The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform: Smart Urban Development Governance with Collective Knowledge-Based Platform Urbanism
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Knowledge-Based Urban Development and Smart Cities
3.2. Smart Urban Governance
3.3. Digital e-Government Platforms
- Open platforms: the adoption of open source software platforms and open data structures, allowing the combination of products and services that are oriented to meet the current demands of society;
- Autonomy: offer participants ways to create, generate, implement, or produce new content, without additional help or information from the platform’s original creators;
- Participatory design, with clear rules and interoperable systems architecture, with an emphasis on standardization, modularity, and component reuse, which facilitates the assembly line of new applications;
- Open mind: the best ideas will not necessarily come from the creators of the platform, but from those who break the rules (hackers), combining data in an unexpected and creative way to make useful mashups for users;
- Exploring user behavior: Data mining can be applied to get to know users’ interests and extract from their participation new ways to boost the creation of services that meet their demands;
- Agile development: Reduction of barriers to experimentation, embracing failure, experimentation, and iteration in real time, continuously improving applications, without worrying about having perpetual beta versions. Platform thinking is an antidote to complete specifications, as the cost of experimentation is reduced, and it is possible to discard products and services that do not suit users;
- Leadership by example: building platforms with remarkable resources and making available a set of applications that allow developers to add value to the platform’s ecosystem.
4. City-as-a-Platform
4.1. The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform
- Level 1 platform (low G2C–low C2G): It is characterized by a low level of popular engagement and low government opening. The government’s role is restricted to providing information to society and making services available online. The path is unidirectional, from government to society. Technological tools are not available to enable the direct involvement of social actors with the government to propose ideas related to services or public policies. The government does not provide open data via Application Programming Interface (API). The platforms inform and provide digital services to population, such as information about the existence of problems on public roads, and allow online monitoring by the citizen of the registration of their request/information. At this level, the platform’s objective is to deliver greater convenience to citizens by reducing the time, effort, and costs of accessing the government, offering information and services in a simplified and organized manner. An example of this type of platform is Cityopen (www.cityopen.com.br) in Brazil.
- Level 2 platform (average G2C–average C2G): The purpose of platforms at level 2 is to provide cities and governments with a digital participation platform to consult and include citizens in decision-making, assisting governments in their decisions. To this end, they allow consultation with citizens and minimal crowdsourcing actions, representing an average level of citizen participation and average government openness. There is a higher level of interaction on these platforms in the G2C (e.g., consultations for the approval of projects and referrals) and C2G (e.g., project proposals, ideas, and public policies). These platforms provide society with access to the government through direct, convenient, and interactive participation, in addition to offering the government the possibility to select specific target audiences in certain surveys when necessary. Analytics resources are present with real-time monitoring of data collected in society through panels. These platforms do not offer functionality related to open government data. They contribute to the strengthening of democracy, to the increase of transparency, and the confidence of citizens in governments. Some examples of type 2 platforms are MindMixer (www.mindmixer.com), which is used by cities in the United States and Canada, and Citizenlab (www.citizenlab.co), which is based in Belgium and adopted by several European cities.
- Level 3 platform (medium G2C–high C2G): These platforms have all the functionality of level 2 platforms, but additionally, they allow the organization of virtual events with expert panels or government servers, such as virtual workshops, which give participants the opportunity to discuss a topic in small groups before sharing with a larger group of people. They also offer tools for the ideation of new projects, making it possible to gather ideas from as many people as possible, as if they were virtual living labs, that is, iterative ecosystems of open innovation centered on the user. On these platforms, the level of interaction between government and society is high, but there is no possibility, through the platform, to access open government data to propose new solutions for services and applications. The values of these platforms are centered on the access and reach of opinions and ideas, in addition to manifesting citizens’ wishes, with more direct and close involvement of the government through virtual or face-to-face meetings. Examples of this type of platform are Bang the Table (www.bangthetable.com), adopted by cities in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand; YourPriorities (www.yrpri.org), developed in Iceland as an open source platform, being used by cities in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, Amsterdam, and several other European countries.
