local level. These modes and

instruments or tools, whether they are more formal, informal or economic, can be and are

overlapping in real life practice (Fröhlich & Knieling 2013).

Type Description Tools Examples



Type Description Tools Examples

Self

-go

vern

an

ce

(self

-go

vern

ing

)

The capacity of local government to

govern its own activities.

“The municipality as consumer and

role-model”

Processes of

organisational

management

Reorganisation

Institutional innovation

Strategic investment

Energy efficiency schemes within municipal

buildings. Improving energy efficiency in

government offices and other municipality

owned buildings

Renewable energy demonstration projects

Green travel plans and fleets

Mobility management for employees

Energy efficiency standards in new buildings

Demonstration projects

Waste prevention, recycling and reuse within

the local authority

Reg

ula

tio

n

(go

vern

ing

by

reg

ula

tio

n, au

tho

rity

)

The use of traditional forms of

authority such as regulation and

direction which persist despite

reforms.

“Planning and regulation”

Use of sanction

Control

Strategic planning: enhance energy

conservation, regional development plans, land

use plans, zoning plans

Supplementary planning: guidance on energy

efficiency design

Planning policies

Environmental impact assessment

Pro

vis

ion

ing

(go

vern

ing

by

pro

vis

ion

(in

g))

The shaping of practice through the

delivery of particular forms of

service and resource.

Practical, material and

infrastructural means

Financial policy

Energy efficiency measures

Energy Service Companies

Community energy projects

Public Transport Service Provider

Recycling, composting, reuse schemes

Incentive systems

Climate labels

Climate proofing

En

ab

lin

g

(go

vern

ing

th

rou

gh

en

ab

lin

g) The facilitating, co-ordinating and

encouraging action through

partnership with private- and

voluntary-sector agencies, and to

various forms of community

engagement. Refers to the role of

local government.

“Facilitating and encouraging

action”

Persuasion, argument

and (positive)

incentives

Campaigns for energy efficiency/reducing,

reusing, recycling waste

Provision of advice

Provision of grants

Promote the use of renewable energy/recycled

products

Education campaigns

Quality partnerships

Guidance for architects and developers

Environmental audits



Type Description Tools Examples P

art

ne

rsh

ip11 Multiple stakeholders working

together on a joint aim, sharing

knowledge (public, private, local,

international, etc.), not specifically

government or state led.

Communication

Collaboration

Co-operation

Networking

Creating supportive environment for the

realization of Quintuple Helix model

Knowledge & know-how creation, transfer &

circulation

Innovation

Collaborative planning

Public participation

Networks

Table 5: Modes of urban climate governance. Source: based on Bulkeley & Kern (2006), Bulkeley et al. (2011), Carayannis et al. (2012), Carter et al. (2015), Fröhlich & Knieling (2013)

It has been summarised that “climate change adaptation in Western Europe is still pretty

much ‘work in progress’” and, thus, it could benefit from being able to create room for new

forms of governance (Dewulf et al. 2015, p. 6). The focus on applying mitigation activities is

somewhat more prevalent, but society would benefit from the increased collaboration of

multiple actors in this perspective as well.

Smart city governance

From the perspective of governance and urban planning the technological layer is not the

main component, but instead, what is important is the “effort to coordinate and harmonize

different urban players, sustained by ICT instruments” (Murgante & Borruso 2013, p. 630).

Governance and collaboration between multiple stakeholders (i.e. a multi-level system with

formal institutions and other stakeholders) provide the smart growth and success of smart

city development and initiatives (Nam & Pardo 2011; Dameri & Benevolo 2016). The higher

aim is not to use the technology per se, but that technology allows progress in a sense it is

beneficial for multiple stakeholders. The smart cities have been described by different

properties that are listed below.

The dimensions or axes of a smart city include 1/smart economy, 2/smart governance,

3/smart living, 4/smart people, 5/smart environment, and 6/smart mobility (Lombardi et al.

2012). One of the dimensions of a smart city is (smart) governance that has mostly been

defined through participation, engagement and collaboration of different stakeholders

(Giffinger et al. 2007, Lombardi et al. 2012, Murgante & Borruso 2013, Albino et al. 2015, p.

12). The components of “smart governance” can be: participation in decision-making, public

and social services, transparent governance, political strategies and perspectives (Giffinger

et al. 2007), networking with other municipalities, changing individual behaviour patterns

(Murgante & Borruso 2013), communication, accountability, service and application

integration, data exchange (as summarised by Chourabi et al. (2012) based on literature).

11

Partnership as a fifth mode of governance has been described in Bulkeley et al. (2011). Here it has been elaborated by Carter et al. (2015) who address the need for collaborative sociotechnical agenda in climate change adaptation where the focus is on new interdisciplinary networks, collaborative practices and the utility of outcomes, and by Carayannis et al. (2012) who describe the Quintuple Helix model where the focus is on the relationships of university, industry, government, public sector & media (like previous helix models), but Quintuple Helix model adds fifth axis, the environment, as a central component, adopting a socio-ecological approach. It promotes knowledge-production-based sustainable development and has been applied in the context of global warming (Carayannis et al. 2012).



Here we should not limit ourselves to the components of smart governance only but see the

development of a smart city in a wider, more holistic governance perspective. As Dameri &

Benevolo (2016, p. 696) have noted, “smart governance does not define the government of

[a smart city]”, it rather “refers to a style of governing. In contrast, [smart city] government

and governance involve the transition from city to [smart city], which should be driven by both

institutional and non-institutional actors” (Dameri & Benevolo 2016, p. 696).

Murgante and Borruso (2013) have synthesized three pillars that sustain the smart city.

These include: 1) connections described as networks and technological infrastructures, 2)

data (open, public) as allowing innovative solutions and interactions between citizens and the

city, 3) sensors as the citizens that live in a city and participate in city activities. Governance

links these elements together by giving direction and a vision, and adds some regulations but

should not exaggerate with the control and supervision (Murgante & Borruso 2013; Murgante

& Borruso 2015). These pillars and the governance reflect on all six previously mentioned

axes of a smart city (economy, mobility, living, etc.) allowing the improvement of life in a city

and creating an environment that is open to innovation and allow bottom-up initiatives.

There has been some criticism on the lack of holistic approach for assessing the smartness

of a city from a governance side (Meijer & Bolívar 2016, Bolívar & Meijer 2016). Castelnovo

et al. (2016) try to avoid the sectorial approach and use the public value-based management

approach to create a holistic framework for the assessment of smart city governance and

policy making.

Meijer & Bolívar (2016, p. 404) have suggested four recommendations for researching the

smart governance: 1) “[c]onceptualize smart city governance as an emergent socio-techno

practice” where the focus should be put both on technology and social structure and their

interactions, 2) “[f]ocus on both the transformation and conservation of urban governance

institutions”, 3) “[a]ssess the contribution of smart city governance to both economic growth

and other public values”, 4) “[a]nalyze the politics of smart city governance”. These

suggestions can be the basis for analysing and developing the city towards more smart

governance model.

Summary

The aim of the SmartEnCity project is to create smart zero CO2 cities. Here the assumption

of “differentness” of sustainable development already applies (cf. Lafferty 2004). In this

context, we acknowledge that something must change in the management of our cities. The

focus has shifted from government to governance and this can be consolidated even more

with the smart city programme, if the focus is on increasing collaboration of different

stakeholders (towards the smart urban collaboration model (Meijer & Bolívar 2016)).

Networked governance as a roof system (i.e. the enabler) brings together multiple actors and

can provide the framework for sustainable urban development and its applications on a local

level. For this smart city plans and strategies need to be created that provide the top-down

approach and set the overall direction (call for “politics”). Also, the governance should also

leave the opportunity for bottom-up initiatives. Thus, we can say that the direction has been

from hierarchical to more network-based governance, but the state is still much alive,

although the decision making has been brought to very close to the individuals or citizen

groups (Kooiman 2003, p. 130).

As in climate change governance the emphasis in smart city strategies should also be on

long term vision and strategies (Angelidou 2015). Instead of just technological aspirations



(“technology for technologies sake”) the focus should be on the socio-techno synergy (Meijer

& Bolívar 2016) and increasing knowledge that supports the decision making in urban

planning for better life quality of citizens (Murgante & Borruso 2013).Cities can perform the

role of pull demand (of innovations, new solutions, etc.) (Wolfram 2012, cit. Angelidou 2015)

and this pull demand can be set by smart city strategies. In the 21st century there is not one

governance mode, rather different governance modes and different tools are co-existing.

What is important is that the modes and correspondent actions are coherent with the aims of

sustainable urban development.

Bolívar and Meijer (2016) see smart governance as the key aspect of smart city. Smartness

of a city has been defined as a gradual concept, where “the smartness of a city refers to its

ability to attract human capital and to mobilize this human capital in collaborations between

the various (organized and individual) actors through the use of information and

communication technologies” (Meijer & Bolívar 2016, p. 398). In this sense, it is important to

understand the present model of smart city governance of a city to better interpret the shift in

the spectrum of institutional conservation (traditional governance of a smart city) to

institutional transformation (smart urban governance) (Meijer & Bolívar 2016).

Links of governance with other dimensions of the city

Governance and energy, retrofitting and mobility

Cities directly or indirectly use most of the resources produced and the need has grown over

time (Albino et al. 2015, UN-HABITAT 2008). The amount of resources they produce is very

small compared to rural regions. How much, what resources and for what a city uses

depends on the stage of the development of a city, what are the main economic functions of

a city, how many are there the residents and how effectively the city can operate (planning,

etc.). All of this affects the energy profile of a city. Related to urban metabolism, it is

important to understand the resource and energy flows. Energy used in cities can broadly be

divided into industry, buildings and transport (UN-HABITAT 2008) that in some levels can be

divided on public private continuum (i.e. publicly owned or coordinated vs private owners). To

what degree governance plays the role in the resource use of a city is the question here.

The following description is based on Table 5 and associated literature from previous

overview of the connections of governance and sustainable development, climate change

governance and smart city governance.

Resource or specifically energy needed and used is associated with multiple aspects of a

city: economy, buildings, transport, etc. Retrofitting here is associated with residential and

commercial buildings, infrastructure and systems, as their energy efficiency is increased.

Energy need in mobility and transport is dependent on the size of the city, land use the

location of different functions that affect the need for mobility, and, also the systems (i.e.

transport modes) that are implemented, supported or constrained by default.

Municipal emissions that can be controlled by governmental actions are small compared to

the overall urban area (i.e. the community-wise energy use that can include residential areas,

industry) emissions (Bulkeley et al. 2011). Thus, the change in energy profile through self-

governing (as defined in Table 1) is somewhat limited. Still, on the one hand, governments

can implement more resource efficient technology in their field of action, e.g. in public

buildings or promote public transport. On the other hand, municipalities can act as example



setters and inspiration for private actors (i.e. using more sustainable resources, retrofitting,

decreasing the need for energy use in public buildings, demonstration projects, etc.).

Many actions towards more energy efficient city can be affected through enabling,

provisioning or regulation. Governing by regulation can set a certain policy framework and

laws, and use control for driving change (for example, restrictions or requirements for

planning, construction and solutions using energy). Governing by provision provides input to

shaping behaviour through practical, material or infrastructural means (for example,

developing public transport system and infrastructure). Governing by enabling uses

persuasion, argument and other incentives to facilitate action (for example, education and

advice on the use of energy efficient solutions, grants or subsidy for implementing more

efficient solutions, etc.).

Governing through partnership is something a government can predispose but that is not

totally under control of the government. Thus, here the role of government as well as other

groups and institutions of society hold somewhat equal roles in creating environment for

knowledge circulation, collective action and contribute to the sustainable development

aspirations of a city.

Overall the associations between governance or governing modes and different dimensions

of smart city defined in the SmartEnCity project – energy, retrofitting or mobility – described

here are not something totally different from the relations that have been dominant before or

are the general practice now. The important point comes from identifying the underlying

wicked problems, defining objectives through the sustainable urban development aspirations

and defining tools and principles for managing them and creating propitious environment for

knowledge circulation. Also, increased emphasis is put on partnership, collaboration and

networking and understanding the city as a whole to minimize inequality and increase the

quality of life of the citizens.

Governance and ICT

ICT plays an important role in the smart city development, although, as we have seen from

the previous literature overview, the city can be smart even without implementing the latest

technological innovations if there are other components present. Thus, the main question

would be what is the importance of the IT platform in a broader sense? Chourabi et al.

(2012), in their framework for smart city initiatives, see that eight listed components (see

“Dimensions and components”) influence each other, but they see technology as a meta-

factor as it can influence the rest of the seven factors in developing smart city initiatives. In

the smart city framework technology and ICT has been identified as an enabler for change

and more efficient solutions. Thus, the technology is a tool not the target itself (Murgante &

Borruso 2015).

There are multiple components related to the use of ICT: the technology, the data, and the

analysis of the data. The results from the use of data and results from data analysis are

probably the most important in the governance sense. The concept of intelligent city

describes this approach as the emphasis is on both the information technology and

knowledge and their concurrence is what gives the basis for making better decisions (Nam &

Pardo 2011).

One of the components of smart city according to the literature is smart governance that is

often described by participation and engagement. It has been described that ICT (especially

social media) can increase the number of participants in public debate and provide new



possibilities for the public to take part in the decision making (Castelnovo et al. 2016, Meijer

& Bolívar 2016). Technology can provide us with new or improved services and can enable

smart governance infrastructure. It is believed that e-governance promotes a more

community-based approach (Coe et al. 2001). ICT can increase the transparency and help to

adopt a more open governance process (Meijer & Bolívar 2016). ICT can help make smarter

decisions based on new data and forms of analysis (Rather et al. 2016). For example, data

flows can help to understand the urban metabolism (Shahrokni et al. 2015).

But on the other hand, although new data sources and especially open data is seen as the

means to increase collective intelligence, it is important for the government to understand the

implications ICT may have (protect and guarantee the security of the data and privacy) (Batty

et al. 2012). This means that “smartness is not equal to open access for everybody” (Meijer

& Bolívar 2016, p. 402) and we need critical conceptualization about the data model of the

city. Data has always been used to make better decisions in urban planning, but this “big

data revolution” and data with new properties addresses new issues about ethical use of the

data both by government bodies as well as private institutions in developing the smart city

(Kitchin 2014; 2016). These ethical issues concern privacy, datafication, dataveillance,

geosurveillance and data uses (i.e. social sorting, anticipatory governance) (Kitchin 2016).

And no matter who, government or private agencies, needs to understand, accept and follow

main data management principles (cf. Zook et al. 2017).

