SMART CITY PROFILES Deliverable 2.1 Part 1 Introduction. Authors: Rudolf Giffinger Hans Kramar Nataša Pichler-Milanović Florian Strohmayer

Transcription

1 SMART CITY PROFILES Deliverable 2.1 Part 1 Introduction Authors: Rudolf Giffinger Hans Kramar Nataša Pichler-Milanović Florian Strohmayer May 2014

2 Theoretical background 1 For various reasons, cities aim at improving their competitiveness and their position in comparison to other cities (Begg 1999). Since the European integration process has diminished, differences in economic, social and environmental standards (Pichler- Milanovic 2005), cities have converged in their basic conditions for competition, which is increasingly scaled down from the national level to the level of cities and regions (Storper 1995). However, socio-economic inequalities are still considerable on a regional level, although the efforts of Cohesion Policy have largely succeeded in reducing disparities between the richer and the poorer countries. Nevertheless new member states face a growing economic gap between central urban areas and remote rural regions (Kramar 2006). This trend enhances the importance of specific local characteristics, which provide comparative advantages competing for increasingly footloose and mobile global enterprises, investors, tourists and capital (Parkinson et al. 2003, Giffinger et al. 2003). Facing this development, urban competitiveness and corresponding strategic approaches have become important efforts of urban politics. In this situation, city rankings have experienced a remarkable boom and increasingly attract public attention. In these comparative studies, cities are evaluated and ranked with regard to different economic, social and geographical characteristics in order to reveal the best (and the worst) places regarding either quality of life or conditions for economic activities. In this way, the comparison of cities can support stakeholders on the one hand, but it can also be an important guide for future city development on the other. Having realized these specific potentials of city rankings, policymakers increasingly make use of their results. Thus, city rankings have become an important empirical base for disclosing comparative advantages and sharpening specific profiles and consequently for defining goals and strategies for future development. Secondly, positive results in a widely published and approved city ranking can also be used as a central part of a city s marketing strategy as a top rank in a highly reputed ranking definitely helps to improve the international image of a city. As part of this process, city rankings reinforce the competitive perspective steering urban development; their placing focuses the strategic efforts of urban politics mostly on strengths, neglecting weaknesses. The Smart Cities Approach Smart City projects are developed as a consequence of increasing city competition in Europe, which has been induced by economic globalisation and political integration processes (Begg 1999) and which very obviously enforced cities to steer urban development in a more strategic way: Since European cities are characterised by diverging historic backgrounds, different functions and conflicting interests, a specific positioning within the European urban system is a rather complex challenge, which demands well-reflected strategic planning and governance endeavours based on local conditions. Hence, the specific strengths and weaknesses of a city are the central base for defining future development options. 1 This chapter was published as Introduction in Giffinger et al

3 The European Smart Cities approach, which was elaborated by Vienna University of Technology (Centre of Regional Science) in 2007 and revised for the specific requirements of the PLEEC project in 2013, concentrates on medium-sized cities and their perspectives for competitive and sustainable development. Even though the vast majority of the urban population lives in such cities, the main focus of urban research tends to be on global metropolises. As a result, the challenges of medium-sized cities, which can be rather different, remain unexplored to a certain degree. Medium-sized cities, which have to compete with larger metropolises on corresponding issues, appear to be less equipped in terms of resources and organizing capacities. In order to enforce endogenous development and to achieve a good position, these cities have to identify their strengths and opportunities even more carefully and to ensure comparative advantages in various key resources against other cities of the same level. City rankings and city profiles describing a broad variety of characteristics can be helpful tools to identify specific assets of a city in a benchmarking process. Rankings, which have become quite common recently, largely differ in their approaches or methods: Due to diverging objectives and methodological approaches, they often produce deviating results. Therefore, the following chapter does not primarily aim at providing a ranking of cities, but at elaborating individual city profiles, which allow and support comparative benchmarking from different perspectives. These Smart City -profiles aim at supporting a forward-looking and evidence-based strategic planning considering two different components of urban development: First, the evaluation of cities has to consider issues as awareness, flexibility, transformability, synergy, individuality and self-decisive behaviour. Especially awareness seems important for a smart city as certain potentials can only be mobilised if inhabitants, companies or administrations are well aware of the cities position. This kind of assessment must not be confined to the internal structure of the city but has to consider its surrounding regions and its position in the regional system of cities. Second, the profiles should not only focus on single aspects, but consider all fields of urban development, which requires a clear and transparent identification of characteristics for the evaluation (Giffinger et al. 2007). In this context the Smart City -profiles identify six key fields of urban development (see Figure 2) incorporating the main aspects of Smartness, as indicated in the following definition: Smart City is a city well performing in [relevant key fields of urban development], built on the smart combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent and aware citizens. (Giffinger et al. 2007) Accordingly, smart implies the implicit or explicit ambition and intention of the citizens and stakeholders to improve its performance in the given characteristics (Giffinger et al. 2007). 3