- Level 4 platform (high G2C—high C2G): The platforms at this level present the same functionalities as level 3 platforms in terms of public engagement, with the difference of allowing the production of software and applications from a link to the open data made available by governments, via programmable interface applications (API—Application Programming Interface). In addition, some platforms at this level have free code allowing the proposals to be made available to be audited and inspected by anyone with technical knowledge. The amounts delivered by governments that use these platforms go far beyond crowdsourcing or living labs and include hackathons and the possibility of creating software and applications for web or mobile through the combination of data from government and non-government sources, which can lead to services for citizens with high public value. Examples of this type of platform are Consul (www.consulproject.org), an open source and free use platform developed in Spain and currently used by more than 35 countries in Latin America, South America, Africa, and Europe; Decidim (www.decidim.barcelona), created and used in the city of Barcelona, Spain; Opengov (www.opengov.com) and Mysidewalk (www.mysidewalk.com), both developed and used in the United States; vTaiwan (www.vtaiwan.tw), created and applied in Taiwan. Additionally, noteworthy to mention that two city platforms are created through government initiatives: London/UK (www.london.gov.uk) and Singapore (www.gov.sg).
4.2. Opportunities and Challenges for the Development Based on Collective Knowledge in City-as-a-Platform
- Clearly define the objectives to be achieved and seek to solve real problems, with technology being only a tool; if the problems to be solved are not relevant to the city’s population, the use of new technologies alone will not motivate them to get involved;
- Configure a new platform and link it to existing systems, which users know; combine online and offline formats for stakeholder access;
- Plan and reserve sufficient resources, as it is not enough to just create the platform, since discussions will need to be moderated, the platform maintained, proposals transferred to decision-makers, requests answered, information prepared, and much more;
- Prepare for change, as the structure of CaaP not only requires different resources and team capacity but also generates changes in internal workflows, organizational culture, and self-conception by local governments;
- Keep governance processes open, accessible, and inclusive;
- Be transparent and follow the defined objectives and goals; initiating a process, creating expectations, and subsequently, disregarding the contribution of citizens and stakeholders must be avoided in all circumstances, as this undermines the trust and credibility of open governance processes;
- Build future innovation through open source codes, which allow greater cooperation with other codes and flexibility for adaptations, helping to avoid technological blockages.
5. Conclusions
- Maximize society’s equitable access to digital technologies and relevant urban platforms to form a collective knowledge to tackle issues.
- Promote digital literacy and mitigate the digital divide to prevent the growth of socioeconomic inequalities.
- Design, develop, and deploy technologies that positively affect the behavior of citizens in relation to common goods.
- Promote information security and privacy so that technologies are used with complete confidence.
- Understand the reality of online city governance and establish mechanisms to promote the automation of platform decisions in a secure manner.
- Make open data available and ensure the transparency, security, and privacy of that data.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chang, D.L.; Sabatini-Marques, J.; Da Costa, E.M.; Selig, P.M.; Yigitcanlar, T. Knowledge-based, smart and sustainable cities: A provocation for a conceptual framework. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yigitcanlar, T. Australian local governments’ practice and prospects with online planning. Urisa J. 2006, 18, 7–17. [Google Scholar]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Kankanamge, N.; Vella, K. How are smart city concepts and technologies perceived and utilized? A systematic geo-twitter analysis of smart cities in Australia. J. Urban Technol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anttiroiko, A.V. City-as-a-Platform: The rise of participatory innovation platforms in Finnish cities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M. Planning, development and management of sustainable cities: A commentary from the guest editors. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14677–14688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Desouza, K.C.; Butler, L.; Roozkhosh, F. Contributions and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in building smarter cities: Insights from a systematic review of the literature. Energies 2020, 13, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bollier, D. The City as Platform: How Digital Networks Are Changing Urban Life and Governance; The Aspen Institute: Washington DC, USA, 2016; 69p. [Google Scholar]
- Gabriel, A.G. Transparency and accountability in local government: Levels of commitment of municipal councilors in Bongabon in the Philippines. Asia Pac. J. Public Adm. 2017, 39, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, T.; Qian, Q.K.; Visscher, H.J.; Elsinga, M.G.; Wu, W. The role of stakeholders and their participation network in decision-making of urban renewal in China: The case of Chongqing. Cities 2019, 92, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walravens, N. The city as a platform. In Proceedings of the 2011 15th IEEE International Conference on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks, Berlin, Germany, 4–7 October 2011; pp. 283–288. [Google Scholar]
