Figure - uploaded by Igor Calzada
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
The hegemonic ‘smart city’ approach in the European H2020 institutional framework is slowly evolving into a new citizen-centric paradigm called the ‘experimental city’. While this evolution incorporates social innovations—including urban co-operative
platforms that are flourishing as (smart) citizens are increasingly considered decision-makers rath...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... a multi-stakeholder approach is required to overcome dataism (Harari 2016a), understood as the logic that oversimplifies city metabolisms, seeing them as mere assemblages or systems of data and algorithms (Morozov 2014;Morozov and Har- vey 2016;Morozov and Bria 2017;Morozov and Eno 2017) rather than as ecosystems of citizens ( Devisch et al. 2016;Keith and Calzada 2016;Kontokosta 2016). In the sixth section, the importance of the transformational dimension of the multi-stakeholders' framework is explained by distinguishing the Triple, Quadruple and Penta Helix frameworks (see Figure 2 and Table 4). ...Context 2
... the current multi-stakeholder dynamics taking place in European cities and regions under the policy framework of H2020 Smart Cities and Communities (Figure 1), transformative alliances among the public sector, the private sector, academia, and civic society should eventually include the fifth helix, embodied by social entrepreneurs and activists (i.e., intermediaries, bricoleurs, brokers, and/or assemblers), as the main driver of change. Further research is needed to explore the profiles, motivations, modes of interaction, and transformative conditions of this type of invisible but highly-influential stakeholder in the socio-economic and cultural life of the city (see Table 4 and Figure 2) (Calzada and Cowie 2017). ...Context 3
... Helix by itself does not suffice to activate unpredictable and experimental dynamics due to the fixed and technocratic nature of the interplay among stakeholders. Similarly, the Quadruple Helix, as it shown in Table 4, cannot leverage any intrinsic transformational reaction by itself, since it is based on an institutionalised bottom-up process, where citizens react passively to suggested initiatives. ...Similar publications
The hegemonic ‘smart city’ approach in the European H2020 institutional framework is slowly evolving into a new citizen-centric paradigm called the ‘experimental city’. While this evolution incorporates social innovations—including urban co-operative platforms that are flourishing as (smart) citizens are increasingly considered decision-makers rath...
Citations
... Furthermore, this experimental approach resulted in a productive conversation among stakeholders in the six cities (Späth & Knieling, 2020). The replication strategy previously examined the unique multiple stakeholder framework in each fellow city through the Penta helix (including actors interacting in the public, private, civil society, academic, and entrepreneur-activist domains of smart cities; Calzada, 2018;Calzada & Cowie, 2017). ...
This chapter addresses the problem of replication among smart cities in the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Smart Cities and Communities (EC-H2020-SCC) framework programme. To illustrate this issue, this chapter revolves around a fieldwork action research conducted during 2019 in the EC-H2020-SCC Replicate project through a webinar series encompassing six European cities: three lighthouse cities (St. Sebastian in Spain, Florence in Italy, and Bristol in the United Kingdom) and three follower-fellow cities (Essen in Germany, Lausanne in Switzerland, and Nilüfer in Turkey). The chapter presents the City-to-City Learning Programme used to reformulate the policy issue of replication by revealing the following conclusion: replication might be enabled as a multidirectional, radial, dynamic, iterative, and democratic learning process, overcoming the currently unidirectional, hierarchical, mechanistic, solutionist, and technocratic approach.
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815300-0.00004-6
... In contrast, these techno-political concerns raised a debate in Europe that crystallised into the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018. The emergence of the algorithmic disruption has spurred a call to action for cities in the European Union (EU), establishing the need to map out the techno-political debate on 'datafication' or 'dataism' [1,65,66]. Moreover, the disruption has also highlighted the potential requirements for establishing regulatory frameworks to protect digital rights from social innovation and institutional innovation. ...
... Third, the taxonomy of the book Smart City Citizenship by the author of this article encompasses 14 digital rights [4]. These references by the author, like others that are illustrated [65,67,75,82,85,96], are essential to situate this article, insofar as it stems from these references. Eminently, these references build the argument of this article, and these previous works contribute to providing the necessary literature review about smart cities. ...
New data-driven technologies in global cities have yielded potential but also have intensified techno-political concerns. Consequently, in recent years, several declarations/manifestos have emerged across the world claiming to protect citizens' digital rights. In 2018, Barcelona, Amsterdam, and NYC city councils formed the Cities' Coalition for Digital Rights (CCDR), an international alliance of global People-Centered Smart Cities-currently encompassing 49 cities worldwide-to promote citizens' digital rights on a global scale. People-centered smart cities programme is the strategic flagship programme by UN-Habitat that explicitly advocates the CCDR as an institutionally innovative and strategic city-network to attain policy experimentation and sustainable urban development. Against this backdrop and being inspired by the popular quote by Hannah Arendt on "the right to have rights", this article aims to explore what "digital rights" may currently mean within a sample consisting of 13 CCDR global people-centered smart cities: Barcelona,-gow. Particularly, this article examines the (i) understanding and the (ii) prioritisation of digital rights in 13 cities through a semi-structured questionnaire by gathering 13 CCDR city representa-tives/strategists' responses. These preliminary findings reveal not only distinct strategies but also common policy patterns.