As the technology is more widespread and used in the governance, it poses a question about

the role of the governance (Bolívar & Meijer 2016, p. 674). Murgante & Borruso (2013) stress

that it is important to understand the effect the technologies have on new forms of policy and

planning (e.g. Rathore et al. 2016). It is possible to address some criticism on how the digital

dimensions work in cities. Does the technology provide the desirable results it has been

supposed to achieve? In developing the system, it is important to take into account the

people that are using or supposed to use the system (issues related to digital divide, e-

literacy, etc.). Also, it is important to understand who have designed the system and

produced the code and is the data sample supposed to describe some phenomenon

representative to make decisions (i.e. urban planning decisions) based on the available data.

Scales from governance approach

The smallest unit of action through the governance lens is the individual. People make

decisions daily and act upon them and the data is also produced by individuals (people as

sensors). Dealing with every individual one by one can be difficult and not resource efficient.

Thus, interpretations should be made over all the individuals or groups. In a sense of

geographical scales, for integrated planning strategy, the city is thought as a system in which

all the scales are connected beyond the boundaries (city district, city, urban area, etc.). For

governance dimension, city or city district is considered, since many of the tools are directly

related to the administrative territory of the local government that is defined by the city

boundary. Which level to address is somewhat dependent on the approach, the tools and

methods used. For example, regulations can be set on the whole city level, district plans are

directed to the city district, and engaging public can be directed towards individuals. Although

the initiatives can be addressed to city or city district, individuals are the ones who will take

them up or reject and create networks. To sum up, we need to keep in mind that, governance

if characterised by properties such as multi-level, multi actor-and multi-sector, calls for scale

sensitive governance (Termeer et al. 2010) especially in the case if managing such complex

issues as sustainable urban development.



Tools for governance performance

Governance is somewhat abstract concept that can be described through process (the ways

that shape the outcome) and outcome or product (the results that design the environment)

characteristics (Meijer & Bolívar 2016, Carmona 2017). Developing a smart city is an on-

going process because cities never sleep, they are constantly changing. This means that

cities need to re-evaluate, from time to time, the objectives and tools that are in use, and, if

necessary, change the focus. This also indicates that the tools are mutually relevant both in

the pre-intervention stage and action/intervention stage as well as in the post-intervention

stage. The tools can be formal or informal, they can be top down or induce more bottom up

initiatives, facilitating empowerment. The tools supporting the smartening of a city may have

ICT integrated with them (for example, ICT integrated tools for urban planning and public

participation compared to more traditional tools).

Carmona (2017) has defined a governance toolbox that consists of formal and informal tools.

The aim of the toolbox is to illustrate the tools that can be used in design governance:

Formal tools:

o guidance – design standards, design coding, design policy, design

frameworks;

o incentive – subsidy, direct investment, process management, bonuses;

o control – developer contributions, adoption, development consent, warranting;

Informal tools:

o evidence – research, audit;

o knowledge – practice guides, case studies, education/training;

o promotion – awards, campaigns, advocacy, partnerships;

o assistance – financial assistance, enabling.

The level of intervention of these tools increases for formal tools from guidance to control

and for informal tools from evidence to assistance.

With the tools described in the toolbox it is possible to make parallels with instruments

described in Table 1, although with a focus on climate change governance. The spatial,

urban focus is gathered in tools like urban planning and strategy setting that can provide an

integrated approach. Adopting participatory planning as a framework or tool allows the

development of a city taking into account the needs of the city, its citizens and stakeholders

from different fields. Social accountability tools can increase the transparency in the

governance process (The World Bank 2017).

Governance measurements

In the SmartEnCity project the governance has a citizen engagement focus. There has been

defined a set of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators; WP7) to assess the success of the

project. KPIs related to the aspects of governance can be mostly found in the Citizen

Engagement Protocol, Social Acceptance Protocol and in City Impacts Procedure.

D2.6 Citizen Engagement Strategy and Deployment Plan developed in WP2 maps the citizen

engagement reality of each LH city. Beside this, every LH city has developed an engagement

and communication strategy where more detailed objectives, activities and stakeholders



have been defined (Tasks 3.2, 4.2 and 5.2). Indicators to measure the effect of engagement

in every LH city have been defined in the Citizen Engagement Protocol. The aim of

measuring social acceptance is to measure the social acceptance of the interventions

(district renovation, sustainable mobility, full SmartEnCity actions/interventions) and the

satisfaction with the project as seen through the eyes of engaged stakeholders. The KPIs are

listed in the Social Acceptance Protocol. City plans and governance related indicators for

evaluating city impacts are listed in D7.4 City Impacts Procedure.

There are some KPIs that are defined in other protocols that can be associated with

governance and citizens: energy assessment (thermal comfort assessed by people living in

the district being retrofitted, i.e. quality of life), ICT (urban platforms and their impact on urban

transformation), and thus can be considered in the analysis.

The overall list of KPIs is brought in D7.2. Part of them will be commonly addressed by the

three LH cities, but there are also KPIs that will be unique for certain city, and once again,

these have been defined in the protocols described previously. The definition for collecting

the data (data sources, methodology, specific questions addressed) will be advanced under

D7.9 Data Collection Approach. The strategy provided to measure the indicators should

make sense if the engagement interventions or social acceptance differ from one city to

another.

The “governance” in previous deliverables of the SmartEnCity project has been addressed

through citizens and citizen engagement as citizen engagement approach should take into

account the existing factors of city, like governance culture, administrative structures and

decision making frameworks (D2.4, D2.6). Besides measuring citizen engagement and social

acceptance achieved with this certain project, the general focus of measuring the smart city

developments in a city can be broader. How can we measure or estimate the proportion of

sustainable development goals or smart city development goals? How to measure the

smartness of a city, smartness of governance? As Meijer & Bolívar (2016, p. 398) have

noted, describing smartness is a gradual concept. There is not one unified smart city

framework that can be applied to every city, rather context specific analysis is needed to

understand what is the urban strategy of a city, how the smart city concept is integrated in

strategic documents and daily practices, what are the administrative measures, what is the

political focus, how supportive is the law, who are the representatives, how are the resources

allocated, how is the internal and external progress and performance described, etc. (cf.

Dameri & Benevolo 2016, Garau et al. 2017, see also “Holistic approach on smart city

governance and management”).

5.2 Integrating retrofitting and urban planning

Retrofitting dimension

Retrofitting is a broad concept that comes from the concept of renewal. It might be applied to

different scales when talking of cities. It will be further discussed in the corresponding section

but some examples could be building retrofitting or district retrofitting being both quite close

concepts.

Retrofitting does not have to be understood only as an aesthetic matter but also an structural

thermal or accessibility matter (among others). Retrofitting has to be understood as an



integrated intervention to the object in question in order to improve its characteristics and its

performance.

Retrofitting in the case of building or addition of several buildings (district) is one of the huge

smart cities challenges because of its huge impact due to the huge volume of the

intervention in comparison to other smart city measures. The potential savings that can be

achieved with retrofitting are a large part of the totals of a city integrated intervention (around

45%)12.

Despite all this, retrofitting is a measure that is not equally ingrained in the different countries.

Despite EU Energy13 Directives’ approach since 2010 is to favour this practice, different

conjunctures on the countries make that sometimes is not quite extended.

Anyway it has to be seen as a business opportunity to redirect construction sector nowadays

that construction of new buildings is decreasing and taking advantage that a huge

percentage of existing buildings in Europe have to be improved or fixed either regarding for

example energy performance objectives of 2020 or either regarding the improvement of

comfort and well-being of the inhabitants as well as their security in cases where the building

is too damaged due to its age.

Regarding to the evolution of retrofitting through time, three periods should be distinguished

when analysing the integrated planning chronology (see Figure 1) with the optic of

retrofitting. In the first period until 1987, neither energy performance nor retrofitting were

topics to be treated in integrated planning. The focus was on social and governance

problems as well as in new developments of the cities. On the second period, until 2007, the

first mentions to energy and the need of intervention in the existing cities apart from the

regulation of new developments appear and grow meanwhile the period advances. Finally,

on the third period, until nowadays, both energy performance and retrofitting are important

concerns and two concepts broadly treated in integrated planning reference documents.

In EU context it should be said that this concern is relatively new. Last revision of energy

policies (launched in 2010) has been made in 2016 regarding objectives for 2030.

Even though there have already been several revisions and updates to the European

Directives on this topic, there is still a long way to go in order to definitively launch renovation

activity and its consequent market. An important barrier for both supply and demand of

energy efficiency finance is the standardization of energy efficiency projects.14

In these senses some protocols have been developed inside Investor Confidence Project in

collaboration with European Technical Forum to help achieving this standardization process

of the activities. Six protocols have been developed addressing different building types and

project size/scope.

Another important barriers is engagement, awareness and knowledge on citizens’ side.

Legislative measures should, to a greater degree, support deep renovation of the building

stock and a deeper coordination between administrations must be achieved. According to the

results of the survey done in order to give some recommendations on delivering the Energy

12

Adelina Uriarte, head of the PEP (Plataforma Española PassiveHaus - Spanish PassiveHaus Platform) 13

Energy Efficiency Directive and its revision of 2016 as well as Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and its revisions also of 2016 among others. 14

Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group (EEFIG)

http://www.eefig.org/



Efficiency Directive article 4 it is established that building renovation needs to play a central

role if the EU is to meet its energy and climate policy goals.15

Links of retrofitting with other dimensions of the city

Energy and retrofitting

The strongest link of retrofitting dimension is clearly to energy dimension. Retrofitting

dimension’s goal is to achieve better insulation and tightness in the building envelope. This

makes that conditioning demand is reduced because of a better heat conservation in winter

and a better impediment of heat penetration in summer. If demand is reduced so is

consumption then it can be said that retrofitting influences energy dimension helping to

generate more savings and less emissions. This is independent of the heat supply system

used.

Governance, ICTs and retrofitting

There is also some kind of link with governance and as well as on ICT’s dimension. On

governance side there has to be some plan specially on how to manage property structure

and citizens’ engagement while ICTs dimension will probably measure the goals of the

activities.

Retrofitting is work carried out in people’s houses. Not in all countries property structure is

the same but it should be assumed that in some way residents will have something to say of

what happens in their houses. In this sense, it should be planned how to manage the

implementation activities with them as well as to have their approval to carry out the project.

Probably they will have to accept aesthetics of the project (they are the ones who will be

living there and seeing it every day), budget (probably they will have to pay if not all the

intervention, at least some part of it) and comfort benefits (as they will pay for it they will

probably want to achieve a better comfort level) among other things.

This situation is clear when property structure establishes that each resident is also owner of

his house but even when residents are renting the dwellings because of the public property

of the building, for example, all this should be taken into account because residents will have

something to say.

ICT will be used to measure integrated intervention results and to be able to compare with

forecasts and establish if objectives are achieved or not. In retrofitting activities what will be

measured will be comfort (temperature, RH, etc.) as well as energy consumption in order to

check that the objectives have been achieved. Sometimes ICT might have also home

automation utility in order to help having more savings by adjusting passive and active

measures.

Mobility and retrofitting

There are no synergies or conflict between retrofitting and mobility dimensions as they are

two differentiated actions with no common points between them. The only case in which

there could be some relationship will be in case that the retrofitted building would install a

15

BUILDING RENOVATION STRATEGIES UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT, BPIE (Building Performance Institute Europe)



charging point for electric vehicles on its garage. In that case both action will be implemented

in the same building, but as garage is not a heated space and is outside thermal envelope

will still be two independent actions one from the other without specific functionality

relationship, only spatial.

Scales from retrofitting approach

Retrofitting may be planned in different scales: building, district and city. The main scale of

this dimension is building scale as retrofitting is done in each building regarding its thermal

envelope. Nevertheless there are several factors that will influence the carrying out of the

activities and in some cases their scale: aesthetic vision, economic savings, energy savings,

emissions, etc.

Aesthetics might define the number of building to be treated. It may happen that a group of

buildings has been built together with a common aesthetic and so it should be treated when

refurbishing in order to preserve the uniformity of the whole.

Obviously an intervention in a single building will not have huge results and more buildings

they are intervened better results will be achieved. This is why normally this kind of

interventions never come alone and are carried out in a group of buildings or in a district. City

scale becomes unreachable for a simultaneous intervention in all the urban area.

The number of building stock to be intervened should be the needed to obtain an optimal

performance of the intervention in relation with the budget and the inconveniences caused

while carrying out.

Tools for retrofitting performance

The tools to be used are closely related to the activities being developed. In retrofitting

direction case there will be several topics intervening on it: engagement, funding,

specifications and control and measurement.

Engagement action will be required as a tool for retrofitting due to the need of overcoming

the barrier of property structure. The exact case will differ between countries but the general

problem is that the owners or renters in other cases will have to give their approval to the

interventions as people directly affected by the works and beneficiaries of the new conditions

in their dwellings. The size of this problem will depend on the consciousness of the

population of each of the countries as well as the exact property regime of the buildings

affected.

Funding actions will be needed due to the initial inversion needed to undertake this type of

activities. Retrofitting actions have a cost in material, management and personnel. Despite

the savings achieved will in most cases overcome the costs of the intervention, this will

happen not immediately but in a few years’ time (returning period). It will depend on each

project but probably the owner (or owners) of the building will not be able to assume in the

starting moment all the initial costs though they will be recovering the investment in the

future.

Specification will be needed in several topics in order to assure the correct performance of

the final intervention. Energy, aesthetics, budget and planning restrictions will be some of

those topics. By specifications we understand to establish minimum characteristics that the

intervention should accomplish and never be below those values.



Regarding energy, specifications might affect two parts of the building: envelope and

facilities. For the envelope it should be established for example the maximum energy flow

that could be accepted thought it (including façade, façade hollows, roof…) and for the

facilities the average performance.

Regarding aesthetics, the opinion of the owners or inhabitants of the building should be

taken into account as well as the possible requirements of urban planning restrictions, for

example.

Regarding budget one of the things that should be specified is the maximum of money

available in order to adjust the activities to the real possibilities.

Finally, regarding planning restrictions, specifications must include all planning restrictions

including design (as aesthetics for example, as mentioned) but also technical aspect as

maximum alignments among others.

Last but not least, control and measure action will be needed in order to make sure that the

final results are similar to those expected and planned at the beginning. This will be a clear

case of interrelations with other dimensions as it will almost with total security carried out by

using some ICT system to gather data, process it and expose the results.

All these tolls described will fit in the replications strategy. Deliverable 8.2 is proposing the

Replication framework and Toolkit and also proposing the tools through which we can and

are able to inspire cities to follow the similar path and then explain the connections with these

tools. The next figure synthetize the main pillars of the replication strategy:

Figure 4. Replication Strategy Tools (D 8.2.)

As seen in ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., the explained tools would

fit in SmartEnCity Replication Strategy in the orange highlighted elements. In the Self-

service platform as guidelines to consult, in the webinars as contents interesting to be

explained and finally in the Integrated Urban Planning (IUP) review as information that

should be taken into account and/or added to the new documents of IUP.