- Meijer, A.J.; Bolívar, M.P. Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2016, 82, 392–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Graaf, S.; Ballon, P. Navigating platform urbanism. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 142, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Reilly, T. Government as a Platform. Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 2011, 6, 13–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rochet, J.C.; Tirole, J. Platform competition in two-sided markets. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2003, 1, 990–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Zhang, J.; Puron-Cid, G. Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Gov. Inf. Q. 2016, 33, 524–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, G.V.; Parycek, P.; Falco, E.; Kleinhans, R. Smart governance in the context of smart cities: A literature review. Inf. Polity 2018, 23, 143–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Reuver, M.; Sørensen, C.; Basole, R.C. The digital platform: A research agenda. J. Inf. Technol. 2017, 33, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harmaala, M.M. The sharing city as a platform for a more sustainable city environment? Int. J. Environ. Health 2015, 7, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yigitcanlar, T. Rethinking Sustainable Development: Urban Management, Engineering, and Design; IGI Global: Hersey, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chourabi, H.; Nam, T.; Walker, S.; Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Mellouli, S.; Nahon, K.; Pardo, T.A.; Scholl, H.J. Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-45, Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2012; 2012; pp. 2289–2297. [Google Scholar]
- Whittemore, R.; Knafl, K. The integrative review: Updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005, 52, 546–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botelho, L.L.R.; Cunha, C.C.; Macedo, M. O método de revisão integrativa nos estudos organizacionais (The integrative review method in organizational studies). Gestão Soc. 2011, 5, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knight, R. Knowledge-based development: Policy and planning implications for cities. Urban Stud. 1995, 32, 225–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, F. Making space and place for knowledge communities: Lessons for Australian practice. Australas. J. Reg. Stud. 2013, 19, 36–63. [Google Scholar]
- Sabatini-Marques, J.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Schreiner, T.; Wittmann, T.; Sotto, D.; Inkinen, T. Strategizing Smart, Sustainable, and Knowledge-Based Development of Cities: Insights from Florianópolis, Brazil. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komninos, N.; Schaffers, H.; Pallot, M. Developing a policy roadmap for smart cities and the future internet. In Proceedings of the eChallenges e-2011 Conference Proceedings, Florence, Italy, 26–28 October 2011; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.; Nijkamp, P. Smart cities in Europe. In Proceedings of the 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science—CERS, Kosice, Slovakia, 7–9 October 2009; pp. 45–59. [Google Scholar]
- D’Amico, G.; L’Abbate, P.; Liao, W.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Ioppolo, G. Understanding sensor cities: Insights from technology giant company driven smart urbanism practices. Sensors 2020, 20, 4391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Kankanamge, N.; Regona, M.; Maldonado, A.; Rowan, B.; Ryu, A.; Li, R.Y. Artificial intelligence technologies and related urban planning and development concepts: How are they perceived and utilized in Australia? J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigitcanlar, T. Technology and the City: Systems, Applications and Implications; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gil, O.; Cortés-Cediel, M.E.; Cantador, I. Citizen Participation and the Rise of Digital Media Platforms in Smart Governance and Smart Cities. Int. J. E Plan. Res. 2019, 8, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komninos, N. Intelligent cities: Towards interactive and global innovation environments. Int. J. Innov. Reg. Dev. 2009, 1, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paskaleva, K.A. The smart city: A nexus for open innovation? Intell. Build. Int. 2011, 3, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Y.J. Strategy for Building Smart City as a Platform of the 4th Industrial Revolution. J. Digit. Converg. 2019, 17, 169–177. [Google Scholar]
- Nam, T.; Pardo, T. Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of the Technology, People, and Institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 282–291. [Google Scholar]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Butler, L.; Windle, E.; Desouza, K.C.; Mehmood, R.; Corchado, J.M. Can building “artificially intelligent cities” safeguard humanity from natural disasters, pandemics, and other catastrophes? An urban scholar’s perspective. Sensors 2020, 20, 2988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Foth, M.; Kamruzzaman, M. Towards post-anthropocentric cities: Reconceptualizing smart cities to evade urban ecocide. J. Urban Technol. 2019, 26, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tasan-Kok, T.; Vranken, J. Handbook for Multilevel Governance in Europe; European Urban Knowledge Network: Amsterdan, The Netherlands, 2011; 34p. [Google Scholar]
- Ulrich, P.; Marshment-Howell, J.; Van Geest, T. Open Governance in the Smart City: A Scoping Report; Smarticipate Project. Smarticipate Project: London, UK, 2016; 40p. [Google Scholar]
- Meijer, A.J.; Lips, M.; Chen, K. Open Governance: A New Paradigm for Understanding Urban Governance in an Information Age. Front. Sustain. Cities 2019, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, J.S. The evolution of smart city in South Korea: The smart city winter and the city-as-a-platform. In Smart Cities in Asia; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Stehlin, J.; Hodson, M.; McMeekin, A. Platform mobilities and the production of urban space: Toward a typology of platformization trajectories. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, A.; Fishenden, J.; Thompson, M.; Venters, W. Appraising the impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP) in UK Government public service reform: Towards a Platform Assessment Framework (PAF). Gov. Inf. Q. 2017, 54, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rotta, M.J.; Sell, D.; dos Santos Pacheco, R.C.; Yigitcanlar, T. Digital commons and citizen coproduction in smart cities: Assessment of Brazilian municipal e-government platforms. Energies 2019, 12, 2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mergel, I.; Kleibrink, A.; Sörvik, J. Open data outcomes: U.S. cities between product and process innovation. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 622–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barns, S. Smart cities and urban data platforms: Designing interfaces for smart governance. City Cult. Soc. 2018, 12, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IAP2 (International Association of Public Participation). Spectrum of Public Participation. Available online: https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars (accessed on 7 June 2020).
