DELIVERABLE 7.4.1Project Acronym: Grant Agreement number:
Project Title: PERIPHRIA 271015 Networked Smart Peripheral Cities
for Sustainable Lifestyles
D 7.4.1 - Smart City Network Charter (preliminary note)Revision:
[draft, 03]
Authors: Grazia CONCILIO
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT
Policy Support Programme Dissemination Level P C Public
Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission
Services
COPYRIGHT Copyright 2011 PERIPHRIA Consortium consisting of : 1
(Co-ordinator) 2 (Participant) 3 (Participant) 4 (Participant) 5
(Participant) 6 (Participant) 7 (Participant) 8 (Participant) 9
(Participant) 10 (Participant) 11 (Participant) 12 (Participant)
Alfamicro Sistema de Computadores Lda TXT eSolutions SpA Karlsruher
Institut fr Technologie Intelligent Sensing Anywhere SA Archeometra
s.r.l. Athens Technology Center S.A. Politecnico di Milano Malm
Hgskola (Malm University) Bremer Institut fr Produktion und
Logistik GmbH (BIBA), Bremen DAEM S.A., Athens Comune di Genova
Municpio Palmela
The PERIPHRIA project is partially funded under the ICT Policy
Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the Competitiveness and
Innovation Framework Programme by the European Community
http://ec.europa.eu/ict_psp. This document reflects only the
author's views and the European Community is not liable for any use
that might be made of the information contained herein. This
document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in
part for any purpose without written permission from the PERIPHRIA
Consortium. In addition to such written permission, or when the
circulation of the document is termed as public,, an
acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable
portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced. All
rights reserved. This document may change without notice.
Index 1.
Introduction........................................................................................................................1
1.1 About Cities
Networks..........................................................................................................2
1.2. The reference Task in the Dow: Periphria Smart Cities
Network..........................................3 2. Towards the
Smart Cities
Network......................................................................................4
2.1. Towards the Smart Cities
Obervatory....................................................................................5
2.2. Pilots and Sponsoring Cities meeting: Palmela Workshop, 5 May
2011................................7 2.3. Networking
drivers..............................................................................................................10
2.4. Charter
notes.......................................................................................................................14
1. Introduction
[1]
1.1 About Cities NetworksIn the context of spatial systems the
concepts of networks, nodes and links appear to be rather
ambiguous; in particular, the concept of Cities Network (but also
the concepts of urban networks, polynuclear urban systems, etc.,
often used interchangeably although there are substantive
differences between them) can be used differently as a political or
economic concept, or an empirical concept, or as a theoretical
model, as a metaphor but also in other ways. This creates
conceptual confusion and generates significant uncertainties in
theoretical and applied cities network analysis and management. For
long time the concept of cities network has been related to that of
infrastructural networks and strongly connected to
observed/prescribed spatial models of cities and regions. However,
consistently with the technological development and the increasing
focus on the role of people, the conception of spatial networks has
changed due to the growing importance assigned to flows, spatial
flows, spatial flows: cities and regions are no longer considered
simple places of places but also, and mainly, as places of flows.
Coherently networks are more and more considered as structures and
processes at the same time thus making cities in networks be
conceptualized in relational term: they are nodes of multiple
networks of economic, social, demographic and information flows.