It has to be also said that all those tools will be applied during all the interventions process

but especially in the pre-intervention phase as they will be conditioning the design, approach

and planning of the activities. During intervention phase all the activities should obviously



accomplish what has been established by these tools and finally in post-intervention phase,

any further action carried out should also fit on the specifications made.

Retrofitting Measurements

Strategic phase

In a theoretical point of view, as described in D 2.4, different knowledge domains can be

established when planning the assessment strategy. Not all will be applicable to all the

dimensions.

In a second step, a selection process has to be carried out according to the topics

concerning each dimension and establish different subdomains according to the evaluation

interests of the project. Several domains or subdomains might be related to each other

regarding the results of one of the dimensions of the intervention.

When the domains and subdomains have been selected, the relevant Key Performance

Indicators must be highlighted and those will be the results that the project will measure.

Those KPIs must be selected taking into account several principles: relevance,

completeness, availability, measurability, reliability, familiarity, non-redundancy and

independence.

This evaluation procedure might be applied to the city scale or in the intervention scale

depending on the interest of each moment of the intervention. The process could be the

following:

Pre-Intervention Phase

On the pre-intervention phase, city scale indicators will be used in order to establish different

areas in the city according to the retrofitting needs. This will help to select priority areas

where the intervention is more necessary.

After that, a baseline of the area of intervention must be established in order to be able to

compare with the final performance and be able to quantify the effects of the retrofitting

activities. This baseline must be assessed in the initial stages of the intervention phase.

Actions / Interventions

When the intervention is concluded, in the post-intervention phase, the final performance will

be assessed, as mentioned to measure the final results and compare with the initial situation

and thus be able to quantify the effects of the retrofitting.

Post-intervention phase

In the case of SmartEnCity project, the evaluation of the retrofitting will be done in common

with the evaluation of the integrated infrastructures, due to its close relationship within the

final energy results. All this will be included in Energy Assessment Protocol and the

objectives to be measured will be the following:

1. Energy savings achieved with the implementation of energy performance solutions in

the districts due to retrofitting actions which lead to a reduction of energy demand, the

efficiency gained and higher use of RES.

2. CO2 avoided associated to the energy savings.



3. Comfort achieved.

Further information and development of the calculation methods and the selected KPIs can

be found in D 7.3 where all the evaluation protocols have been developed. Monitoring

program has not yet been definitely developed at this stage of the project.

5.3 Integrating energy and urban planning

Energy dimension

Smart Energy System

In our cities’ transition towards smart zero carbon cities; one of the key technological

challenges is that the future energy systems will rely on renewable energy sources.

Renewable energy sources like wind, solar, waves and tides do not contain large amounts of

stored energy – instead the energy must be captured and used immediately (Mathiesen et

al., 2015).

To overcome this challenge, the development of an integrated and smart energy system is

core; as such energy system can enable a cost-efficient integration of fluctuating renewable

energy (Mathiesen et al., p. 16, 2015).

A main reason for this is that “deep integration”of sectors (and with other dimensions of the

city) in such an integrated and smart energy system (electricity grid, thermal grid, gas grid

and other fuel infrastructures) allows for utilization of new sources of flexibility (Mathiesen et

al., 2015).

While a number of sub-energy systems such as Smart Grid, 4th generation district heating

and vehicle-2-grid in recent years have been promoted as designs of future energy systems,

the concept of integrating sectors within the energy dimension and with other dimensions of

the city have been conceptualized as a Smart Energy System (Mathiesen et al., p. 69, 2015).

An overall objective of such Smart Energy System is to transform the linear conventional

energy systems (fuel to conversion to end-use), to interconnected energy systems with

increased interaction between electricity, thermal and transport sectors (including integration

of new infrastructures in aforementioned sub-energy systems).

The reason for this approach is to utilize the flexibility of these different sectors, to

compensate for the lack of flexibility from renewable resources such as wind and solar. In

this way, new interaction possibilities constitute the new sources of flexibility.

Examples of new sources of flexibility that an integrated and smart energy system can

facilitate include storage solutions (e.g. thermal storage and liquid fuel storage), heat pumps

and battery electric vehicles.

The flow diagram in the figure below illustrates components and connections of the future

smart energy system, with a flow from left to right from Resources to Conversion to

Exchange and Storage to Demand. As research and technologies of the smart energy

system evolve, these components and connections also evolve.



Figure 5. Overview of sectors and technologies and interactions between these in a future smart energy system. The flow diagram is incomplete since it does not represent all of

components in the energy system (figure from Connolly, Mathiesen and Lund, 2

The increased integration of sectors in the energy system introduces greater complexity to

the system. The consequences of this, how it affects different sectors of the system and how

the actual design of such smart energy system looks like, requires research and

development in the future.

Here the experiences from SmartEnCity project may be applicable, with demonstration

projects in the three Lighthouse Cities in SmartEnCity project covers central sectors of an

integrated and smart energy system, with interventions being implemented within energy

supply, energy retrofitting of buildings, mobility and also how to optimize interactions

between these sectors using ICT.

Strategic energy planning as basis

As well as new technology solutions that support increased technical interconnections,

structural solutions that support increased organizational interconnections is also key for a

city to create transition to an integrated and smart energy system (Mathiesen et al., p. 19,

2015).

Largely this transition still rely on accept and support from the local stakeholders (politicians,

administrations, citizens, businesses, utility companies, etc.), and together with the increased

demand for organizational interconnections, this can require a structured city platform, that

support such increased connections and relations between the local stakeholders of the

energy system, to support implementation integrated solutions.



Applying a “strategic energy planning approach ” in the city can be an efficient way to create

such platform. A key functionality of such process is to activate (and ideally engage) relevant

stakeholders to enhance accommodation and cross-sectoral thinking among the

stakeholders, and to expose (and ideally meet) varying interests and agendas.

Accept and support from the local stakeholders as well as generating a common reference

point (ideally a strategic energy plan agreed among stakeholders) for the transition of the city

energy system are two main aims with the process, as this is necessary to form a basis or

platform for the increased co-operation in the energy system.

Example of strategic energy planning

Content and configuration of the process may vary due to the city context. A simple

illustration of it is exemplified below, containing four steps used in the energy transition of

Sonderborg: Kick-off, mapping, model calculations and plan and implementation.

Figure 6. Example of steps in a strategic energy planning process (applied in Sonderborg).

In Sonderborg the steps in the figure have been supported by a process of workshops and

meetings, and ended with a strategic energy plan that have become a common platform for

policymakers, energy consumers, energy producers and planners, so that decisions are

made with an awareness that these are part of an overall plan and a final goal.

Plan and implementation

Elaboration of action plan (when?, who?, how?)

Sector plan for heating? Realisation of actions

Model calculations

Reference scenario Possible actions Scenarios

Mapping

Status: Supply, conversion, distribution and consumption

Energy balance Potentials and challenges

Kick-off

Political accept Support by citizens Accept from stakeholders



It can also be a basis for more concrete plans and detailed analyzes, which specify the

objectives and provide practical basis for decision-making. For example the strategic energy

plan can be a natural starting point for implementation of specific plans such as a heat plan

or transport plan.

In Deliverable 8.2 there is a specific subchapter (4.2.1) with background information about

energy transition.

Stakeholder involvement

A key part of the strategic energy planning process is the involvement of a wide range of

local stakeholders. These stakeholders include the energy supply sector, public authorities,

businesses, citizens, and other stakeholders. The stakeholders make up a local basis for the

transition of the energy system, and involvement could typically be through meetings,

workshops, etc. – ideally with the purpose to reach a common agreement about.

Municipal departments Politicians and municipal officials from energy-, environmental-, building-, technical-, cultural departments, etc.

Public bodies Other municipalities, region, etc.

Local stakeholders Local citizens, housing organizations, industries, associations, etc.

Energy suppliers District heating suppliers, electricity suppliers,natural gas suppliers, etc.

Knowledge and technology partners Universities, technology industries, etc.

Table 6: Examples of typical stakeholders involved in a strategic energy planning process.

Energy goals

Before the strategic energy planning process is initiated, an overall city goal for the transition

of the energy system can be a good basis and useful to guide the process and support a

general “pull in the same direction” from the involved stakeholders.

City goal example 1: The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC)

The Directive establishes an overall policy for the production and promotion of energy

from renewable sources in the EU.

It requires the EU to fulfil at least 20% of its total energy needs with renewables by 2020 –

to be achieved through the attainment of individual national targets.

All EU countries must also ensure that at least 10% of their transport fuels come from

renewable sources by 2020.

City goal example 2: Smart Zero Carbon City

City carbon footprint and energy demand are kept to a minimum by using demand-

controlled technologies that save energy and promote raised awareness.

Energy supply is renewable and clean.

Local energy resources are intelligently managed by aware citizens, and coordinated by



public and private stakeholders.

Links of energy with other dimensions of the city

Energy dimension links with all the other four dimensions of the city

- Mobility: Utilizing surplus of fluctuating renewable energy in the system to produce

sustainable fuels for future clean mobility solutions (e.g. biogas), potentially using future fleet

of battery electric vehicles for energy storage.

- Building retrofitting: Balancing the level of energy retrofitting of buildings in relation to the

energy systems key to achieve a cost efficient transition.

- ICT: Intelligent operation of energy production and energy consumption through ICT solutions

is key to ensure reliability of the energy system and efficiently integrate intermittent energy

from renewables.

- Governance: Successful integration of sectors within the energy system (not least successful

integration with energy dimension and other dimensions of the city) require increased

governance through collaboration and coordination procedures between all key energy system

actors. From the households, energy suppliers and industries to other municipalities and the

state (Mathiesen et al., p. 20, 2015) strong link to strategic energy planning.

Scales from energy approach

The energy dimension can be divided in two scales: administrative (political) scale and

project (spatial) scale. While energy decisions on political (administrative) scales constitute

the framework to carry out the transition of the energy system within, the implementations at

project (spatial) scale is in fact the actual energy transition.

Below are typical examples of political (administrative) scales.

Political (administrative) scale Activity

Municipal/city level Energy goals, implementation oriented, local

(sector)strategies, local energy legislation, local resource

availability, etc.

Regional level Coordination oriented, cross-municipal actions, regional

strategies, etc.

National level Energy goals, energy security, framework oriented,

energy taxes and subsidies, national strategies, etc.

International level Energy goals, etc.

Below are typical examples of project (spatial) scales

Project (spatial) scale Activity



Building projects Energy retrofitting, small-scale renewable

energy plants, intelligent consumption

management, connection to district heating,

etc.

District projects Connection to district heating, medium scale

renewable energy plants, etc.

City projects Decentral energy supply system, district

heating and cooling grid, large-scale

renewable energy plants, etc.

Regional projects On-shore wind turbines,etc.

National projects Central energy supply system, biofuel

factories, off-shore wind turbines, national

energy infrastructure, etc.

International projects Transnational energy infrastructure, etc.

Tools for energy performance

Phase Tool type (tool examples) Purpose

Strategic phase

Pre-intervention Stakeholder workshops

Baseline energy system tools (e.g. energy balance tool and Sankey diagrams.)

Modelling energy system tools (e.g. EnergyPLAN tool)

Spatial energy analyses (e.g. ArcGIS)

Accept and alignment of approach

To understand performance of the current system based on facts

To show possibilities and expose uncertainties to enable decision making

To map potentials e.g. wind or solar

Actions/interventions Energy project tools (e.g.

EnergyPRO, WindPRO,

Termis, TRNSYS)

To design and dimension

elements of the energy

system

Post-intervention Energy meters Measured consumption

Energy Measurements

Phase Measurement type Purpose



Strategic phase

Pre-intervention Primary energy consumption

CO2-emissions

Renewable energy share

Status energy use

Status energy mix

Status energy mix

Actions/interventions Payback time

Customer energy price

with/without project

LCC per … (e.g. kWh

delivered at grid, CO2 saved)

Analyze business case

(corporate economics)


(consumer economics)


(socio economics)

Post-intervention Primary energy consumption

CO2-emissions

Renewable energy share

Effect on energy use

Effect on energy mix

Effect on energy mix

5.4 Integrating mobility and urban planning

Mobility dimension

An integrated mobility plan is defined to satisfy the mobility needs of people and businesses

in cities and their surroundings for a better quality of life. It builds on existing planning

practices and takes due consideration of integration, participation, and evaluation principles.

Planning fosters a balanced development of all relevant transport modes, while encouraging

a shift towards more sustainable modes. The plan puts forward an integrated set of actions

to improve performance and cost effectiveness with regard to the declared goals and

objectives. These actions include technical, promotional and market based measures and

services as well as infrastructure. The following topics are typically addressed in a

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan: public transport, non-motorized transport (walking and

cycling), intermodality and door-to-door mobility, urban road safety, flowing and stationary

road transport, urban logistics, mobility management, and Intelligent Transport Systems

(ITS). Mobility plans require a long-term and sustainable vision for an urban area and take

account of wider societal costs and benefits with the aim of “cost internalization” and stress

the importance of evaluation.

In Europe, the first policy proposals in the area of urban mobility, the "Citizens' Network",

date back to 1995 and 1998. They resulted in the launch of a series of initiatives based upon

a "best practice" approach. Further to the mid-term review of the 2001 Transport White



Paper “European transport policy for 2010: time to decide”,16 the EC adopted the Green

Paper "Towards a new culture for urban mobility" on 2007.17 This consultation document

opened a broad debate on the key issues of urban mobility: free-flowing and greener towns

and cities, smarter urban mobility and urban transport, which is accessible, safe and secure

for all European citizens. Based upon the results of the consultation, the EC adopted the

“Action Plan on urban mobility” on 2009.18 As a follow-up to the 2011 Transport White Paper

“Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area”,19 the EC came up in 2013 with an “Urban

Mobility Package” that addressed initiatives 31, 32 and 33 of the White Paper.20 Initiative 31

called for establishing procedures and financial support mechanisms at the European level

for preparing Urban Mobility Plans. Initiative 32 foresaw the development of a package for

urban road user charging and access restriction schemes; while initiative 33 covered the

production of best practice guidelines to better monitor and manage urban freight flows.

Finally, in 2014, the EC launched the guidelines for the development and implantation of a

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP).21 The new concept places particular emphasis on

the involvement of citizens and stakeholders, the coordination of policies between sectors

(transport, land use, environment, economic development, social policy, health, safety,

energy, etc.), between authority levels and between neighbouring authorities. Preparing a

SUMP means ‘Planning for People’. The next table shows the different reference documents

launched by the EC.

Year Reference Document

1995-1998 Citizens' Network

2001 White Paper ”'European transport policy for 2010: time to decide”

2007 Green Paper “Towards a new culture for urban mobility”

2009 “Action Plan on urban mobility”

2011 White Paper “Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area”

2013 “Urban Mobility Package”

2014 “Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan”

Table 7. European Commission reference documents on Mobility.