- Van Dijck, J. Governing digital societies: Private platforms, public values. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2020, 36, 105377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Lima, E.G.; Chinelli, C.K.; Guedes, A.L.A.; Vasquez, E.G.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Haddad, A.N.; Soares, C.A.P. Smart and sustainable cities: The main guidelines of City Statute for increasing the intelligence of Brazilian cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borghys, K.; Van Der Graaf, S.; Walravens, N.; Van Compernolle, M. Multi-Stakeholder Innovation in Smart City Discourse: Quadruple Helix Thinking in the Age of “Platforms”. Front. Sustain. Cities 2020, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bouzguenda, I.; Alalouch, C.; Fava, N. Towards smart sustainable cities: A review of the role digital citizen participation could play in advancing social sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, P.; Mostafavi, A. Challenges and opportunities of crowdsourcing and participatory planning in developing infrastructure systems of smart cities. Infrastructures 2018, 3, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ismagilova, E.; Hughes, L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Raman, K.R. Smart cities: Advances in research: An information systems perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 47, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Törnberg, P.; Uitermark, J. Complex Control and the Governmentality of Digital Platforms. Front. Sustain. Cities 2020, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Cugurullo, F. The sustainability of artificial intelligence: An urbanistic viewpoint from the lens of smart and sustainable cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panori, A.; Kakderi, C.; Komninos, N.; Fellnhofer, K.; Reid, A.; Mora, L. Smart systems of innovation for smart places: Challenges in deploying digital platforms for co-creation and data-intelligence. Land Use Policy 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, L. Coordinating the city: Platforms as flexible spatial arrangements. Urban Geogr. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anttiroiko, A.V.; Valkama, P.; Bailey, S.J. Smart cities in the new service economy: Building platforms for smart services. AI Soc. 2014, 29, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leszczynski, A. Glitchy vignettes of platform urbanism. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2020, 38, 189–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fields, D.; Bissell, D.; Macrorie, R. Platform methods: Studying platform urbanism outside the black box. Urban Geogr. 2020, 41, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamoso, P.; González-Briones, A.; De La Prieta, F.; Venyagamoorthy, G.K.; Corchado, J.M. Smart city as a distributed platform: Toward a system for citizen-oriented management. Comput. Commun. 2020, 152, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Waal, M.; De Lange, M.; Bouw, M. The hackable city: Citymaking in a platform society. Archit. Des. 2017, 87, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sadowski, J. Cyberspace and cityscapes: On the emergence of platform urbanism. Urban Geogr. 2020, 41, 448–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekman, U. Smart city planning: Complexity. Int. J. E Plan. Res. 2018, 7, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvati, L.; Carlucci, M. Shaping dimensions of urban complexity: The role of economic structure and socio-demographic local contexts. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 147, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Bergh, J.; Viaene, S. Unveiling smart city implementation challenges: The case of Ghent. Inf. Polity 2016, 21, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiode, N. Urban planning, information technology, and cyberspace. J. Urban Technol. 2000, 7, 105–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caprotti, F.; Liu, D. Emerging platform urbanism in China: Reconfigurations of data, citizenship and materialities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 151, 119690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bissell, D. Affective platform urbanism: Changing habits of digital on-demand consumption. Geoforum 2020, 115, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, M. Regulate, replicate, and resist–The conjunctural geographies of platform urbanism. Urban Geogr. 2020, 41, 453–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corchado, J.M.; Chamoso, P.; Hernández, G.; Roman Gutierrez, A.S.; Camacho, A.R.; González-Briones, A.; Pinto-Santos, F.; Goyenechea, E.; Garcia-Retuerta, D.; Alonso-Miguel, M.; et al. Deepint.net: A Rapid Deployment Platform for Smart Territories. Sensors 2021, 21, 236. [Google Scholar]