Attributes and characteristics of cities keep their importance but
relationships among cities and the related linking dynamics become
substantial engines of the networks. Usually these networks aim at
distributing the produced advantage among all the nodes and do not
take into consideration the growth of a single city. In these
networks, cities can cooperate or interact in the same fields
and/or with complementary functions activating and (at the same
time) being supported by information, contents or goods flows. They
show a network framework at both the organizational level (project
based work, functional interdependency of the nodes,
non-hierarchical and continuous relations) and the communicative
level (ubiquity, immediateness, information reversibility). Some
relevant common elements of these networks appear: complementarity
of cities: relationships are based on specialization and spatial
division of roles, functions, etc. on the base of both physical and
virtual integration; programmatic intentionality and/or founding
protocols: networks of cities can be constituted by declarations
(common strategic visions mainly focusing on objectives,
reciprocity commitment, and early tasks) or by charters (formal
agreements describing the organizational structure, the modes for
decision making, the distribution of power); fluidity of borders
and structures: the networks are open; membership is lightly
regulated or totally un-regulated and with an emergence nature;
networks can have temporary balance conditions but more often they
are evolving; some cities can temporarily have greater influence
then others but usually these networks do not have a centralized
control; multiplicity of networks: cities are not linked by a
unique network, but by a large variety of networks, each of which
has been aggregated in different ways related to the specific
nature of the linkage structure concerned (namely physical,
institutional or functional networks); cities also participate in
different hierarchies at the same time; existing relationships
support the creation of new relationships; role of governmental
institutions: city governments or administrations can play a key
role in the process of networks creation during the different
phases of the long wave cycle, through regulatory legislation,
incentives, ; [2]
emergence: often the networks have an emerging nature; they are
not created with the aim of a new administrative structure; they
are rather the result of emergent synergies or awareness of synergy
potentials; their organizational structure is not a pre-requisite
but rather an emerging property.
From this very synthetic vision some questions arise: what is
the way smart cities will innovate their being in networks? what is
the role of FI in the networking mechanisms and dynamics; is FI
affecting the ways and modes of fluxes? do smart cities have a
specific way to develop and govern networks? many of these
questions will be explored in Periphria and many others will be
discovered. The work carried out in the first months of the
Periphria project is mainly oriented to explore the possibilities
to make of the Smart Cities Network a reciprocity space where
cities can share their smartness making of it a common good and
finding in the sharing of experiences an additional element for
innovation.
1.2. The reference Task in the Dow: Periphria Smart Cities
NetworkThe aim of this task is to establish a permanent network of
Smart Cities adopting the Periphria Arena models, platforms and
services, (). The core members of the network consist of the pilot
and supporting cities, extended also to cities that join the
project network in the role of Supporting City during the projects
lifetime, through tight cooperation with the CIP Smart City
portfolio partnerships and links with city and regional networks
ranging from EuroCities to innovation networks such as ERIK, ERISA,
etc. A first cycle of the Task at the beginning of the project
explores common interests and the grounds for cooperation,
including both Project Partner and Sponsoring Partner Cities. In
the second phase responsibles of the core network cities will draw
up a draft Network Charter that builds on and takes into account
the local governance MoUs defined in Task 3.4 as well as the
transfer and validation activities of Tasks 5.4 and 5.5. In order
to monitor the network dynamics and its evolution towards larger
and more complex net-framework, a permanent Observatory structure
will be established, as further described in section B 3.2. This
structure monitors the social and territorial dimensions of Future
Internet and Living Lab implications for Smart Cities, promoting a
disciplinary convergence driven by design thinking. The Observatory
will consist of a core network of university and research experts
nominated by project partners and selected by the Steering
Committee, under the guidance of PoliMi. As an innovative service
towards the Periphria network of smart cities, the Observatory aims
to constitute a distinctive contribution to the CIP Smart City
portfolio. The third phase defines the Periphria Network Charter
and Observatory, to be presented at the Final Conference in month
27. This deliverable aims at reporting the results of the starting
exploration of common interests and grounds for cooperation carried
out by Project Partners and Sponsoring Partner Cities.
[3]
2. Towards the Smart Cities Network
[4]
2.1. The Smart Cities
ObservatoryTheideaoftheObservatoryhasbeenpresentedtoSponsoringcitiesanddiscussedwiththem
during the Palmela meeting. Some invited scientists and
practitioners have been especially
invitedasObservatorymembers(BernardCorbineau,LucianoDeBonis,FerdinandoTrapani,
andPetraTurkama)inordertoactivateawidereflectionontheroletobecarriedoutbythe
ObservatorywithregardtotherapidspreadofLLsallovertheworld. In order
to distribute a base for the discussion the following text has been
distributed to participants.