When considering non-conventional technologies (electromobility, biogas), standards must

be taken into account regarding aspects like: connection to the grid, charging infrastructure,

communication and connecting protocols, safety (check D2.2, sections 3.3.4 and 4.4 in this

regard)

16

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2001_white_paper_en 17

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/green_paper_en 18

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/action_plan_en 19

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en 20

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/ump_en 21

http://www.sump-challenges.eu/content/new-guidelines-sustainable-urban-mobility-plans-released



Links of mobility with other dimensions of the city

The links of urban mobility with different dimensions of the city are crucial for an integrated

strategy. First, the development and implementation of a mobility plan should follow an

integrated approach with a high level of cooperation and consultation between the different

levels of government and relevant authorities. Integrated planning and implementation

encompasses:

a. A commitment to sustainability, i.e. balancing economic development, social equity and environmental quality.

b. Consultation and cooperation between departments at the local level to ensure consistency and complementarity with policies in related sectors (transport, land use and spatial planning, social services, health, energy, education, enforcement and policing, etc.).

c. Close exchange with relevant authorities at other levels of government (e.g. district, municipality, agglomeration, region, and Member State).

d. Coordination of activities between authorities of neighboring urban and peri-urban areas (covering the entire ‘functioning city’ defined by major commuter flows).

In addition, cities have to meet many, sometimes competing legal requirements. The legal obligations for air quality improvement and noise abatement are only two examples of a range of national and European regulations. Integrated urban mobility plans should offer an effective way to respond through one comprehensive strategy.

Finally, ICTs are crucial to provide a clean an efficient mobility, especially in the following areas: Eco-driving and eco-driving support, Eco-traffic management, urban traffic management, Eco-mobility services, Eco-information, navigation and guidance, Eco-demand and access management, Eco-freight and logistics management, Eco-monitoring and modelling.

Scales from mobility approach

For an integrated planning strategy, the city is thought as a system in which all the scales are

connected beyond the boundaries. For the specific mobility dimension, the city level is

considered.

Tools for mobility performance

Existing EU projects which are currently working in mobility tools development are gathered

in the following table:

TOOL (BRIEF EXPLANATION)

OPTIMUM: Optimised ITS-

based Tools for Intelligent

Urban Mobility222324

Project ID: 269309

Topic: FP7-PEOPLE-2010-

Research addresses the following tools: Integrated real time traffic information focuses on development of methodologies for: a) short-term travel time prediction for different modes and networks; b) travel time variability; and c) real time multimodal travel traveller information and routing. Network efficiency and vulnerability modelling focuses on the a) optimising the observability of urban traffic system; b) understand

22

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/99313_en.html 23

http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/157061_en.html 24

http://www.optimumproject.eu/best-practices.html

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/99313_en.html

http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/157061_en.html

http://www.optimumproject.eu/best-practices.html



IRSES - Marie Curie Action "International Research Staff Exchange Scheme".

and assess the effect of adverse weather conditions on road networks; and d) develop response strategy to mitigate the impacts of weather on road networks. Cooperative traffic management focuses on a) active traffic management algorithms such as coordinated ramp metering, VSL etc; b) Traffic signal optimization; and d) Traffic simulation modeling for testing and evaluating emerging cooperative systems.

SUMO: Simulation of Urban Mobility

25

SUMO is an open source, microscopic, multi-modal traffic simulation. It allows to simulate how a given traffic demand which consists of single vehicles moves through a given road network. The simulation allows addressing a large set of traffic management topics. It is purely microscopic: each vehicle is modeled explicitly, has an own route, and moves individually through the network. Simulations are deterministic by default but there are various options for introducing randomness.

Urban Transport Roadmaps (developed under the CIVITAS initiative)

26

Urban Transport Roadmaps tool is an on-line tool that allows to explore and identify appropriate sustainable transport policy measures, quantify the transport, environmental and economic impacts of these measures and consider an implementation pathway (roadmap) for the policy scenario.

Economic benefits of sustainable transport (developed under the EVIDENCE project)

27

EVIDENCE offers a range of tools and resources to make the argument for investing in sustainable transport and to assess its economic benefits. Such an enhanced knowledge will help facilitate effective integration of sustainable transport measures into urban mobility plan.

Table 8. Mobility tools developed under existing EU projects

Traffic models may be used to perform simulations on specific mobility-related scenarios

(e.g. restricted access to the city center as a measure to reduce emissions from ICEs). This

tool is often used to analyses the potential effects of new mobility actions that might be

included in a future update of a city integrated mobility plan.

Traffic models are not planned to be used within SmartEnCity. However, selected KPIs will

be used to assess the effectiveness of such mobility measures.

Mobility measurements

Strategic phase, Pre-Intervention phase

An integrated urban mobility plan identifies specific performance objectives, which are

realistic in view of the current situation in the urban area, as established by the status

analysis, and ambitious with regard to the objectives of the plan. Specific indicators are used

to measure progress towards targets.

Actions / Interventions

The implementation of an integrated urban mobility plan is monitored closely. Progress

towards the objectives of the plan and meeting the targets are assessed regularly based on

25

http://www.sumo.dlr.de/userdoc/Tools/Main.html 26

http://civitas.eu/content/civitas-webinar-tools-better-urban-mobility-planning 27

http://www.evidence-project.eu/

http://www.sumo.dlr.de/userdoc/Simulation/Randomness.html

http://www.sumo.dlr.de/userdoc/Tools/Main.html

http://civitas.eu/content/civitas-webinar-tools-better-urban-mobility-planning

http://www.evidence-project.eu/



the indicator framework. To this end, appropriate actions are required to ensure timely

access to the relevant data and statistics.

The review of the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan and its implementation could suggest

revisions of targets and where necessary corrective actions.

A Monitoring Report transparently shared and communicated with citizens and stakeholders

informs about the progress in developing and implementing the Mobility Plan.

Figure 7. SmartEnCity Indicators levels

Mobility interventions in SmartEnCity project have been defined to achieve a set of impacts,

which are directly connected with technical, environmental, social and economic objectives.

The assessment of the effects of these interventions will be performed by means of a

protocol that will be based on a set of KPIs from the tentative list provided in D7.2. Part of

them will be commonly adopted by the three cities; while there will also be others specific for

each of the cities. This strategy should make sense as the mobility interventions differ from

one city to another.

This protocol will detail the way in which the final performance of the mobility interventions

will be evaluated, by comparing with the period immediately previous to the interventions,

which is called “baseline”.

Data collected to calculate the KPIs and feed the evaluation protocol will come mainly from

two sources:

Data registered by sensors & monitoring equipment installed in the vehicles or available

at traffic platforms. These will be used mainly to calculate technical and environmental

KPIs.

Information coming from surveys. These will be useful to evaluate the social and

economic KPIs, which will be addressed by other protocols (Social Acceptance and

Economic Performance protocols).



There is no unified verification protocol to guide the evaluation process to quantify and

validate the improvements achieved with urban mobility interventions in the specific terms of

SmartEnCity project general objectives. Therefore, an ad-hoc protocol will be defined, based

on IPMVP principles (this protocol is commonly used for building retrofitting).

IPMVP (International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol) is the leading

international standard in measurement and verification (M & V) protocols. It establishes a

framework for assessing energy consumption savings and provides guidance on developing

reliable measurement and verification plans. Currently, this protocol is being developed in

order to evaluate mobility actions: variables, consumption, indicators, values that are related

to the objectives of the project etc.

A common list of KPIs was agreed in D7.2. Based on that, the three LH cities will select and

adapt these indicators depending on their specific mobility interventions and the available

monitoring equipment.

For each of the relevant KPIs a baseline will be calculated and used as a reference for

comparison with the value observed after the physical implementation of the interventions.

The methodology followed will consist in adapting the Measurement & Verification (M&V)

option A of the IPMVP for the mobility interventions deployed in the three LH cities.

The M&V Plan will include the specific measurements, collecting sources and adjustments

for each particular scenario, taking into account the interventions that will be performed, and

also the available sensors that will gather the measurements for the evaluation. The M&V

Plan will be structured as follows:

Formulation of mobility-related general objectives

Selected IPMVP Option and Measurement Boundary

Baseline design

Post-intervention measurements and collecting sources

Analysis

Reporting Period

.



5.5 Integrating ICTs and urban planning

ICTs dimension

The ICT dimension in urban planning is quite a complex concept to grasp. There are

some differentiations to make when talking about the urban dimension of ICTs. In fact,

the city itself does not exist for ICT systems, and that is why is necessary to

differentiate apart when we are talking about ICTs as tools for a particular purpose, or

ICTs as a philosophy for the city and the citizens. Being the last one the one dealing

with smart cities.

Going back to the first concept, pure ICT must be considered as a technology tool

which helps each a particular target. As such, ICT systems are horizontal to the area of

application, and they differ mainly in the final functionality of the concept, not in the

concept itself. There is no such thing as ICTs for smart cities. As an example, the

reference architecture with is generally accepted for an Intelligent City Urban Platform

(The Platform) is extremely similar to that used within the Industry 4.0 sector for the

design and implementation of the Advanced Manufacturing Platforms. In addition, both

present a common acquisition layer commonly known as Internet of Things (IoT) layer

which serves both smart cities and advanced manufacturing.

This Reference Architecture was detailed in deliverable D6.2 in SmartEnCity28,

submitted early 2017.

It has been discussed in the sister sections how ICTs help integrating smart energy,

smart mobility, smart retrofitting, and eGovernance and providing data which,

adequately analysed, will help to make successful decisions. The intensity of ICTs the

City (or the city service provider) implements in the design of the smart solutions will

confer a status which will range anything from a “computer managed system” to a full

“intelligent managed self-deciding” service solution. In any case, it is clear that, at the

level of available technology, ICTs are horizontal to all dimensions of the city, and in

such way, gives the city the label of “smart”.

The second concept is related to the development strategy of the city. The one driven

by the will to provide better services to the citizens, optimised and participative. That

will not be accomplished by just buying an off-the-self urban platform, but with a

conscious development of a holistic city strategy which considers all aspects of the city,

including the neighbours. They are usually the forgotten ones in such a process, as

focusing on break-through technologies for this development often happens.

It is obvious that ICT systems have been around in the city for quite some time. There

are computer-controlled systems specifically designed for traffic management, street

lighting, public transport, waste management, governance and many more.

Traditionally these systems are islands with little or no interconnectivity among them.

As isolated systems, they do their job and perform well, but there is a whole lot of

unveiled potential in linking and cross connecting them. This potential is what the

development of a holistic strategy towards a smart city will identify and target.

28

“Deliverable 6.2: CIOP architecture generic implementation. SmartEnCity - GA No. 691883. January 2017. Dissemination level – Confidential.



In a consultation process for the design of the integrated strategy, at least, these

stakeholders should be involved:

Citizens & neighbour associations

Municipal departments and areas

Specific expert consultant (ICTs, urban planning, engineering, tourism, landscaping,…)

Public administration

Sectorial Agencies (energy, water, environment)

Commerce associations

Utilities

¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.7 shows a rough classification of

he smart elements present in de development of a smart strategy in a city, starting from

the basic low-level hardware layer to a more developed “soft” service layer. To plan for

this development, the professionals must consider how each of these layers is likely to

affect the future development of the city, and decide in advance adequate regulations

for their implementation:

Sensors & Actuators: When installing devices in public spaces, considerations are to

be taken, as who is the owner, who is responsible for the maintenance and availability

(as a function of downtime), who owns the data, privacy and security issues (ie

cameras, data aggregation and data openness), etc. The municipality will have to make

sure that this new Internet of Things ( IoT) layer that appears both in public and private

spaces is properly managed.

Communications & IT Infrastructures: this level deals with the use of existing and

future communication infrastructures in the city, whether public or private. Will the

infrastructures support massive data flow in the city? How to update? Become IT

operator with own Long Term Evolution (LTE)29

infrastructure? For this, budgetary

limitations may point to public-private partnerships as feasible solutions which could

also be explored. Also, the massive amount (in the order of peta to exabytes) of data

generated and stored needs to provide extra muscle to the municipal IT services to

manage the new reality. Alternative outsourcing or mixed solutions may also be

explored.

Data analysis & Intelligence: To extract the information from the data, processing is

needed. Heavy number-crunching techniques and big-data analysis process will

generate knowledge about the city, instant and historic knowledge. The City needs to

plan for the rational use of that knowledge, defining who will have access, in which

context, for what reason.. Also assure the data availability and security, making sure the

volatile data are safely stored. If the city wants to apply an open data strategy, that also

needs to be planned for.

Added-Value services: This is probably the most visible layer, as it is the one the user

will interact with. Citizens (and other IT systems) will be serviced through this top layer.

These interactions must be defined, planned, the target groups analysed. If other

service providers than the city will offer services on the city data, adequate open-data

29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NarrowBand_IOT



strategies must be put in place and enforced. Also the data availability may be an issue,

as smart added-value services are worth the quality of the data they are based on.

Figure 8. ICT systems in the city, from pure hardware (sensors) to the more “soft” aspects (Services)

This is a quick overview of some aspects the municipality must keep in mind when

talking about the implications of deploying smart services in the city, which have to be

considerd carefully. The City needs to be ready to deal with all these new aspects

which are not traditionally of their sector and competences and will need to acquire

them or get them managed outside.

Links of ICTs with other dimensions of the city

The simplistic approach to linking ICTs to the city planning strategy will be to note that

any smart solution or service deployed in the city will be somehow connected to an IT

systems, and so all dimensions of the city will be transformed.

A deeper analysis will also consider the huge potential for city diagnostics and

prediction based on real time measurements and historic data, which will ease the

definition of new future scenarios and definition of actuations in the city. In the short

term, having the information readily available to the urban planning expert, structured,

tagged and cross-related provides new capabilities and the possibility to apply

specifically designed diagnostic tools to run on real(time) data and not only on

estimations and simulations. Some examples may be;

Mobility and transport: real time decisions on traffic management and public transport

availability, cross linking with, for instance, public attendance to events or shopping

areas, and weather forecast.

Economic development: eComerce, pedestrian areas management, advanced tourist

services, etc. based on flight information, harbour data from cruises or sales promotions

in department stores.



Energy management: Real time and historic data for air quality, CO2 and GHG,

energy consumption at city, district or block level to help managing the electric smart

grid and EVs recharging points. Smart Street lighting, private homes, and tertiary

buildings whether public or private could optimise the energy usage with real time

metering and control.

Environment: Examples of improvement in environmental services which will benefit

from a smart strategy may be waste management optimising routes with the container

level data, water usage monitoring for management and alarm systems, etc.