4 The evaluation of Smart Cities profiles Six smart key fields of urban development were identified as the relevant characteristics of Smart City: economy, people, mobility, environment, living and governance (see Figure 1). They are broken down into 28 relevant factors together with the selection of 81 components/indicators from publicly available databases (EUROSTAT, URBAN AUDIT, EUROBAROMETAR, ESPON) which reflect the most important aspects of every (smart) key characteristic (see figure 2). Figure 1: Hierarchical approach. PLEEC model. Figure 2: Key fields with its domains. PLEEC model. 4

5 The PLEEC partner cities and the city of Graz collected and provided some missing data to increase the coverage. About 50% of all indicators are defined on the local (city) level. Other indicators on the national (NUTS 0) or regional (NUTS 2 or NUTS3) level are included because they provide additional information not only about the endowment of cities but also about the perception and assessment of specific developments in wider urban areas (see Deliverable 2.1 cities presentations). Since the selected 81 indicators show completely different levels and ranges they were standardized through a z- transformation of their values resulting in a distribution with an average value 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Through this transformation indicators are comparable and appropriate for any aggregation procedure. Assuming the substitution between indicators all values (except missing values) are added up to the aggregated value for every factor and for every of six key fields and for every city in total. In that manner it is possible to provide specific city profiles, which reflect their performance in the 6 key fields. The results shown in figure 3 indicate a strong heterogeneity in the city-specific key fields of urban development, which allow a broad outline of individual characteristics. Nevertheless, a more detailed analysis of the single domains is necessary in order to get a more detailed insight into the specific strengths and weaknesses of a city. These profiles are presented, discussed and commented in detail in the individual presentations of the 6 PLEEC partner cities. Figure 3: Final rating. PLEEC model. The use of Smart City Profiles in strategic planning The results of the individual Smart City Profiles are designed to be presented and discussed in city-specific workshops with relevant stakeholders. These meetings may serve as a platform for disclosing challenges and developing strategic recommendations in close connection to local decision-makers. The evaluation method used has a highly flexible structure which allows both improvements of the indicator system and the 5

6 enlargement of the city sample. Provided the availability of consistent, comparable and reliable data it is therefore possible to consider new trends or changing requirements and to integrate comparable cities, which have not been included so far. An evidence place-based approach needs a detailed description and analysis of the different fields of urban development and, finally, an assessment in form of strengths and weaknesses. The Smart City approach allows such an analysis in a rather differentiated way and on different levels. Accordingly, it provides empirical evidence regarding the profile of a city in a differentiated way or the identification of groups of cities with typical profiles both forms of evidence are a necessary precondition for policy development and an efficient way of defining relevant priorities. The approach is an instrument which supports the transformation of information into knowledge-based strategic efforts. It presumes and needs the active participation of residents as actors and stakeholders in corresponding governance efforts for implementation of strategic projects that will support smart city development most effectively. Due to this reason, the Smart City approach is useful for the selection of cities from which lesson drawing is expected in an effective way. Again, the multidimensional description of cities through factors or even indicators respectively the identification of comparable and typical profiles, for sure, helps to select other cities for learning and transferring relevant strategies. For instance, it would not make sense that a city tries to learn and to transfer policies or strategies from cities which have completely different profiles and different strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is highly recommended that cities learn from cities with similar profiles or in particular from those which have already specific experiences and evidence about applied strategies regarding distinct characteristics (Giffinger et al. 2010). References Begg, I., Cities and competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36 (5 6), Giffinger R., et al., Städtewettbewerb und sozialverträgliche Stadtentwicklung: Stadtentwicklungspolitik am Beispiel von Wien und Budapest. Wiener Beiträge zur Regionalwissenschaft, Band 17, Wien: Institut für Stadt- und Regionalforschung. Giffinger, R., et al., Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Final report, Vienna. Available from: [Accessed 18 Jun 2008]. Giffinger, R., Haindlmaier, G., Kramar, H., The role of rankings in growing city competition. In: Urban Research & Practice, vol.3, no.3, S Kramar, H., Economic convergence on different spatial levels: the conflict between cohesion and growth. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 1/2006, Lloyd, G., and Peel, D., Functionalism and representationalism in contemporary urban agendas: a Scottish perspective on city-region branding. Urban research and Practice, 1 (1),

7 Page, E. (2000): Future Governance and the literature on policy transfer and lesson drawing. ESRC Future Governance Programme Workshop, , London. Parkinson, M., et al., eds., Competitive European cities: where do the core cities stand? London: ODPM. Pichler-Milanovic, N., Ljubljana: from beloved city of the nation to Central European capital. In F.E.I. Hamilton, A.K. Dimitrovska and N. Pichler-Milanovic, eds. Transformation of cities in Central and Eastern Europe: towards globalization. Tokyo, New York and Paris: United Nations University (UNU) Press, Robertson, D. and H. Waltham (1992): The Politics of Policy Borrowing, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 3-6 September, Chicago. Storper, M., The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2, Tosics I. (2003): Strategic planning in European cities. Consultancy for the Institute of Urban Economics, Moscow. Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest, July 2003 (manuscript) 7