THETERRITORIALDIMENSIONOFLIVINGLABAPPROACHES:STARTINGTHEEUROPEANPARTICIPANT
OBSERVATORY(byG.Concilio,L.DeBonis,F.Trapani)
TowardsTerritorialLivingLab Territory production is intended as any
process of spatial transformation deriving from a sustainable and
reciprocal dialogue between local communities and their spatial
context along history time; the territory is a dynamic but durable
balance between human settlements and their environments1.
Coherently with this vision territory is a product demanding
coordination and strategic effort for balancing micro and macro
dynamics: innovative fluxes and trajectories (micro), especially
those
activatedwithintechnologydriveninnovation,demandandlookforspacesandmodesofcondensation
(macro) which are often produced out of any coherence with the
micro dimension of innovative emergences and dynamics; public
agencies should proactively manage this demand within a socio
publicorientation.Existinginnovationforcesandresources,abandonedoutofanycoherence/alignment
perspective, may activate spatial/environmental phenomena having
distortive effects on territorial systems thus missing
opportunities for (re)activating or sustain processes of territory
production. The needs became crucial to assign value to capillary
innovative microdynamics being experimental in nature. Even
characterized as peripheral, marginalized or abandoned these
experimental centralities
canbecomekeyinnovationagentsofterritorialpolycentricdevelopmentinEurope.
Many of these fluxes, forces, trajectories, domains are activated
as key dynamics in Living Lab experiences. A living lab is a
research concept developed at MIT and has been widely accepted and
used/appliedinEuropewheretheinnovationdimensionhasbeenextendedtothesociallevel:social
innovation intended as both a social process of innovation and/or
innovation which has a social
purpose.WithinLivingLabsexploration,experimentationandevaluationactivitiesaffectsthedailylife
of users who are involved in a sort of strategic navigation a live
together, with flexibility and adaptability [experience]; a
situation of creative experimentation. Depending on circumstances
and what seems to work (or not), they [can] change their means
(perhaps making a sail, ditching a
container),thedirectiontheygoin,andperhapseventheirgoals.Ofcourse,withseveralpeopleon
the raft, they probably will not agree on the direction in which
they want to go or the actions they shouldtaketogetthere
2.ThisconceptsofstrategicnavigationeffectivelyclarifieshowLLexperiences
allowdiscoveryandlearninginpluralandcomplexenvironmentwhensmoothandsharedtransaction
arepreferredforradicalchanges.
Sometimesthisnavigationtowardsinnovationacquiresrelevanceattheterritorialscalethusenabling
thereframingofterritoryproductionandterritorialdevelopmentatboththelocalandregionalscale;
thisisthecaseforaLivingLabtobecometerritorial:theactivateddynamicsaffectthewayuserslook
atandconceivetheirterritory;theterritorybecomesanactivatorofinnovationandatthesametime
theobjectofinnovation,itbecomesakeydimensionofthestrategicofthenavigation.
TheproposedParticipantObservatory
AlbertoMagnaghi(2000)Ilprogettolocale,BollatiBoringhieri.
JeanHillier(2010)PoststructuralComplexity:StrategicNavigationinanOceanofTheoryandPractice.
InCerretaM,ConcilioG.,MonnoV.(eds)Makingstrategiesinspatialplanning.Knowledgeandvalues,
Springered. 2 1
[5]
ManyLLexperienceslookattechnologiesasstrategicagentsorvehiclesforinnovation.Theybasically
investigate how innovative technologies can provide people new
answers to their explicit or implicit
socioterritorialneeds;orhow,insofar,theyareabletoproducerelevantinnovationsintheproduction,
useandreproductionofthecityastheproductofthecontinuousinteractionbetweenspaceandsociety.
Yet,manyexistingLLexperiencesshowterritorialorientationinthefluxes,forces,trajectories,domains
that they enable or activate and suggest some basic questions: can
these fluxes, forces, trajectories, domains be investigated,
intercepted, captured? What effects do they have on urban spaces
and territories? Can they be aligned, steered effectively towards
urban and territorial innovation? How?