Scales from ICTs approach

In the case of the integration between ICT and urban planning, the scale is a choice,

and only limited by the quality and availability of the data. The precision of the

measurements and the “capillarity” of data is a function of the sensing needs of a

dimension and the minimum information required. For instance, there will be little need

to install CO or NOx sensors in every street in a neighbourhood to account for pollution

indexes, as this is more related to district or even the whole city. On the contrary,

energy consumption to account for CO2 emissions will need to be monitored in each

building is an analysis per district is to be performed.

In the same way, aggregation of existing data from sensors and systems will provide

the information for the traditional city scale and district scale.

Also, building and dwelling scales may be considered should the case be that these

are monitored at that level. To provide another example, if all houses in a particular

district are equipped with energy management systems which account for electrical

and thermal energy consumption, both dwelling level and block level scales can be

studied. Also, aggregation with other block will give the district information and so on to

the city level.

The data availability and precision in the measurement approach for the city opens the

way to different scale definitions, maybe related to population or activity, not to the

physical organisation of the city. Is it possible to plan the city from the neighbour

participation level? Or plan it from the waste production scale?

Tools for ICTs performance

To manage all these new possibilities and take full advantage of the effective

integration of the ICTs in panning the cities new capacities are to be integrated in the

municipalities. ICTs departments need to be strengthened and adequate resources

allocated to their budgets. That is quite clear. Also new areas of knowledge

incorporated to the city spring, as the integration becomes a reality.

For starters, there is a need for additional professional skills to be integrated in the

existing municipal departments, as they will increasingly deal with ICT concepts and

more complex IT solutions. As an example, automatic watering systems for parks and

gardens, whether the service is outsourced or not, will require additional skills if the

sprinklers are to be switched on in different zones and only when there are no people

in the area, cross linking the information with the surveillance cameras in the park, and

not just programming the on-off time.



Also, new specific skills for smart city development and management are required, as

new stakeholders enter in the definition of a smart city. The urban planner have now to

deal with new elements both physical (smart-bins EV recharging posts and smart

infrastructures) and non-physical (WI-FI service, municipal LTE communications, etc.),

and new ways of decision making (public consultations, real time polls, citizen opinion

in social networks) which happen at city scale, and are belong and affect to several

dimensions at the same time.

Other tools are newcomers to the municipal skills, which are data analysis experts, in

different disciplines. Not just mathematicians for statistical and artificial intelligence

algorithms for data analysis, but sectorial experts capable of designing those

algorithms to retrieve the information from the apparent city data mayhem.

Sociologists to interpret and put in value data from the citizen behaviour to help

improve life quality and safety; environmentalists to help interpret emission data and

cross link with climate and weather conditions; mathematicians to design new artificial

intelligence algorithms to optimise transport routes; or production engineers experts in

artificial vision to analyse the information from the surveillance cameras are amongst

possible new capacities a city may require for the full extent deployment of its smart

city long term strategy.

Also, of-the-self sectorial Decision Support Systems are among new tools the city need

to get equipped with for the full smart solution deployment.

ICTs Measurements

The ICT dimension of the city is the one in charge of measuring the performance of the

other dimensions present. It is horizontal to them and in that perspective acts as a tool

to support the others.

The measurements defined within SmartEnCity project for ICTs are defined in WP7

(KPIs) and their purpose is to calculate the degree of deployment of the actions for

each dimension measured. For house retrofitting, for instance, the indicators for ICT

will consider how many instances of a particular house class are created (as absolute

number and/or as percentage of the whole pilot area).

Another measurement could be the usage the neighbours make in the pilot area of the

ICT systems deployed. In addition, for those ICT solutions not limited to the pilot area

(i.e. smart mobility) the amount of information obtained from the citizens, recurrence of

users. Frequency of use, and so on.

These measurements should give data, not from the ICT systems in each dimension,

but form a holistic use of ICTs in the city. At some stage that information is the one that

will support the continuation of a particular smart strategy or indicate the success of the

deployment of a particular smart solution for the city.



5.6 Conclusions

From the planning and strategy setting perspective there has been some criticism on

the lack of integrated strategic urban plans for comprehensive smart city program

(McKinsey 2013, cit. Dameri & Benevolo 2016).But since smart city is yet an emerging

urban strategy There is a huge way forward to go (Dameri & Benevolo 2016). For

example, governance mechanisms, structures, instruments and the roles of

goverments and non guvernamental actors for carrying out smart city activities. The

development of a smart city and smart strategy (although with a spatial reference)

should concentrate on the following aspects (Angelidou 2014):

Since the development of a smart city in most cases is not developing a new

city but rather improving old systems the focus should be on optimizing and

reuse (Murgante & Borruso 2015). Thus, before creating the strategy for smart

city it is important to understand what is already there and how can it be

improved (Angelidou 2014).

Selectivity, synergies and prioritization are three standard core values in

planning a smart city.

Political and moral balance as an important success factor for the development

of smart cities.

Stakeholder engagement. Leveraging human capital and collective intelligence.

Combine digital changes with targeted physical and institutional ones –

integrated projects where physical planning and social policy underpin the

digital or “smart” dimension of the city.

Launch small-scale projects that would increase citizen participation and

awareness and acceptance. These projects need to be part of a broader

strategic plan and foresee synergies among different projects.

If talking about the ICT and using data for developing smart cities it is important to

acknowledge: 1) cities as complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to simple

models, but rather contextuality is desirable in understanding wicked problems, politics

and competing interests, 2) that the view to the city and its processes is not neutral, 3)

ethical dimensions of smart city technologies and urban science (Kitchin 2016). These

are the aspects city developers need to consider.

As evidenced by the SmartEnCity foresight report highlight hoe helping is bringing

together relevant stakeholders and working towards a common vision and course of

action through scenario-building exercises. Foresight has been also an important

participative method used in SmartEnCity and has the ultimate aim of updating/creating

solid IUPs for the partner cities, taking into account smart city trends that potentially

have a great impact on the development of smart cities.



6 SmartEnCity strategy: roadmap towards integrated and systemic urban regeneration

6.1 Strategic frame

Once understoodexplained how integrated urban planning has evolved through last

decades, engaging all city dimensions to the discussion board while incorporating the

innovative approach of smart city trends, the roadmap towards integrated and systemic

urban regeneration is presented: the SmartEnCity strategy.

This section describes the first approach to the strategy which will integrate all needed

actions to develop SmartEnCity-strategy based projects, with the ultimate purpose of

transforming any city into a Smart Zero Carbon City. This first version of the strategy

(M18 of the project) will be refined after the deployment of demonstration sites in the

LH cities, based on the evaluation of results from implementation phase (M45 of the

project).

The figure below shows the main lines of SmartEnCity strategy, which is further

explained along the section:

Figure 9. Main lines of SmartEnCity strategy

0. STRATEGIC PHASE

Brief

1. PRE-INTERVENTION

Concept &Definition +

Design

2. INTERVENTION DEPLOYMENT

Build & Commission + Handover &

Closeout

3. POST-INTERVENTION

Operation and in-use

SmartEnCity Strategy

Analysis and diagnosis of the City current status, in order to identify the city needs and main objectives. City Strategy development as a long-term vision of the city

The final definition of the lines of action Implementation plans of the lines of action

Planning of the intervention Public procurement Commissioning plan

Evaluation plan deployment (based on existing protocols of evaluation) Correction actions Impact assessment of the intervention at city level Maintenance plans and users’ training



Figure 10. Main lines and phases of SmartEnCity strategy

All the actions part of an integrated and systemic urban regeneration project entail a

complex and seamless web of interactions, scales and stakeholders, which

constantly influence to each other, but need to row in the same direction in order to

achieve the ultimate common purpose. With the aim of structuring that seamless web,

the strategy’s frame is defined through the following steering parameters:

a. Scales: city scale/ project scale

b. Clustering in strategy frameworks:

1. Strategic framework

2. Integrated management and implementation of interventions

3. Governance, stakeholders & engagement

4. Information, communication, evaluation & impacts

c. Phases of the project: (:(timing of the project):

0. Strategic phase. Brief

Evaluation plan deployment (based on existing protocols of evaluation) Correction actions Impact assessment of the intervention at city level Maintenance plans and users’ training



1. Pre-intervention. Concept & Definition + Design

2. Intervention deployment. Build & Commission + Handover & Closeout

3. Post-intervention. Operation and in-use

In these first lines (5.1), this section presents these steering parameters, describing

firstly the scales of city & project and the interaction among both; secondly the

clustering of the actions in strategy frameworks; and finally the different phases of the

strategy, summarizing the main actions entailed. In the second part (5.2), all those

actions will be described, following the phases’ flow of an urban regeneration project,

sorted by the strategy frameworks mentioned above.

6.1.1 City &project scales

Ever action within the strategy are navigating among is concerned to the two, three

main scales of the intervention (city/ / district / project scales), experiencing interactions

among them along the different phases of the project:

City scale

District scale

Project scale (including District scale)

All along SmartEnCity project, we find in the indicator system a good tool to sew both

project and city scales. Firstly, the measurements start in the city level, through a City

Diagonsis (D3.1/D4.1/D5.1). Secondly, measurements jump to the project level,

calculating the baseline first (D3.2/D4.2/D5.2), and evaluating the final performance of

the intervention afterwards (D7.13). Thirdly, the measurements come back to the city

level, showing how the outcomes of the project will affect the overall city (City Impact,

D7.13).

Figure 11. Task 2.6 Workflow



6.1.2 SmartEnCity strategy frameworks

After a thorough review of the different actions to be included in SmartEnCity Strategy,

all actions identified within this strategy are framed under the following four main

categories:

1. Strategic framework

This category contains all actions connected to the strategic planning perspective of

the project and the city, including strategic vision, objectives, alignment with potential

synergies, strategic diagnoses, project framework conditions, fulfillment of expectations

and potential next steps, among others.

2. Integrated management and implementation of interventions

This category, in close contact with the previous one, provides the technical

background of the interventions through an integrated management approach (D2.5).

Here, the planning and deployment of interventions, and its successful completion are

included, where BIM methodology has a relevant role all along the process.

3. Governance, stakeholders & engagement

In this category all actions connected to the successful inclusion of all relevant

stakeholders, including citizens, are presented. Those governance procedures include

new approaches to inclusive participation through specific committees set up, ensuring

all relevant stakeholders have a voice in the process.

4. Information, communication, evaluation & impacts

This category intends to bundle all actions related to the effective information flow

within the project, including communication plans as well as evaluation and impact

calculation procedures. In addition, this category regards the establishment of a City

Information Open Platform, intending to work as the future information hub of all

generated inputs in the project.

6.1.3 Phases of the process

The chronological flow of the project is divided in four main stages, aligned with the

phases described in D2.5 (in italic).

0. Strategic phase. Brief

The main purpose of the Strategic Phase will be the definition of the City Level

Strategy, as a long-term vision of the city. For that purpose a deep analysis of the

current status of the five dimensions (energy/ mobility/ retrofitting/ ICTs/ governance)

identified in SmartEnCity project will be carried out. The city needs will be prioritized in

order to design the City Level Strategy that will guide the future developments of the

city.



Not only will a citizen engagement strategy be developed, but also a communication

strategy, in order to ensure the citizen participation along the whole project.

Last but not least, it is necessary a clear commitment among all the stakeholders that

are going to participate in the strategy development.

1. Pre-intervention. Concept & Definition + Design

This phase is focused in the final definition of the action lines of actions allocated in the

City Level Strategy for their implementation within phase 2. So that, the final result of

this phase will be the implementation plans of the lines of action previously selected in

phase 0. During this phase the key aspect will be the coordination among stakeholders,

in order to ensure their participation during the final definition of the interventions.

2. Intervention deployment. Build & Commission + Handover & Closeout

The intervention deployment phase aims to implement the intervention for a

sustainable city decided within the Strategy City level. Not only will the Planning of the

intervention and their execution be established, but also the procedures to follow for

procurements, planning about when to apply for permits, licences and the

commissioning plan in order to ensure the correctly achievement objectives identified

to cover the city needs.

3. Post-intervention. Operation and in-use

In this phase, the short, medium and long-term strategies will be monitored, in order to

evaluate the correct performance of the interventions, for that, and evaluation plan

should be developed and deployed, based on existing protocols of evaluation.

In addition, during the Post intervention phase the impact assessment of the

intervention will be evaluated at city level.

Last but not least, the operation phase of the intervention area will start, so that, during

this phases not only the maintenance plans will be established, but also the users´

training.

The following figure summarizes the main actions of SmartEnCity strategy, presented

in a chronological way, corresponding to the four phases of the project (left to right),

and divided in the 4 aforementioned categories (blue, purple, red and green colors).

Also the main scales (city/project) of influence in each phase are identified in the

bottom of the figure with a grey line.

Figure 12. Diagram of phases, scales and categories. Split into actions of SmartEnCity strategy (next page)



2. INTERVENTION DEPLOYMENT Build & Commission + Handover & Closeout

3. POST-INTERVENTION Operation & In-use

PROJECT FRAMEWORK & PROJECT OBJECTIVES

INTERVENTIONS’ DEPLOYMENT

PROJECT OBJECTIVES FULFILMENT

STAKEHOLDERS’, PRACTITIONERS’ &

NEIGHBOURS’ CLUSTERING & CAPACITY

BUILDING

STAKEHOLDERS’ FEEDBACK & USERS’ TRAINING

CO-CREATION PROCESS

INTERVENTIONS’ FOLLOW-UP & CORRECTION MECHANISMS

CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY ENGAGEMENT FULFILMENT

DATA COLLECTION & EVALUATION PROCEDURES >

BASELINE DEFINITION

CITY INFORMATION OPEN PLATFORM DEPLOYMENT & EVOLUTION POTENTIAL

INFORMATION &

COMMUNICATION MONITORING, PERFORMANCE EVALUATION &

IMPACTS

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK & VISION

STRATEGIC & PROJECT

ALIGNMENT

STRATEGIC FULFILMENT, REFLECTIONS &

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLICABILITY

GOVERNANCE MODEL DEFINITION > PARTNERSHIP FOR INTEGRATED URBAN

REGENERATION

STRATEGIC CLUSTERING

STRATEGIC FOLLOW-UP & CORRECTION MECHANISMS

CITY DIAGNOSIS & DISTRICT DIAGNOSIS

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT & PLANNING OF INTERVENTIONS

1. PRE-INTERVENTION Concept & Definition + Design

0. STRATEGIC PHASE Brief

Project Scale City Scale




Figure 13. Diagram of phases, scales and categories. Split into actions of SmartEnCity strategy (next page)



6.2 SmartEnCity strategy: phases & actions

Here follows a description of each phase and the actions entailed; chronologically,

while connecting actions from the four strategy frameworks. A step-by-step format is

developed to ease an intuitive follow-up of the whole process:

6.2.1 Phase 0. Strategic. Brief

Objectives of strategic phase:

The aim of this phase is to implement a set of integrated existing methods and tools to

support the city analysis and diagnosis, in order to identify city needs and main

objectives. This phase also aims to set Strategic goals of the city which can then be

transformed into the SmartEnCity intervention.