To cite this journal article:
Calzada, I. (2021), The Right to Have Digital Rights in Smart Cities. Sustainability 13(20), 11438. DOI:10.3390/su132011438. Special Issue “Social Innovation in Sustainable Urban Development”.
... Furthermore, this experimental approach resulted in a productive conversation among stakeholders in the six cities (Späth & Knieling, 2020). The replication strategy previously examined the unique multiple stakeholder framework in each fellow city through the Penta helix (including actors interacting in the public, private, civil society, academic, and entrepreneur-activist domains of smart cities; Calzada, 2018;Calzada & Cowie, 2017). ...
This chapter addresses the problem of replication among smart cities in the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Smart Cities and Communities (EC-H2020-SCC) framework programme. To illustrate this issue, this chapter revolves around a fieldwork action research conducted during 2019 in the EC-H2020-SCC Replicate project through a webinar series encompassing six European cities: three lighthouse cities (St. Sebastian in Spain, Florence in Italy, and Bristol in the United Kingdom) and three follower-fellow cities (Essen in Germany, Lausanne in Switzerland, and Nilüfer in Turkey). The chapter presents the City-to-City Learning Programme used to reformulate the policy issue of replication by revealing the following conclusion: replication might be enabled as a multidirectional, radial, dynamic, iterative, and democratic learning process, overcoming the currently unidirectional, hierarchical, mechanistic, solutionist, and technocratic approach.
... Thus, the point of departure and the aim of this chapter is the willingness to illuminate and clarify the methodological discussion on the helix frameworks from the Social Innovation (SI) perspective via extending the Triple and Quadruple helix frameworks by suggesting an evidence-based ex novo framework called Penta helix (Calzada, 2016(Calzada, , 2018b(Calzada, , 2018c(Calzada, , 2018dCalzada & Cowie, 2017). Penta helix defines as a joint interaction of the four established helixes of the so-called Quadruple helix (the public sector, the private sector, academia, and civil society) being intermediated and activated by the fifth helix (social entrepreneurs/activists) ( Fig. 3.1). ...
This chapter examines in-depth how the smart cities’ policy approach has been intensively implemented in European cities under the Horizon 2020 programme. Nevertheless, this chapter argues that smart cities’ policy implementations not only reduce the interdependencies among stakeholders to technocratic public-private-partnership (PPP) models but also fail to question the identities of strategic stakeholders and how they prioritise their business/social models. These aspects are increasingly putting democracy at stake in data-driven smart cities worldwide and particularly in European cities and regions. Therefore, this chapter aims to unfold and operationalise multi-stakeholders’ policy frameworks from the Social Innovation perspective by suggesting the ex novo Penta helix framework—including public, private, academia, civil society, and social entrepreneurs/activists—to extend the Triple and Quadruple helix frameworks. This chapter also applies the Penta helix framework comparatively in three follower cities of the H2020-Replicate project: Essen (Germany), Lausanne (Switzerland), and Nilüfer (Turkey).
... Thus, the point of departure and the aim of this article is the willingness to illuminate and clarify the methodological discussion on the helix frameworks from the Social Innovation (SI) perspective via extending the triple and quadruple-helix frameworks by suggesting an evidence-based ex-novo framework called penta-helix [47][48][49][50][51][52]. Penta-helix defines as a joint interaction of the four established helixes of the so-called quadruple-helix (the public sector, the private sector, academia, and civic society) being intermediated and activated by the fifth helix (social entrepreneurs/activists). ...
The smart cities policy approach has been intensively implemented in European cities under the Horizon 2020 programme. However, these implementations not only reduce the interdependencies among stakeholders to technocratic Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) models, but also fail to question the identities of strategic stakeholders and how they prioritise their business/social models. These aspects are putting democracy at stake in smart cities. Therefore, this article aims to unfold and operationalise multistakeholders’ policy frameworks from the social innovation perspective by suggesting the ex-novo penta-helix framework—including public, private, academia, civic society, and social entrepreneurs/activists—to extend the triple and quadruple-helix frameworks. Based on fieldwork action research conducted from February 2017 to December 2018—triangulating desk research, 75 interviews, and three validation workshops—this article applies the penta-helix framework to map out five strategic dimensions related to (i) multistakeholder helix framework and (ii) the resulting business/social models comparatively in three follower cities of the H2020-Replicate project: Essen (Germany), Lausanne (Switzerland), and Nilüfer (Turkey). For each case study, the findings reveal: (i) a unique multistakeholder composition, (ii) diverse preferences on business/social models, (iii) a regular presence of the fifth helix as intermediaries, and (iv) the willingness to experiment with democratic arrangements beyond the hegemonic PPP.