Thesequestionsrisesespeciallywhenexploringthepossibilitytopushtheterritorialdimensionofsuch
experiences. Moreover cities and territories have a significant
role in the way people conceive and locate their activities and/or
shape their behaviors. Consequently more questions arise
investigating innovative potentials to be assigned to the
territorial dimension: is the way citizens look at and use specific
territoriesrelevantinthewaycitizensneedsarecreatedandemerge?Cantheterritorialbecomean
agent of innovation? Can it have a role in the innovation of
technologies? Can the contribution and exchange between the
territorial dimension and the technologies be enriched in LL
experiences consideringanewconceptofterritorialdriveninnovation?
Answerstothesequestionsareembeddedinactionandhavecharacteristicslinkedtotheveryspecific
natureofopeninnovationprocesseswhicharelocated(asstrictlyrelatedtotheircontextsandderiving
specific features from those), (often) emerging at the micro level
and therefore not available to be planned, . This means thatanswers
can only be developed within these innovation process within a
participant observation approach that is considering that the
observation cannot be carried out
withoutanystrictinvolvementintheLivingLabdynamics.ThisisthemaingoaloftheObservatorybeing
launched at the European Level within the framework of the
Periphria Project. The Observatory will
takeonanactiveroleintheobservedprocesses,actingasaparticipantobserversearchingforbinding
opportunitiesbothamongsmartexperiencesfromtheinsideoftheopeninnovationprocess.
This structure aims at disclosing the social and territorial
dimensions of Living Lab implications promoting a disciplinary
convergence driven by design thinking. The Observatory will be
initially
establishedastheScientificBoardoftheprojectandwillevolveintoapermanentinteracademicentity
collaboratingwiththeEuropeanSmartCitiesNetworkandwiththeEnollinordertocapturethesocial
andterritorialdimensionsofopeninnovationprocesses(theiremergence,dynamics,mechanisms,and
evolution).ItsmaingoalswillbetocapturethepotentialofLLspacesaslieuxderesources(human,
technicalandeconomic)forsociodigitalterritorialinnovationinadesignthinkingperspective,andto
enhancethenetworkingcapacityofpeopleinplaces.
ItwillbeorganizedandmanagedasametaLLwhereexistingorplannedLLcancollaborativelyexplore
and develop their territorial potentials. The observatory will deal
with Smart Cities and other technology driven LLs in a
collaborative learning perspective: colearning observation; self
acknowledgment, revealing and awareness; knowledge sharing and
cocreation; and coevolving supporting technologies will be the main
observational goal and at the same time the basic
frameworkingkeysfortheobservatorystructure.
***
Themeetingstartedformthecontentofthetextaboveanddiscussedsomeissuesappearing
relevanttotheparticipants:implementation,policyframework,scalingup,androleofpublic
institutions. Implementation3 has been suggested as a key issue to
be analyzed and addressed by the observatory. This issue is very
wide: it goes from the activation of Living Labs to the FI economy,
but also from the codesign approach to openinnovation.
Implementation is heavily context dependent and requires a
significant reflection in terms of transferability of concepts and
lessons learnt from virtuous experiences, of context resources
(knowledge, technology infrastructures, organizational and decision
making framework), of policy infrastructures. The issue of
implementation opens to at least two related issues: the most 3
PetraTurkama(AALTOUniversity)hassuggestedthiskeyissuetobediscussed.
[6]
important and general can be to barriers for the digital economy
(ex. lack of skills, interoperability, and investments; ); the key
ingredients of emergence in LL and open innovation dynamics that
requires implementation be strongly situated and hard to be
generallycodified. Implementation is related to the other issues
discussed in the Palmela meeting. The policy
framework4isconsideredrelevantfortworeasonsatleast:firstapolicyframeworkcanhelp
the development of a framework for observing LL dynamics; second
exploring policy frameworks can be a way to find out commonalities
and similarities that can be used in addressingimplementation.