Figure 14. Strategic phase steps

Step 0.1: Defining city level governance model & management structure

The first step will be to establish a governance model and management structure for

the Strategy, which should engage stakeholders from all sectors: government,

community, academia and the business sector (Quadruple helix model). Moreover, a

clear communication strategy needs to be set up from the beginning.

In particular, definition of such a structure should follow the following steps:

0.1.1 First of all, a list Identification of implied stakeholders must be gathered,

classified according to and their interests in groups with similar ones and

prioritized by their importance in the project. roles (Stakeholder mapping)

0.1.2 Secondly, aGovernance model definition:

Governance design of all the governance processes and definition of

potential roles for each of the partners combined with the development

roles´ assignation

1. Governance and management

•Define the structure, plans and communitcation

2. Information

•Gather all previous information available

3. Diagnosis

•City scale assessment to identify potential objectives at city scale

4. Strategy

•Define in city level based in diagnosis results

5. Areas of intervention

•Define the suitable ones based in diagnosis results



Development of a strategy for stakeholders´ engagement by identifying

their interests and win/win strategies that would contribute to that. An

example of this could be the establishment

Establishment of engagement tools for all stakeholders along the whole

process (including citizen participation) as adequate decision or

communication channels. In addition, integration protocols and tools

(horizontal integration and vertical/ multilevel coordination) must be

established as regular updating or ensuring of the following of the correct

procedures.

In parallel, the management structure ought to be defined by doing a first

approach of elements and procedures that will drive the management and

the rhythms of the project and the establishment Establishment of

integration protocols and tools (horizontal integration and vertical/

multilevel coordination)

0.1.3 Management structure definition

0.1.4 Establishment of management and coordination rules (Strategic Committee,

regular coordination meetings, etc.)

Figure 15. Steps of stakeholder mapping30

0.1.5 As a compliment, communication Communication strategy must be

developed by mapping development:

Mapping of potential communication channels, initiatives and target

groups using

Using BIM models for clear communication and information among

stakeholders and beyond the Partnership

30

30

www.stakeholdermap.com



As a result of this phase, the following achievements will be accomplished:

Achievement 0.1: Partnership for Integrated Urban Regeneration at a city level

Achievement 0.2: Information & Communication management plan

Step 0.2: Gathering the information available

In order to prepare for the City Diagnosis, a thorough review of data sources and

existing studies and plans will be necessary. This includes the following steps:

Firstly, an analysis0.2.1.Analysis of available existing city data (GIS format when

possible) and of city indicators system if already implemented to try to adapt it to the

objectives which the project goes after and avoid duplicating work.

After that, an analysis 0.2.2. Analysis of the gathered information about the five

dimensions to be included in the SmartEnCity Strategy (energy/ mobility/ retrofitting/

ICTs/ governance) as which is the current status of the city in those topics or which the

planned immediate actions in this sense are.

Last but not least, an analysis0.2.3. Analysis of the city´s current strategy plans: SEAP

(Sustainable Energy Action Plan), SUMP (Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan), Land-use

Plan, Local Agenda 21, etc. in order to establish if the project is aligned with them.

Step 0.3: Diagnosis of the City

Building on the available information sources, a baseline study will be developed

including the following elements:

0.1.6 City characterization (spatial analysis, district diagnosis, needs & priorities,

City diagnosis indicators calculation); Strategic framework diagnosis and

identification of synergies & barriers ;) aligned with the 5 dimensions of the

project and finally stakeholder’s engagement process for diagnosis of city

needs (including citizen participation).

0.1.7 Strategic framework diagnosis - Synergies & Barriers

0.1.8 SWOT analysis

0.1.9 Stakeholders engagement process for diagnosis of city needs (including

citizen participation)


Achievement 0.3: City diagnosis

Step 0.4: Defining City level strategy (lines of action, interest of the municipality)

Building on, and aligned with, existing city level strategies and plans, the SmartEnCity

Strategy will develop city level strategic lines of action that will connect the area-based



regeneration project with the broader context of the city and its transformation

dynamics. In particular, it will be necessary to include: Strategic vision & scenarios

development, and .

0.1.10 Strategic vision & scenarios development

0.1.11 Strategic objectives and lines of action

0.1.12 Timeline and milestones


Achievement 0.4: Strategic Objectives and Lines of Action definition

Step 0.5: Defining suitable areas of intervention

Once the strategic vision and objectives of the SmartEnCity Strategy have been set, it

will be necessary to define the specific areas of intervention for each Action. The

following steps will follow:

0.1.13 GIS-based multicriteria analyses of the KPIs for each of the objectives set

and qualitative

0.1.14 Qualitative contrast of results with key informants, in order to validate the

multicriteria analyses.

Achievement 0.5: Selection of suitable areas for intervention

Strategic phase achievements:

Strategic framework achievements:

0.4: Strategic objectives and lines of action definition

0.2: City diagnosis - Spatial analysis, district diagnosis, needs & priorities

Integrated management and implementation of interventions

0.5. Selection of suitable areas for intervention

Governance, stakeholders & engagement

• 0.1. Partnership for Integrated Urban Regeneration at a city level

Information, communication, evaluation & impacts

0.2. Information & Communication management plan

0.3. City diagnosis



6.2.2 Phase 1. Pre-intervention. Concept & Definition + Design

Objectives of pre-intervention phase

The aim of this phase is to shift from the strategic plans of the city scale to the specific definition

of the project by providing the final definition of the lines of action as well as defining the

Implementation Plans of those lines of action.

Specific objectives defined for this phase are the following:

To define the management plan for the intervention.

To define the conditions of intervention.

To define the exact technologies to be applied and the design.

To define the baseline for assessment.

Pre-intervention phase is focused on project scale. The work to be done in this period

will be all the transition between the city scale strategy aspects that affect not only the

whole the project, but also to the concrete intervention to be carried out and its detailed

definition.

Figure 16. Pre-Intervention process scheme.

Step 1.1: Defining an Integrated Management plan

Regarding integrated management several committee’s must be created in order to

organize all the stakeholders involved in the intervention. Stakeholders will be divided

1. Management

•Commitees and periodic meetings between stakeholders

2. CIOP

•Definition o the architecture

3. Framework

•Policy, regulations, standards, barriers, risks...

4. Solutions selection

•Identifications of the optimal solutions based on an analysis of the area

5. Indicator system

•Asessment of the results of the intervention

6. Key technologies selection

• Requirements in accordance

7. Team selection

•Tendering and bidding

•Execution Plan according to selected technologies

8. Concrete project definition

•Exact design

•Citizen engagement

9. Financial model

•Budget

•Sources

•Risks and rewards

11. Baseline calculation

•Gathering the suitable data

•Inital values obtention



according to their expertise and role in committees, including: Strategic committee (key

strategic partners); Technical committee (key technical partners); and Enterprises

forum (private sector follow-up).

1.1.1 Stakeholder’s involvement into committees, including:

Strategic committee (key strategic partners)

Technical committee (key technical partners)

Neighbours committee (citizen & associations engagement)

Stakeholders (enterprises)forum (private sector follow-up)

To be able to follow a co-creation process, each of the committees should have regular

meetings to follow-up all the tasks they are carrying out as well as regular common

meetings including representatives of all the committees to put in common the different

progresses of the tasks.


Achievement 1.1: Integrated Management plan

Achievement 1.2: Committee’s definition for Integrated Urban Regeneration

Step 1.2: Designing a City Information Open Platform

The architecture of a City Information Open Platform (CIOP) should be defined (or

adapted, in case one already existing in the city) in parallel. This will be the channel to

centralize all the information as well as to make it accessible for all the interested

stakeholders, including citizens.

1.2.1 Design of CIOP architecture


Achievement 1.3: CIOP architecture definition

Step 1.3: Project framework definition

After having this general organization of the project, the framework of the project

ought to be established by gathering the information concerning policy, regulations,

standards, barriers, risks, business models, etc. that affects the objectives already

defined in strategic phase.

Achievement 1.4: Project framework definition, barriers identification and existing

regulatory gaps for city transformation

Step 1.4: Optimal solutions selection

When the analysis of all this information is completed, the optimal solutions must be

selected. To achieve this objective, a diagnosis of the area should be done to identify



its main problems as well as the main potentialities (probably by SWOT – Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats – Analysis). Those results will be the base for

choosing the suitable measures to implement. Not necessarily the same problems

identified in city scale are the ones happening in the intervention area. In some cases

may happen that a necessity is identified at city level but not in the intervention area in

which that specific necessity could be covered.

Achievement 1.5: Optimal solutions selection

Step 1.5: Indicator system definition

According to this, an indicator system must be established in order to assess the

performance and the benefits achieved with the intervention. This system will serve to

establish a “baseline” or initial state of the area of intervention and to establish the final

performance or final state of the area in order to be able to compare and quantify the

benefits obtained through intervention.

In order to be able to calculate those indicators, the data collection procedure should

be established because gathering this information can be sometimes a hard work. Data

needed can consist of very different natures and there can be different problems

regarding privacy or availability of the exact data needed. This is why this matter ought

to be planned in advance and with the implication of the concerning public body

because most of the times this body will be the stakeholder that has either the

information directly or the access to it.

Achievement 1.6: Evaluation Plan and data collection procedures

Step 1.6: Optimal technologies selection

The key technologies to be applied, such as BIM, should also be defined in this stage

of the process in order to be integrated in all the process from the beginning. Trying to

integrate when the process has already started without taking them into account will

have little sense because the benefits will be much smaller and the effort needed will

be much bigger.

In order to facilitate this process, a series of requirements ought to be gathered, for

example in an EIR (Employer Information Requirements) document. Requirements will

be strongly linked with the objectives. Some examples could be optimizing processes,

reducing times, enhancing communication between stakeholders, etc. In the figure

shown below, there is an example on how to build an integrated model approach.



Figure 17. Model within an integrated approach

Normally, when defining the objectives of the project, the following topics should be

treated: BIM uses and models, BIM deliverables, Common Data Environment, ICT

requisites and Quality Control.

Those requirements must have its answer by the team through some kind of

documentation, for example a BEP (BIM Execution Plan), which constitutes the

guideline of specifications on how all the actions should be carried on. Implementation

Plan should suitably be included in this document (of course including quality control,

commissioning, etc.).

Achievement 1.7: Definition of the Requirement for the project implementation

Achievement 1.8: Definition of an Execution Plan that covers the Requirements

Achievement 1.9: using BIM model for clearer communication between stakeholders

Step 1.7: Technical team selection for interventions

When having defined all the conditionings of the intervention, the project team has to

be selected. This will be through tendering and bidding processes. The ideal way of

doing this will be with an IPD contract where both design and construction works are

signed. It can also be assigned to a certain time of operation and maintenance. With

IPD, all the stakeholders share risks and rewards, management is done in a collective

way and information is shared openly and multilaterally.

There are also other types of contracts that can be valid but will not be following

Integrated Project Delivery. In Design-Build the promoter searches for the services of a

constructor which supplies the complete project and the construction works but also

finances it but the promoter’s commitment is to pay for it when done. Sometimes the

maintenance works are included for a period of time. In Design-Bid-Build the promoter

hires a designer for the design works and tenders for several construction companies.

One of them wins and executes the work. Last but not least, at Construction

Management stage, the promoter hires a constructor to advice in design phase. This



constructor will also carry out constructions works, committing to do it following an

agreed prize when the design is not yet finished.

Roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder must be defined in this early stage as

well as the leading partner in each of the domains or tasks that will be performed

during the intervention. If applying BIM methodology, a BIM team should be designed.

The first thing to be defined is the objectives to achieve in the intervention in the side of

each partner. Then a planning of how all this is going to be implemented must be done.

This process has to be carried out in parallel and in very close collaboration with the

previous one regarding technologies selection because the technical team selected

must have knowledge and experience working with the selected technologies.

Achievement 1.10: Tendering process

Step 1.8: Project definition for interventions

In parallel, risks and rewards will be defined and quantified. Common objectives are

created such as costs, timing or quality. As already mentioned, if following IPD

procedure, both (risks and rewards) will be shared between all the partners in a

proportional part. Additionally, bonuses can be applied when adding value to the

project or when being especially hard working and creative. The incentive fund can be

augmented or diminished according to previously established criteria, normally can it is

divided equally between the partners.

As this will be a collaborative work, several issues concerning data and documentation

should be defined: in which space is going to be working each group, which will be the

inter-group exchange format, will there o won’t be a common data environment and

platform, etc…

Figure 18. Advanced decision-making and project definition within integrated planning

IMPORTANT PROJECT DECISIONS



After achieving all these milestones, the concrete definition of the project must be

faced. Desirably in parallel, two actions should be carried out: the exact design of the

intervention as well as the citizen engagement.

In order to try to optimize the process, trying to push all the important project decisions

to the initial stages of the process, as established when working in BIM and IPD, further

mistakes during the implementation process and the number of changes needed on

site will be reduced.

In the design process it should not be forgotten the implication of the citizenship. In fact

citizens are the final users of the interventions and they ought to be conforming to the

final result. In order to achieve this, their implication in the process from the beginning

is crucial and it is even more determinant when facing the detailed design of the

intervention, this is why the strategic actions in this sense should be put into action

from this moment and in parallel.

For example in energy retrofitting, in most cases, due to property structures, the

approval of the neighbours is needed to be able to go ahead with the intervention. The

“ideal” case in which the building is owned only for one person or entity is not the most

common. In most cases there are several tenants or several owners. If they are tenants

at the end the decision will come from the owner/s and might be easier but if they are

several owners, probably there must be voting processes in which there should be a

percentage of agreement in order to approve the intervention. If this percentage of

agreement is not achieved probably the intervention cannot be carried out.

Achievement 1.11: Detailed design of the intervention

Step 1.910: Financial model

Due to the huge economic initial inversion, some kind of financing model must be

defined to face that outlay. Even if this amount of money in most cases will be

“recovered” by the savings achieved thanks to the intervention (payback), it has to be

spent in advance and it might not in all the cases are available in advance, specially

coming from owners or tenants.

It has also to be clearly defined the budget and the sources from where it will be

gathered. Nowadays the major part of the money is coming from administration’s

funding but this situation will not be during infinitely. New business models have to be

created in order to assure the availability of money when needed but without

depending always from public bodies. As already mentioned, owners or tenants will not

in all the cases dispose of that amount of money immediately and in advance.

Achievement 1.12: Financing mechanisms and business models

Step 1.1011: Project baseline definition

When having a clear definition of the intervention’s measures, a selection of relevant

indicators to have the departure state defined must be done. The needed data to



calculate ought to be gathered and the baseline value of those KPIs should be

obtained.

Achievement 1.13: Baseline definition

To sum up, all the important decisions must preferably be taken before implementation

in order to optimize the process and reduce timing, mistakes, etc…This will

considerably increase this phase but will decrease the following ones.