Search No | Boolean Search Equations |
---|---|
1st search | TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "smart cit*" OR "future cit*" OR "intelligent cit*" OR "digital cit*" AND governance OR "e-governance" OR "digital governance" OR "smart governance" AND platform OR "e-platform" OR "online platform*" OR "platformization" OR "mobile platform*" ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , "ar" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , "re" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , "English" )) |
2nd search | TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "smart cit*" OR "future cit*" OR "intelligent cit*" OR "digital cit*" AND "collective intelligence" OR "innovation" OR "co-creation" AND "systematic review" OR "review" ) AND DOCTYPE ( re ) AND PUBYEAR > 2009 AND PUBYEAR < 2021 |
Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
---|---|
|
|
Criteria for Selection | Researched Database Results | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scopus | Science Direct | Web of Science | ||||
1st Search | 2nd Search | 1st Search | 2nd Search | 1st Search | 2nd Search | |
Articles published between 2010 and 2020 | 118 | 127 | 8 | 8 | 85 | 90 |
Research and review articles only | 41 | 55 | 7 | 7 | 53 | 58 |
Pre-selected articles by title, except duplicates | 34 | 36 | 7 | 7 | 37 | 37 |
Final selection of articles for review | 30 |
# | Author | Year | Title | Journal |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Borghys, Van Der Graaf, Walravens, and Van Compernolle | 2020 | Multi-stakeholder innovation in smart city discourse: quadruple helix thinking in the age of “platforms” | Frontiers in Sustainable Cities |
2 | Chamoso, González-Briones, De La Prieta, Venyagamoorthy, and Corchado | 2020 | Smart city as a distributed platform: toward a system for citizen-oriented management | Computer Communications |
3 | Panori, Kakderi, Komninos, Fellnhofer, Reid, and Mora | 2020 | Smart systems of innovation for smart places: challenges in deploying digital platforms for co-creation and data-intelligence | Lan Use Policy |
4 | Richardson | 2020 | Coordinating the city: platforms as flexible spatial arrangements | Urban Geography |
5 | Sabatini-Marques, Yigitcanlar, Schreiner, Wittmann, Sotto, and Inkinen | 2020 | Strategizing smart, sustainable, and knowledge-based development of cities: insights from Florianópolis, Brazil | Sustainability |
6 | Stehlin, Hodson and McMeekin | 2020 | Platform mobilities and the production of urban space: Toward a typology of platformization trajectories | Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space |
7 | Törnberg and Uitermark | 2020 | Complex control and the governmentality of digital platforms | Frontiers in Sustainable Cities |
8 | Van Dijck | 2020 | Governing digital societies: private platforms, public values | Computer Law & Security Review |
9 | Yigitcanlar and Cugurullo | 2020 | The sustainability of artificial intelligence: an urbanistic viewpoint from the lens of smart and sustainable cities | Sustainability |
10 | Yigitcanlar, Kankanamge, and Vella | 2020 | How are smart city concepts and technologies perceived and utilized? A systematic geo-twitter analysis of smart cities in Australia | Journal of Urban Technology |
11 | Bouzguenda, Alalouch, and Fava | 2019 | Towards smart sustainable cities: A review of the role digital citizen participation could play in advancing social sustainability | Sustainable Cities and Society |
12 | Gil, Cortés-Cediel and Cantador | 2019 | Citizen participation and the rise of digital media platforms in smart governance and smart cities | Int. Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR) |
13 | Ismagilova, Hughes, Dwivedi and Raman | 2019 | Advances in research: an information systems perspective | Int. Journal of Information Management |
14 | Meijer, Lips and Chen | 2019 | A new paradigm for understanding urban governance in an information age | Frontiers in Sustainable Cities |
15 | Park | 2019 | Strategy for Building Smart City as a Platform of the 4th Industrial Revolution | Journal of Digital Convergence |
16 | Rotta, Sell, dos Santos Pacheco and Yigitcanlar | 2019 | Digital commons and citizen coproduction in smart cities: Assessment of Brazilian municipal e-government platforms | Energies |
17 | Barns | 2018 | Smart cities and urban data platforms: designing interfaces for smart governance | City, Culture and Society |
18 | Chang, Sabatini-Marques, Da Costa, Selig and Yigitcanlar | 2018 | Knowledge-based, smart and sustainable cities: a provocation for a conceptual framework | Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity |
19 | Gil-Garcia, Zhang and Puron-Cid | 2016 | Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view | Government Information Quarterly |
20 | Mergel, Kleibrink and Sörvik | 2018 | Open data outcomes: U.S. cities between product and process innovation | Government Information Quarterly |