Implementationhastobediscussedalsointermsofthescaleofthesociodigitalinnovation
dynamics activated. Usually LLs are acupunctural initiative or
emergences that find great
resistancetoaffectthelargerscaleatmanylevels:social,spatial,institutional,environmental.
Without the scalingup perspective, the significance of LLs with
respect to sociodigital innovation risk to be limited, constrained
at a very local level without acquiring the
connotationofarelevantchange.Scalingupneedsnetworking:exchange,activationofflows,
collaboration,learningarekeyingredientsofscalingupaswellasnetworkingneedsscaling
upforbecomingasignificantdynamics. Scalingup and networking open
the discussion up to the role of public institutions. Public
institutions are key actors of our societies but are more and more
less powered (especially
facingthecurrenteconomiccrisis)withrespecttothedynamicsofcitiesandsocieties.Since
long time their role is demanding for innovation but it is evident
that change is hard to be activated especially in contexts heavily
constrained by bureaucratic frameworks. Public
institutioncanrethinktheirroleand,startingfromtheneedsforscalingupandnetworking
of openinnovation environments (like LLs), setup mixed partnerships
capable to activate theirinnovation. Many questions arise but one
is clearly relevant: where is the territory? Territory emerged
fromthediscussionastheunavoidablemilieuofLLdynamicswheresociodigitalinnovation
cantakeplaceifamultiplicityofbalancespublic/private,bottomup/topdown,macromicro,
emergence/intentionalityisaligneddynamicallytowardssustainability(throughvergence5?).
2.2. Pilots and Sponsoring Cities meeting: Palmela Workshop, 5
May 2011The Smart Cities I Workshop has been carried out in Palmela
in May 5. Three sponsoring cities have attended the meeting:
Palermo,LeForteandBudapest.The WS had two main goals: transfer
pilot city Arenas to sponsoring cities exploring similarities and
commonalities among cities at the base of a collaboration capturing
possible roles for the Observatory In the first part of the day,
the vision of the Periphria project has been discussed in depth in
order to set up a common ground of principles and perspectives.
During this discussion some elements of shared understanding could
be envisaged. 4 5
IssuesuggestedandsupportedbyKrassimiraPaskaleva(KITpartnerofPeriphria).
TheconcepthasbeenproposedbyBernardCorbineau(MarnelaValleUniversity).
[7]
Smart cities are those encompassing modern urban production by
highlighting the growing importance of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the production of social and
environmental capital; open collaboration (need for connectedness
-- cities-rural.areas-territories --), broadband deployment (need
for applications after the infrastructure, impact on business
attractiveness) and creativity and open innovation (need for
experimental Future Internet environments to stimulate innovation)
are the main ingredients of smart cities. Living Labs as
user-driven open eco-systems engaging and motivating stakeholders,
stimulating collaboration, creating lead markets and enabling
behavior transformation are key socio-digital micro infrastructures
of smart cities.
Later on Arena Models have been presented so that the five
Periphria Arenas could be starting points for the discussion among
the cities while exploring similarities and commonality in the
second part of the day. In the following the key notes of the
discussion are reported (contributions by cities are explicated).
The discussion has been opened clarifying the need to focus on
concrete actions that cities could do together that could also be
translated to the level of strategic issues facing the cities. It
was also suggested to keep in mind the need for some form of
alliance or network that would allow cities exchange best
practices. Each sponsoring city has been asked to identify what, if
anything, they had heard was of interest to them in the pilot
cities presentations about their Arenas and emerging services.
Budapest identified two areas of common ground: with Bremen on
parking with Athens in terms of its greener city initiative,
especially in relation to recycling and sustainable living issues.
Then the discussion moved on EUs Danube Strategy both in terms of
rediscovering and cleaning up the river and for re-integrating the
city. This raised the issue of the river not just as a kind of
integrating the Smart Street Arena but for promoting cross-border
co-operation between countries that were part of the former
Austro-Hungarian Empire in terms of shared cultural identities.