Pre-intervention phase achievements:


1.4: Project framework definition, identification of barriers and regulatory gaps for city

transformation

1.12: Financing mechanisms and business models


1.1: Integrated Management Plan

1.5: Optimal Solutions Selection

1.7: Definition of the Requirements for the Project Implementation

1.8: Definition of the Execution Plan that covers the requirements

1.10: Tendering process

1.11: Detailed design of the intervention


1.2: Comities definition for Integrated Urban Regeneration

1.5: Citizen Engagement Strategy and implementation start

1.9: using BIM model for clearer communication between stakeholders


1.3: CIOP architecture definition

1.6: Evacuation Plan and Data collection procedures

1.13: Baseline definition

6.2.3 Phase 2. Intervention deployment. Build & Commission + Handover & Closeout

Objectives of intervention deployment phase:



The aim of this phase is to implement the planned interventions following the Integrated

Management Plan. Political commitment and citizens’ participation in the process are important

during the intervention deployment phase. The technical team will define the planning all

procedures, permits and licences in order to develop successful interventions.

Figure 19. Scheme of the Intervention deployment steps

Step 2.1: Integrated Project Management

Integrated management of this phase is crucial for the optimal implementation of the

planned interventions. The selected technical team will plan and follow construction

works and apply correction mechanisms when necessary.

Implementation Plan

When having defined the map of processes according to the sequence of the project,

the responsible for each process must be identified as well as the interdependencies

between processes. All necessary data exchanges will be defined as well as the type

of information to be exchanged, the formats and the structure of elements breakdown.

Implementation follow-up

During the implementation, verification must be done in all the important milestones of

the project. In this sense a Control Panel is proposed in D2.5.

Correction mechanisms

There must be a leading profile in this issue (when using BIM methodology this will be

the BIM coordinator). This leading profile will be the one in charge of reviewing all the

generated information and accepting it if it is correct or reject it if it is not.

Step 2.2: Stakeholder Engagement & Information

It will be important to maintain all stakeholders’ engagement, through the already

established Committees’ meetings and other protocols of interaction. (Strategic

Committee's follow-up as political back-up (if needed), Technical committee's follow-up,

Neighbors committee's engagement in the process and Enterprises forum's follow-up).

1. Integrated management

•Implementation Plan

•Implementation follow-up

•Correction mechanisms

2. Stakeholders

•Engagement and information

3. CIOP

•Implementation of the Platform

4. Commissioning

•Implementation works

5. Implementation

•Following the strategy previously planned

6. Completion

•Implementation works



2.2.1. Strategic Committee's follow-up as political back-up (if needed)

2.2.3. Technical committee's follow-up

2.2.4. Neighbors committee's engagement in the process

2.2.2. Stakeholders (enterprises) forum's follow-up

Step 2.3: City Information Open Platform (CIOP) implementation

In order to fully exploit and appropriately maintain this platform, departments of city

administration must identify the added value the CIOP can provide to their daily

planning tasks, as a data management, processing and collection hub. As a result, the

data which is intended to both feed and provide the platform will be systemically

updated and integrated in department’s decision-making, integrating the information

coming from the CIOP into urban planning processes.

The Monitoring program must be defined regarding issues about schedule, monitoring

periods, monitoring methods, monitoring systems, procedures, etc…

0.1.15 Monitoring program

0.1.16 CIOP implementation in line with the gathered information

Probably, as mentioned in previous phases, this CIOP will be also used as CDE

(Common Data Environment) for the collaborative process of work all along the project.

This CIOP will be the repository of the project information. This is why they ought to be

aligned with the gathered information in the monitoring process.

Step 2.4: Commissioning the construction works

In order to be able to begin with the construction works, the correspondent

administrative transactions must be done and the correspondent licenses must be

gathered.

Step 2.5: Implementation of the project intervention following the strategy planned in previous phases

The implementation works concerning the 5 dimensions of the project (Energy:

supply, use and infrastructures;

District & building energy retrofitting;

Sustainable mobility;

ICTs' integration;

Other potential dimensions to be included in the project) must be carried out.

0.1.18 Project model updating according to “on-site” changes

In order to be able to use the project model during the Operation and Maintenance

phase, it should be updated during the implementation works with the “on site changes”

so when finishing, the model is exactly correspondent with the final real result.



Step 2.6: Completion of works The verificationVerification of the performance of the building systems to meet the

project objectives must be done.

0.1.20 Handover

The final version of the model (“as-built”) must be delivered to the operation and

maintenance team and to the final users. They will be the ones using the model during

the operation and maintenance phase.

0.1.21 Closeout


Achievement 2.1: City Information Open Platform (CIOP) implementation

Achievement 2.2: Interventions' deployment

Achievement 2.3: Intervention’s management

Achievement 2.4: using BIM model for clearer communication between stakeholders

Intervention deployment phase achievements:


2.2: Intervention's deployment

2.3: Intervention's management


• 2.4: using BIM model for clearer communication between stakeholders


• 2.1 > CIOP Implementation

6.2.4 Phase 3. Post-intervention. Operation & In-use

Objectives of post-intervention phase:

The aim of this phase is to assess the performance of the interventions made from a holistic

point of view, addressing issues such as energy, ICT, LCA, mobility, social acceptance, citizen

engagement or economic performance, at project level, and also the city impact evaluation at

City Level.

Specific objectives defined for this phase are the following:

To define the guidelines to perform the assessment of the 5 pillars integrating this

phase: post-commissioning, intervention assessment evaluation, city impact evaluation,

correction actions and Recommendations & next steps for future interventions.



To define the integrated management structure that identifies the stakeholders’

responsibilities in this phase;

Plan and implement the management for the O&M (Operation and Maintenance) and

FM (Facility Management) activities.

Figure 20. Scheme of the Post-Intervention steps

Step 3.1: Post-commissioning

The post-commissioning phase will consist on the definition of each partner responsibility during

the facility operation and in-use. Improvements regarding final users will be defined, together

with specific training activities involving citizens or neighbours.

Regarding the facility management, it will be defined the use of the “as built” BIM model but with

certain organizational modifications to adapt it to this new use. When implementing use and

maintenance protocols this will be useful to reduce timing in repairs because each element is

precisely identified and located. The precise data for each element is also linked to it and can

be consulted by clicking. This helps to improve the performance and the precision in costs and

in maintenance works planning.

Step 3.2: Intervention Assessment

0.1.22 City scale

The assessment of the interventions will be carried out by means of an evaluation plan

(Achievenemnt 3.4). Project evaluation will include the analysis of monitoring results, data

collection, KPI definition and interaction with the City Information Open Platform (CIOP)

(Achievement 3.5).

SmartEnCity project has developed a methodology to assess the performance achieved in the

3 lighthouse cities after the execution of the building retrofitting, district heating, smart grid,

smart mobility, ICT platforms and citizen engagement actions (Deliverable D7.3). This

methodology, which consists of seven protocols, are based in the KPIs proposed (deliverable

D7.2) and will allow to measure the objectives established in each city from technical,

environmental, economic and social points of view:

1. Post-commissioning

•Roles and resopnsibilities

•Users

•Facility Management Plan

2. Assessment

•City scale

•Project scale

3. Impact evaluation

•Overall impact at city level

4. Correction actions

•If objectives have not been achieved

5. Operation and maintenance works

•Facility Management Implementation

6. Recommendations

•Future interventions

•Next steps



Protocol Scope Type of KPIs

Energy

assessment

Energy and emissions savings in district

Thermal comfort

Technical and environmental

indicators for district intervention

ICT

Energy efficiency achieved in district

Share of RES/self-energy supply

due to the use of ICT

Technical indicators for district

intervention

LCA

Impact of the district intervention in

the environment (life cycle

approach)

Environmental indicators for district

intervention

Mobility Energy and emissions savings

Traffic reduction

Technical and environmental

indicators for mobility action

Cross-cutting

Social: Social acceptance

Citizen engagement: Success of

citizen engagement strategy by the

number of people reached in

workshops and people using ICT

platform (added value services,

apps, social network). This can

influence in the decrease of energy

demand and increase the

environmental awareness

Economic: Economic savings &

payback

Social and economic indicators for

district intervention, mobility action

and citizen engagement

Environmental indicators for citizen

engagement

Table 9: Protocols of evaluation: scope and type of KPIs

Tailored protocols have been designed to evaluate the effects of interventions in terms of

environmental benefits (e.g. energy reduction, CO2 saving), thermal comfort, social acceptance,

economic benefits among others after the collaboration of 16 partners from the three cities

which take part of the project.

Results will be measured at city level including:

o Level 3 Indicators City impacts evaluation (in progress)

o Recommendations on CIOP services' deployment. Identification of new potential services

for the city/ citizens.

0.1.23 Project scale

In the project scale, several actions must be developed too.



The already mentioned BIM “as-built” model will be used to be able to compare the

expected performance with the real one. It will also be used for FM works.

The O&M platform must be selected. It will also be the repository for all the O&M and

FM information. Probably, as aforementioned in the text, this will be coordinated with

CIOP.

Last but not least, depending and according to the type of contract, the parameters to

measure the improvements in the project ought to be determined by consensus. From

these values, the distribution of costs and rewards will be done.

As a result, the following achievement will be accomplished:

Achievement 3.4: Performance Evaluation of Interventions

Achievement 3.5: City Information Open Platform (CIOP)

Achievement 3.6: Facility Management Plan

Step 3.3: City Impact Evaluation

A comprehensive evaluation procedure will be established in order to integrate all the evaluation

protocols and estimate the overall impact and performance of the actions at city level. The

scope of this assessment will be the city as a whole, considering the joint effect and synergies

of all the interventions by means of the use of high level indicators that will allow explaining the

impact of the integrated actions in the common area of the energy, transport and ICT sectors.

First, performance before and after interventions will be compared in terms of:

Achievement 3.1: Project objectives fulfillment

Achievement 3.2: Strategic fulfillment of the initial vision (city level)

Step 3.4: Correction actions

Corrective action will be taken when project or city-level objectives have not been met. In these

cases, strategy will be reviewed to analyze the barriers to overcome.

The results of the monitoring and different evaluations together with feedback from public

participation are considered from a short-term perspective. They could be applied during the

process: It can be restarted from the analysis of measures if necessary. Results of the

evaluation plan will be analysed, including the fulfilment of the Citizen Engagement Strategy.

Step 3.5: Operation and maintenance works

As already said, the BIM model can help to optimize those types of works. The model must be

updated with each operation that is done in this sense. This way the exact information will

always be in the model: the model of each element, the time when it was changed and put in

operation, the characteristics, etc...

If having all this exact information updated, planning can be made of approximately when the

elements will have to be changed, regarding the history of incidents the state of an element can

be diagnosed, etc…



Achievement 3.7:Facility Management Plan Implementation

Step 3.6: Recommendations & next steps for future interventions

The objective is to draw a profit or lessons learnt whether or not the objectives have been

achieved to help in future interventions. This will include:

o Technical committee 's feedback

o Strategic committee's reflections

o Stakeholders forum's feedback and market opportunity analysis

Initiatives of SMEs’ innovation development;

Enhancement of project coordination extent after the consortium coalition

among project stakeholders during the project period

In parallel the BIM model can be used to improve the communication between technical and

non-technical stakeholders due to its easy visualization and to the accuracy of the data inside it.

As a result, the following achievement will be accomplished:

Achievement 3.3: Up-scaling and replicability strategies for the city

Achievement3.8: using BIM models for clearer communication between stakeholders

Post-intervention phase achievements:


3.1: Project objectives fulfillment

3.2: Strategic fulfillment of the initial vision (city level)

3.3: Up-scaling and replicability strategies for the city


3.6: Facility Management Plan

3.7: Facility Management Plan Implementation


3.8: Using BIM models for clear communication between stakeholders


3.4: Performance Evaluation Interventions

3.5: City Information Open Platform (CIOP) at work

The following figure summarizes the main actions of SmartEnCity strategy, presented

in a chronological way, corresponding to the four phases of the project (left to right),



and coloured under the 4 aforementioned categories (blue, purple, red and green).

Also the main scales (city/project) of influence in each phase are identified in the

bottom of the figure with a grey line.

Figure 21. Wrap up diagram of the process. split into steps of SmartEnCity strategy (next page)



0. STRATEGIC PHASE Brief

1. PRE-INTERVENTION Concept & Definition + Design

2. INTERVENTION DEPLOYMENT Build & Commission + Handover & Closeout

3. POST-INTERVENTION Operation & In-use

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK & VISION

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT & PLANNING OF INTERVENTIONS

STAKEHOLDERS’, PRACTITIONERS’ & NEIGHBOURS’ CLUSTERING &

CAPACITY BUILDING

CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

DATA COLLECTION & EVALUATION PROCEDURES > BASELINE DEFINITION

INTERVENTIONS’ DEPLOYMENT PROJECT OBJECTIVES

FULFILMENT

STAKEHOLDERS’ FEEDBACK & TRAINING

CITY INFORMATION OPEN PLATFORM DEPLOYMENT & EVOLUTION POTENTIAL

CO-CREATION PROCESS

STRATEGIC & PROJECT ALIGNMENT

GOVERNANCE MODEL DEFINITION > PARTNERSHIP FOR INTEGRATED URBAN REGENERATION

STRATEGIC FULFILMENT, REFLECTIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLICABILITY

INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION

MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIC CLUSTERING


MONITORING, PERFORMANCE EVALUATION & IMPACTS

INTERVENTIONS’ FOLLOW-UP & CORRECTION MECHANISMS

STRATEGIC FOLLOW-UP & CORRECTION MECHANISMS

ENGAGEMENT FULFILMENT

City Scale Project Scale

PROJECT FRAMEWORK (FINANCING, POLICY, REGULATION)



This step-by-step strategy gives an overview of the actions entailed in an integrated urban

regeneration intervention. As shown in this section, the complexity of integrating a

transversal and multidisciplinary approach becomes a challenge due to the multiple

perspectives, expertise and actions to be combined in a comprehensive Integrated Urban

Regeneration strategy.



7 Conclusions and outputs for other Work Packages

7.1 Conclusions

As mentioned in first lines of chapter 6, this document describes a first approach to the

strategy, which will be contrasted and refined after demonstration works in the lighthouse

cities are implemented, based on the evaluation of results (D2.8, M45). In this refined

version, all barriers the projects have faced as well as the difficulties the municipalities have

experienced will be born in mind. This knowledge is crucial for the final development of the

strategy, as most difficulties and barriers experienced by the smart city lighthouse projects

and municipalities will be common to any other European municipality that intends to

replicate this Integrated Urban Regeneration process.