21 | Pereira, Parycek, Falco and Kleinhans | 2018 | Smart governance in the context of smart cities: a literature review | Information Polity |
22 | Srivastava and Mostafavi | 2018 | Challenges and opportunities of crowdsourcing and participatory planning in developing infrastructure systems of smart cities | Infrastructures |
23 | Brown, Fishenden, Thompson and Venters | 2017 | Appraising the impact and role of platform models and government as a platform (GaaP) in UK government public service reform: towards a platform assessment framework | Government Information Quarterly |
24 | De Reuver, Sørensen and Basole | 2017 | The digital platform: a research agenda | Journal of Information Technology |
25 | Anttiroiko | 2016 | City-as-a-platform: towards citizen-centred platform governance | Sustainability |
26 | Meijer and Bolívar | 2016 | Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance | International Review of Administrative Sciences |
27 | Harmaala | 2015 | The sharing city as a platform for a more sustainable city environment? | International Journal of Environment and Health |
28 | Yigitcanlar and Dur | 2013 | Making space and place for knowledge communities: lessons for Australian practice | Australasian Journal of Regional Studies |
29 | Paskaleva | 2011 | The smart city: a nexus for open innovation? | Intelligent Buildings Int. |
30 | O´Reilly | 2010 | Government as a platform | Innovations |
# | Author | Year | Title | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Bollier | 2016 | The city as platform: how digital networks are changing urban life and governance | The Aspen Institute |
2 | Ulrich, Marshment-Howell and Van Geest | 2016 | Open governance in the smart city | ICLEI (Global Network of Local Governments for Sustainability) |
3 | Chourabi, Nam, Walker, Gil-Garcia, Mellouli, Nahon, Pardo and Scholl | 2012 | Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework | 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences |
4 | Komninos, Schaffers and Pallot | 2011 | Developing a policy roadmap for smart cities and the future internet | eChallenges e-2011 Conference |
5 | Nam and Pardo | 2011 | Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of the technology, people, and institutions | 12th International Digital Government Research Conference |
6 | Walravens | 2011 | The city as a platform | 15th International Conference on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks |
Government to Citizens (G2C) | Citizens to Government (C2G) |
|
|
Government to Business (G2B) | Government to Government (G2G) |
|
|
Paradigm | Nature of the State | Focus | Emphasis | Resource Allocation Mechanism | Nature of the Service System | Value Base |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Old Public Administration (OPA) | Unitary | Political system | Policy development and implementation | Hierarchy | Closed | Public sector ethos |
New Public Administration (NPA) | Regulatory | Service organization | Management of organizational resources and performance | Market | Calculated openness | Performance |
New Public Governance (NPG) | Plural | Governance network | Negotiation of values, meaning, and relationships | Network | Negotiated openness | Constructed in networks |
Open Governance (OG) | Open | Network of individuals | Massive collaborative production of information | Platform | Radical openness | Collaborative around a shared value |
Public Engagement Level (C2G) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Government openness level (G2C) | Low | | Medium | | High | | High |
Low | Medium | Medium | High | ||||
Information and Services | Public Consultation | Government and Society Involvement | Collaboration and Application Development | ||||
Platform rating | | | | | |||
Government objectives | Provide information and services online. | Obtain feedback, analysis, opinions, or decisions on proposals or actions. | Work directly with the public to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are understood and considered. | Provide open data in machine language, for the development of applications that facilitate and improve the quality of life in cities. | |||
Government deliveries to society | Keep society informed and offer services online. | Keep society informed, listen and acknowledge their concerns and aspirations, provide feedback on how their views influence government’s decision. | Ensure that society’s concerns and aspirations are reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how their contributions influence the government’s decision. | Provide open data that enable innovation in the formulation of solutions that can be made available to society. | |||
Does it involve open data? | No | No | No | Yes | |||
Does it involve direct popular participation? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