Palermo mainly discussed on two issues:like Genoa, it has an
interest in creating an ecological park by re-instating a lake
adjoining an Arabic sultans castle and using this to re-instil a
respect for water as a scarce resource (an Arab tradition) the
introduction of smart metering to inform citizen about their
consumption and to reduce the current 35% distribution losses of
water in the city. It has been suggested that the two points above
could be linked in terms of Smart Water Infrastructure as an
integrating Arena, treating water utility metering data as open
information and using water as a transversal issue for looking at
the integration of Arenas. Malmo said that there was a link to
their Neighbourhood Arena here because citizens had expressed a
desire for access to water but as an amenity.
[8]
Le Forte agreed that water was an issue there too, mainly in
terms of its use to extract oil inAmerican drilling operations. But
this also raised the issue of law requiring the laying fibre optic
cable when putting in new water pipes. But it is not clear who has
to take responsibility on this.
Le Fortes virtual urbanisation project was identified as being
closest to aspirations being pursued in Malmo and Palmela. It has a
project for a virtual museum linking cities that provide a
particular form of grindstone for windmills. Genoa suggested that
this notion of a virtual museum could be used to link their example
of the jardino italiano with Palermo. And in turn this could have a
linkwith Archometras work on Venetos 4,300 villas. This lead on to
the discussion of cities as being the place of processional routes
- and of opportunities for smart routes linked serious games.
Le Forte has a search engine that allows learners to develop
learning paths -- and this lead to discussion of the construction
of smart pathways through cities, for example, for cultural
heritage tourism. Malmo said that it had worked with school
children on their own out-door pathways through the neighbourhood,
with citizens deciding what it is interesting for visitors to see.
So the linking theme here of movement through space -- of people,
water and wind emerged here. There was another theme around the
peripheral location and lack of integration of immigrant
communities. But as Genoa, Palermo and Malmo reported such
peripheral location, lacking integration, could be in the centre of
cities as well as on the edge. So there was also an emergent theme
of re-integration of parts of the cities through linking together
the existing Arenas or introducing new over-arching Arenas in
order, for instance, to recomposing fractured cultural identities.
Finally Genoa introduced the notion of how, in a time of reduced
public sector spending, we could use the Arenas to intercept
private sector finance to support the Public Commons or PPPPs
(Public/Private/People Partnerships). Two meta- challenges have
been identified throughout the discussion: reinvention of the
public sector and its interaction with citizens and businesses
especially in terms of experimentation about linking new forms of
public procurement to innovation systems in a LL partnership
environment; open data -- public administrations opening up their
raw data so that others can make useful services out of it. The
role of the Observatory has been investigated together with the
city representatives and discussed in several terms: should the
Observatory role be that one of an external observer capable to
supply a detached point of view? or better should it behave as a
consultancy agency? should the Observatory have the role to bust
networking and scaling up? in this case, what kind of intervention
tools should it have? should the Observatory play the role of
supporting the creation of public-private partnerships compatible
with open innovation ecosystems as LLs are? how can it conceive
this role? [9]
finally, should the Observatory be the space where smart cities
can collaborative learn to force scaling-up and spread
socio-digital innovation?
2.3. Networking
driversConsideringtheresultsoftheSmartCitiesNetworkexplorationcarriedoutduringthePalmela
Meeting and taking into account early results of the arena modeling
work, it is possible to observethreekindsofnetworkingdrivers:
Issues: some issues have been recognized and discussed as being in
common (with obvious differential specificities) among the cities
and representing fields for exploring potential collaborations and
cooperation (ex. water, wind, urban greening, cultural heritage
conservation,immigrantintegration). Arenas conceptualization: some
elements of the arenas conceptualization have been
discoveredasbeinginterpretationalbridgesamongthecities(ex.theAgorbetweenAthens
andMalmo,thevirtualmuseumbetweenGenovaandLeforte);interestingisthecaseofthe
virtual museum conceptualization as a concept emerging from the
discussion, thus showing
theenrichingvalueofcollaborationand(envisioning)networking.