... Furthermore, this experimental approach resulted in a productive conversation among stakeholders in the six cities. The replication strategy previously examined the unique multiple stakeholder framework in each fellow city through the Penta Helix (including actors interacting in the public, private, civil society, academic, and entrepreneur-activist domains of smart cities) [49,80]. The fieldwork action research method is described, in depth, as follows: Within the first three years of the project, covering the 2016-2018 period, the three lighthouse cities focused entirely on their pilot initiatives in the three smart city sectors (energy, mobility, and ICT). ...
This article addresses the problem of replication among smart cities in the European Commission’s Horizon 2020: Smart Cities and Communities (EC-H2020-SCC) framework programme. This article initially sets the general policy context by conducting a benchmarking about the explicit replication strategies followed by each of the 17 ongoing EC-H2020-SCC lighthouse projects. This article aims to shed light on the following research question: Why might replication not be happening among smart cities as a unidirectional, hierarchical, mechanistic, solutionist, and technocratic process? Particularly, in asking so, it focuses on the EC-H2020-SCC Replicate project by examining in depth the fieldwork action research process implemented during 2019 through a knowledge exchange webinar series with participant stakeholders from six European cities—three lighthouse cities (St. Sebastian, Florence, and Bristol) and three follower-fellow cities (Essen, Lausanne, and Nilüfer). This process resulted in a City-to-City Learning Programme that reformulated the issue of replication by experimenting an alternative and an enhanced policy approach. Thus, stemming from the evidence-based policy outcomes of the City-to-City Learning Programme, this article reveals that a replication policy approach from the social innovation lenses might be enabled as a multidirectional, radial, dynamic, iterative, and democratic learning process, overcoming the given unidirectional, hierarchical, mechanistic, solutionist, and technocratic approach.
... Furthermore, this experimental approach resulted in a productive conversation among stakeholders in the six cities. The replication strategy previously examined the unique multiple stakeholder framework in each fellow city through the Penta Helix (including actors interacting in the public, private, civil society, academic, and entrepreneur-activist domains of smart cities) [49,80]. The fieldwork action research method is described, in depth, as follows: Within the first three years of the project, covering the 2016-2018 period, the three lighthouse cities focused entirely on their pilot initiatives in the three smart city sectors (energy, mobility, and ICT). ...
In recent years, a ’participatory turn’ has emerged as a remedy to countertop-down and techno-centric smart city development approaches. Whilethis shift in smart city policies and strategies offers promise, it alsopresents challenges. This paper scrutinizes the participatory shift withinsmart city policies and initiatives in Stavanger, Norway, a pioneer anddriving force for smart city development in Northern Europe. Using aqualitative case study of the Lervig Smart Park project, with a particularfocus on the inclusion of children and youth, we investigate themethods of participation employed and the stages at which childrenare integrated into the planning process. Our findings underscore thebeneficial outcomes of including children and youth in the Lervig Parkdesign process, yet also reveal significant limitations, especially in theperception of children as capable political subjects and the absence ofsuitable methodological tools for their engagement across planningphases.
The response to the SARS-CoV-2 disaster calls for worldwide attention. This paper creates attributes in the ‘Penta-Helix’ that reflect pandemic prevention procedures. In order to run optimally, the enterprise strategy model makes it easier for the government to move the vaccine program. We explained critical exploration and focus group discussions (GFD) by the roles of the other four parties, namely academics, business, media, and community (A-B-G-M-C). The cluster at the ‘Penta-Helix’ mapped out and shared responsibilities in solidarity. Initially, performing this concept was determined academically, where the talents of skilled scholars were tested by studying findings relevant to the pandemic. The second step is business. Their position influences the production of vaccines, their distribution, and the price of medical devices for the public. Then, the fourth partner is tasked with limiting and filtering misinformation, especially vaccines. The benchmark for ‘herd immunity’ is how enthusiastic the public is about the popularity of the vaccine. Provision of vaccines in sufficient quantities is clear evidence that the government is convincing the community to follow the vaccination directions. Critical analysis puts forward the front line, actually based on the public spirit. The ‘Penta-Helix’ mechanism indicates a sustainable action plan. Future scenarios consider tactical managerial decisions.
Much of the smart cities literature urges greater citizen participation in smart city innovation. However, there is often little consideration given to how citizens might be more meaningfully involved in the processes of governance around smart cities, what enables their involvement, or what might need to change in order to facilitate their participation. Taking an institutional perspective, this paper seeks to move this aspect of the smart city debate forward. Using Mexico City as an exemplar, it examines the broader institutions of urban governance within which citizen-oriented smart city activities operate, identifying those which help and hinder citizen participation. It then considers the extent to which unhelpful institutions are embedded, and to what extent they are amenable to change to allow successful smart city participation initiatives to flourish. Our argument is that when considering citizen participation in smart city activities we need to attend more closely to the institutions which represent their context and the extent to which those institutions can be changed, where necessary, to create a more conducive environment. Many institutions will be beyond the reach of local actors to change or to deinstitutionalise; thus involving citizens in the smart city is ‘easier said than done’.