The development of a smart city and smart strategy (although with a spatial reference)

should concentrate some specific aspects:

optimizing and reuse, smart city strategy is important to understand what is already there and

how can it be improved

selectivity, synergies and prioritization are three standard core values

Political and moral balance as an important success factor

Stakeholder engagement

Integrated projects where physical planning and social policy underpin the digital or “smart”

dimension of the city.

Furthermore, if talking about the ICT and using data for developing smart cities it is important

to acknowledge: 1) cities as complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to simple models,

but rather contextuality is desirable in understanding wicked problems, politics and

competing interests, 2) that the view to the city and its processes is not neutral, 3) ethical

dimensions of smart city technologies and urban science (Kitchin 2016). These are the

aspects that LH cities need to consider.

7.2 Outputs for other WPs

7.2.1 Integrated SmartEnCity Strategy WP2

As explained above, after the deployment of the demonstration sites, with the basis of the

first approach of the SmartEnCity Regeneration Strategy the WP2 will continue with the

methodology refinement, based on evaluation results from demo implementation project of

each LH city.

7.2.2 Lighthouse deployment projects (WP3, WP4, WP5)

The three LH cities should detailed (Tasks 3.3, 4.3, 5.3) their District Integrated Intervention,

management procedures and deployment plans to implement demonstration actions in all

project domains (building retrofitting, integrated infrastructures and sustainable mobility), as

well as to carry out the ICT deployment in a coordinated way so synergies and economies of

scale can be taken advantage of, coordination problems can be solved and potentials can be



fully exploited. The Integrated SmartEnCity regeneration strategy should be a helpful tool to

achieve such objectives.

7.2.3 Replication to followers and Smart Cities Network

Integrated SmartEnCity Regeneration Strategy will be aligned to two Follower cities-specific

Integrated Urban Plans (IUPs), specifically in Lecce, (Italy), and Asenovgrad (Bulgaria) to

ensure adaptability and maximize the project impact. Additionally, a Smart Cities Network will

be setup to support project replication at European scale.

The successful implementation of WP8 should be framed by SmartEnCity regeneration

strategy developed in WP2.



8 References

8.1 General literature

ALBINO, V et al (2015). Smart Cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives.

Journal of Urban Technology, 2015, vol. 22, no 1, p. 3-21.

ANGELIDOU, M (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 2015, vol. 47, p.

95-106.

DAMERI, RP; BENEVOLO, C (2016). Governing Smart Cities: An Empirical Analysis. Social

Science Computer Review, 2016, vol. 34, no 6, p. 693-707.

BULKELEY, H et al (2011). The role of institutions, governance, and urban planning for

mitigation and adaptation. Cities and climate change: Responding to an urgent agenda,

2011, vol. 62696, p. 125-59.

BULKELEY, H; KERN, K (2006). Local government and the governing of climate change in

Germany and the UK. Urban studies, 2006, vol. 43, no 12, p. 2237-2259.

CARAYANNIS, EG.; et al (2012) The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a

challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2012, vol. 1,

no 1, p. 2.

CARTER, Jeremy G., et al. Climate change and the city: Building capacity for urban

adaptation. Progress in Planning, 2015, vol. 95, p. 1-66.

CHOURABI, H, et al. Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. En System

Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, 2012. p. 2289-2297.

DEWULF, Art; et al (2015). The governance of adaptation to climate change as a multi-level,

multi-sector and multi-actor challenge: a European comparative perspective. Journal of

Water and Climate Change. March 2015, 6 (1) 1-8; DOI: 10.2166/wcc.2014.000

ERNST & YOUNG (1998). Developing the foundation for integrated product policy in the EU.

DG Environment, European Commission

ERNST & YOUNG (1998) Integrated Product Policy. European Commission DGXI

IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working

Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler,

I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von

Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Web page: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

FRÖHLICH, J; KNIELING, J (2013). Conceptualising climate change governance. In Climate

change governance. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. p. 9-26.

GIFFINGER, R; GUDRUN, H (2010). Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the

positioning of the cities?. ACE: Architecture, City and Environment, 2010, vol. 4, no 12, p. 7-

26.

HARRISON, C; DONNELLY, IA (2011). A theory of smart cities. En Proceedings of the 55th

Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2011, Hull, UK. 2011.



KERNAGHAN, K (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as

centerpiece. Public administration review, 2003, vol. 63, no 6, p. 711-719.

KITCHIN, R. (2016) Getting smarter about smart cities: Improving data privacy and data

security. Data Protection Unit, Department of the Taoiseach, Dublin, Ireland.

KITCHIN, R (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 2014, vol.

79, no 1, p. 1-14

KITCHIN, R; COLETTA, C (2016);. Algorhythmic governance: Regulating the ‘heartbeat’ of a

city using the Internet of Things. In: Algorithms in Culture, 1-2 December 2016, University of

California Berkeley.

KOOIMAN, J (2003). Societal governance. En Demokratien in Europa. VS Verlag für

Sozialwissenschaften, 2003. p. 229-250.

KRAMERS, A et al (2014). Smart sustainable cities–Exploring ICT solutions for reduced

energy use in cities. Environmental modelling & software, 2014, vol. 56, p. 52-62.

LAFFERTY, WM (2004). Introduction: form and function in governance for sustainable

development. Governance for Sustainable Development: The challenge of adapting form to

function, 2004, p. 1-31.

LANGE, P, et al (2013). Governing towards sustainability—conceptualizing modes of

governance. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 2013, vol. 15, no 3, p. 403-425.3

MEDEIROS, E. (2014). The ‘europeanization of spatial planning processes in Portugal within

the EU cohesion policy strategies (1989-2013). Revista de Geografia e Ordenamento do

Território (GOT), n.º 6 (dezembro). p. 201-222

MEIJER, A; BOLÍVAR, MPR (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on

smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2016, vol. 82, no

2, p. 392-408.cf.

MOLINA, P; ARANA, M & JIMÉNEZ, C (2015) Integrating Smart City projects into Urban

Planning Processes. EESAP6 Proceedings

MURGANTE, B; BORRUSO, G (2013). Cities and smartness: a critical analysis of

opportunities and risks. En International Conference on Computational Science and Its

Applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. p. 630-642.

NAM, T; PARDO, T (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology,

people, and institutions. En Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government

research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times. ACM, 2011. p. 282-

291.

NEIROTTI, P, et al. (2014) Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts.

Cities, 2014, vol. 38, p. 25-36.

OBENG-ODOOM, F (2012). On the origin, meaning, and evaluation of urban governance.

Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 2012, vol. 66, no 4, p. 204-

212.Witherick 2001, p. 278

RATHORE, MM et al (2016). Urban planning and building smart cities based on the internet

of things using big data analytics. Computer Networks, 2016, vol. 101, p. 63-80.



SHAHROKNI, H, et al (2015). Implementing smart urban metabolism in the Stockholm Royal

Seaport: Smart city SRS. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2015, vol. 19, no 5, p. 917-929.Zook

et al. 2017

SATTERTHWAITE, D (2008). Climate change and urbanization: Effects and implications for

urban governance. United Nations Expert Group meeting on population distribution,

urbanization, internal migration and development. 2008. p. 21-23.

STERN, Paul C. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally

significant behaviour. Journal of social issues, 2000, vol. 56, no 3, p. 407-424.

STANIASZEK, D; VOLT, J Building renovation strategies under the spotlight, BPIE (Building

Performance Institute Europe). ISBN: 9789491143168

TERMEER, C et al (2010). Disentangling scale approaches in governance research:

comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecology and society, 2010,

vol. 15, no 4.

TERMEER, C et al (2017). Disentangling scale approaches in governance research:

comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecology and society, 2010,

vol. 15, no 4.Carmona (2017)

TERMEER, C; DEWULF, A (2014). Scale‐Sensitivity as a Governance Capability: Observing,

Acting and Enabling. Scale-sensitive governance of the environment, 2014, p. 38-55

THØGERSEN, J; ÖLANDER, F (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer

behaviour. Journal of environmental psychology, 2003, vol. 23, no 3, p. 225-236

TREIB, O; BÄHR, H; FALKNER, G (2007). Modes of governance: towards a conceptual

clarification. Journal of European public policy, 2007, vol. 14, no 1, p. 1-20.

UN HABITAT (2017). Urban themes: energy. Web page: https://unhabitat.org/urban-

themes/energy/

WORLD BANK. 2017. World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law.

Washington, DC: World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0950-7. License: Creative

Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO

YIGITCANLAR, T; TERIMAN, S (2015). Rethinking sustainable urban development: towards

an integrated planning and development process. International Journal of Environmental

Science and Technology, 2015, vol. 12, no 1, p. 341-352.

Energy Efficiency Directive and its revision of 2016 as well as Energy Performance of

Buildings Directive and its revisions also of 2016 among others.

Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group (EEFIG)

MATHIESEN, BV, et al. (2015) Smart Energy Systems for coherent 100% renewable energy

and transport solutions. Applied Energy, 2015, vol. 145, p. 139-154.Connolly, Mathiesen and

Lund, 2015

8.2 Regulatory and policy framework

1975 European Charter of the Architectural Heritage - International Council on Monuments

and Sites. Adopted by the Council of Europe, October 1975

http://www.eefig.org/



1988 The integrated approach to to Community financing of structural measures together

with the Commission's replies. Court of auditors. Special report no 2/88. (88/C 188/01)

1989 Urban Pilots Projects. First Phase of Urban Pilot Projects: Update. Article 10 European

Regional Development Fund. Urban pilot projects newsletter

1990 EU Green Paper on Urban Environment. Commission of the European communities

1992 the Rio declaration on environment and development. The United Nations Conference

on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992

1997 EU Towards an urban agenda in the European Union. Communication from the

European Commission. Brussels, 06.05.1997 ,COM(97)197 final

1998 EU Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union A Framework for Action.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

1999 Treaty of Amsterdam amending the treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing

the European communities and certain related acts. European Communities, 1997

1999 Towards an Urban Renaissance. The Report of the Urban Task Force :haired by Lord

Rogers of Riverside

2000 The Lisbon Special European Council (March 2000). Towards a Europe of Innovation

and Knowledge

2000 Lille Action Programme. Multi-annual programme of cooperation in urban affairs in the

European Union. Lille on 3 November 2000

2001 Promote sustainable urban development. Decision no 1411/2001/EC of the European

Parliament and of the council of 27 june 2001 on a Community Framework for cooperation to

promote sustainable urban development

2001 White paper European transport policy for 2010 time to decide. Brussels, 12.9.2001.

COM (2001) 370 final

2002 Sixth Community Environment Action Programme. Decision no 1600/2002/EC of the

European parliament and of the council of 22 July 2002.

2003 Partnership with the Cities. The URBAN Community Initiative. Regional Policy,

European Communities, 2003

2005 A new start for the Lisbon Strategy (2005)

2005 The ‚Acquis URBAN’ Using Cities’ Best Practises for European Cohesion Policy.

Common Declaration of URBAN cities and players at the European Conference “URBAN

Future”on June 8th and 9th, 2005 in Saarbrücken (Germany

2005 Conclusions of Bristol ministerial informal meeting on sustainable communities in

Europe. UK Presidency. Bristol, 6 – 7 December 2005

2006 Review of the EU Sustainable Development (EU SDS). Renewed Strategy. Brussels, 9

June 2006. 10117/06

2006 Thematic strategy on the urban environment. Communication from the Commission of

11 January 2006 on a thematic strategy on the urban environment [COM(2005) 718 final



2007 Green Paper Towards a new culture for urban mobility. Brussels, 25.9.2007. COM

(2007) 551 final

2007 The Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) December 2007.

See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=O

2008 European Urban Charter. Congress of Local and Regional Authorities

2008 Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion. Turning territorial diversity into strength.

Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the committee

of the regions and the European economic and social committee

2008 Manifesto for a new urbanity. European Urban Charter II. Adopted by the Congress on

the occasion of its 15th Plenary Session in Strasbourg on 28 May 2008

2009 Action Plan on Urban Mobility. Brussels, 30.9.2009. COM(2009) 490 final

2009 Commission recommendation of 9.10.2009 on mobilising Information and

Communications Technologies to facilitate the transition to an energy-efficient, low-carbon

economy. Commission of the European communities. Brussels, 9.10.2009, C(2009) 7604

final

2009 Promoting sustainable urban development in Europe achievements and opportunities.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy Unit C2 – Urban

development, territorial cohesion

2010 EU 2020 strategy: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

(2010). Brussels, 3.3.201, COM(2010) 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET EN

BARROSO 007 - Europe 2020 - EN version.pdf

2010 A Digital Agenda For Europe. Communication from the commission to the European

parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of

the regions. Brussels, 19.5.2010 COM(2010)245 final

2010 White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Brussels, 12.9.2001

COM(2001) 370 final

2007 The Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) December 2007.

See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=O

2010 Directive 2010/31/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 19 may 2010 on

the energy performance of buildings

2011 Cities of tomorrow. Challenges, visions, ways forward. European Commission,

Directorate General for Regional Policy. Unit C.2 - Urban Development, Territorial Cohesion.

October 2011

2011 Commission decision of 28 November 2011 setting up the European multi-stakeholder

platform on ICT standardization (2011/C 349/04)

2011 White paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive

and resource efficient transport system. Brussels, 28.3.2011 COM(2011) 144 final

2011 Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020.Towards an Inclusive, Smart and

Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of

Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development. 19th May 2011

Gödöllő, Hungary



2011 White paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport. Brussels, 28.3.2011 COM

(2011) 144 final

2013 European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities

Strategic Implementation Plan. 14.10.2013

Operational Implementation Plan: First Public Draft

2013 Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the

European economic and social committee and the Committee of the Regions. Together

towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility. Brussels, 17.12.2013 COM(2013)

913 final

2013 Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan:

A concept for sustainable urban mobility plans. Brussels, 17.12.2013. COM (2013) 913

final

Guidelines developing and implementing a sustainable urban mobility plan. 2013

2013 Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility. Brussels,

17.12.2013 COM (2013) 913 final

2014 The EU explained: Digital agenda for Europe. European Commission Directorate-

General for Communication Citizens information. November 2014

2015 Emerging topics and technology roadmap for Information and Communication

Technologies for Water Management. European commission: ICT for water management

roadmap. Directorate general for communication networks, content and technology, Smart

cities and sustainability unit. June 1st, 2015

2015 Integrated regeneration of deprived areas and the new cohesion policy approach. An

URBACT contribution to the European Urban Agenda. August, 2015

2016 Living well, within the limits of our planet. 7th EAP, The new general Union

Environment Action Programme to 2020.

2017 Rolling plan for ICT standardization. European Commission Directorate-General for

Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

Documents

7KLVSURMHFWKDVUHFHLYHGIXQGLQJIURPWKH(XURSHDQ8QLRQ¶ …€¦ · Project Title Towards Smart Zero CO2 Cities across Europe Project Coordinator Francisco Rodriguez Tecnalia [email protected]