Services: services represent networking drivers, in some occasion
they are considered common goods as being reusable (in the same
circumstances or not) by different cities;
servicesareveryspecialnetworkingenginesbecausetheirreuse(withpossiblemodifications
being context and issuedependent) potential makes the Periphria FI
platform the
networkingvirtualspacesupportingandfeedingthenetwork;earlyexamplesforservicesas
networking engines are recycling supports (between Athens and
Budapest) or parking infrastructures(betweenBremenandBudapest).
Theearlymappingofpossiblenetworkingdriversisinthefollowingtables.
[10]
ISSUES Bremen Athens Genova
Malmo
Bremen
Athens Lowinteraction betweenvisitors andcitizens Intercultural
integration Information access Intercultural integration Low
participation
Genova
Urbangreening Low participation Intercultural integration
Palmela
Peripheralities Information access Intercultural integration
Lowintegration oftransport modes
Peripherieswith lowconnection tourbancenters Information access
Intercultural integration Culturalheritage conservation
Intercultural integration
Palmela Information access Intercultural integration
Intercultural integration
Palermo
Intercultural integration
Palermo
Leforte Budapest
Movement
LeForte
Water Urbangreening
Urbangreening
Water
[11]
ARENACONCEPTUALIZATION Malmo Bremen Bremen Squaresand Athens
Neighborhood Genova Palmelapublic spaces as Agor streetsashubfor
mobilityservices
Athens
Genova
Palmela
Palermo Leforte Budapest
SquaresandCity hallasplacesfor participation SquaresandCity
hallasplaces wherecitizens meetpublic institutions Publicmobile
attendingdeskas gora
Virtualmuseums
Palermo
LeForte
Urbanpaths
Riverasastreet
[12]
SERVICES Bremen Athens Genova
Malmo
Bremen
Athens VisitorsSocial Network Eforumande participation services
Participation services Publicdisplays Publicmobile
attendingdesk
Genova CulturalServices
Locationbased services Publicdisplays
Locationbased mobileservices
Palmela
Locationbased services Publicdisplays
Mobilityservices forintegrating transportmodes
Palmela
Palermo Leforte Budapest
Watermetering Watermetering Locationbased services
Parkingservices
CulturalServices
Palermo Watermetering
LeForte
Locationbased services
[13]
2.4. Charter notesGIVEN THAT: Cities across Europe and the world
are being challenged by a threatening social, economical and
environmental crisis. More and more they are revealing reduced
trust in the political system and public administration, reduced
citizens participation, lost of identity, social exclusion.
RECOGNIZED THAT Cities are considered the key places where
sustainability can be achieved. Cities have a rich landscape of
common similarities and commonalities that can be at the base of a
productive collaboration if lessons learnt and responses being
successful are shared as common goods. SHARING THAT Smart cities
are those encompassing modern urban production by highlighting the
growing importance of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) in the production of social and environmental capital; open
collaboration (need for connectedness --
cities-rural.areasterritories --), broadband deployment (need for
applications after the infrastructure, impact on business
attractiveness) and creativity and open innovation (need for
experimental Future Internet environments to stimulate innovation)
are the main ingredients of smart cities. Living Labs as
user-driven open eco-systems engaging and motivating stakeholders,
stimulating collaboration, creating lead markets and enabling
behavior transformation are key socio-digital micro infrastructures
of smart cities. RECOGNIZING The role of smart services as a
significant means for learning and cooperation. .
BY SIGNING THIS CHARTER, CITIES ARE COMMITTED TO: 1. set up
together a network of Smart Cities in order to support and
implement in their respective territories the principles of Smart
Cities and the Living lab approach. 2. share a common platform for
smart cities services 3. encourage new cities to join the
Network
[14]
REVISION HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY Revision
HistoryRevision 1 2 3 Date Author 2011.05.19 G. Concilio 2011.05.31
G.Concilio 2011.06.09 G.Concilio Organisation POLIMI POLIMI POLIMI
Description Preliminary draft Deliverable completion and review
Input of some information in tables from pilots
Statementoforiginality: This deliverable contains original
unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.
Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of
others has been made through appropriate citation,
quotationorboth.
[15]