G2C/C2G benefits | Convenience Reduction of time, effort, and costs, simplification, organization, information. | Access Exposition of opinions and ideas, manifestation of will. | Access and reach Exposure of opinions and ideas with government’s counterpart through virtual or face-to-face meetings with specialists. | Public value Provision of open data for the development of web and/or mobile applications by developers. | |||
Examples of commercial online cities’ platforms | Cityopen (Brazil) | Citizenlab (France) Mind Mixer (USA and Canada) | Bang the Table (Australia, Canada, USA, UK, New Zealand) Your Priorities (Europe, Canada and USA) | Consul (International) Decidim (Barcelona) Opengov (USA) Mysidewalk (USA) vTaiwan (Taiwan) Deepint.net (International) | |||
Facilities provided by platforms | Information and availability of digital services. | Crowdsourcing. | Crowdsourcing and virtual or face-to-face living labs. | Crowdsourcing, virtual or face-to-face living labs, hackathons, and the possibility of creating mashups through open data combination. | |||
Brazilian cities eGov platforms [44] | Almost half of the Brazilian cities. | 44.08% of the Brazilian cities. | 21.96% of the Brazilian cities. | Only 2% of Brazilian cities. |
Opportunities | Challenges | |
---|---|---|
Government |
|
|
Society |
|
|
Technology |
|
|
Principle | Description | Example |
---|---|---|
Intuitive interface | Use design standards that favor access to services of interest to the user, including service guidelines and recommendations according to user profiles | Organization of services and information adopted by London/UK and Singapore platforms |
Responsibilities | Make clear the policies for the use of services, informing interested parties of their rights, responsibilities, and penalties | Decidim’s social contract; government terms in Singapore platform |
Social eGov | Promote the integration of content and services with social media to facilitate the dissemination or incorporation of content on the platform | London/UK Media Centre and social media resources of Singapore platform |
Accountability | Provision of services for government transparency | In my area at London/UK platform; Dashboard automation in mySidewalk |
Open data | Apply open government practices, making open data available, with the possibility of downloading and reading by machine | Openness and transparency section of London/UK platform and data dissemination strategy of mySidewalk |
Interoperability | Enable the integration of platform services or external resources through APIs and interoperability programs | List of API of London/UK and Consul platforms |
Communication | Provide channels of interaction with stakeholders | Communication features available in London/UK and Singapore platforms |
Knowledge management | Include resources for knowledge management and sharing | KM resources available in London/UK Get involved section |
Conflict resolution | Offer quick access channels for complaints of inappropriate use of resources and for mediation of conflicts between different actors on the platform | Terms of service and consultation in get involved sections of London/UK platform |
Co-production | Availability of resources that enable the participation of society in the discussion of priorities and in the co-production of public policies | Talk London in London/UK; Debates in Consul platform; participatory budgeting/participative processes in Decidim; open consultation process of vTaiwan |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Repette, P.; Sabatini-Marques, J.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Sell, D.; Costa, E. The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform: Smart Urban Development Governance with Collective Knowledge-Based Platform Urbanism. Land 2021, 10, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010033
Repette P, Sabatini-Marques J, Yigitcanlar T, Sell D, Costa E. The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform: Smart Urban Development Governance with Collective Knowledge-Based Platform Urbanism. Land. 2021; 10(1):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010033
Chicago/Turabian StyleRepette, Palmyra, Jamile Sabatini-Marques, Tan Yigitcanlar, Denilson Sell, and Eduardo Costa. 2021. "The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform: Smart Urban Development Governance with Collective Knowledge-Based Platform Urbanism" Land 10, no. 1: 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010033
APA StyleRepette, P., Sabatini-Marques, J., Yigitcanlar, T., Sell, D., & Costa, E. (2021). The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform: Smart Urban Development Governance with Collective Knowledge-Based Platform Urbanism. Land, 10(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010033