Methodologies for a Participatory Design of IoT to Deliver Sustainable Public Services in “Smart Cities”

  • Esther Ruiz BenEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 30)


Smart cities (Following Nam and Pardo (Conceptualising smart city with dimensions of technology, people and institutions, Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, pp. 282–291, 2011) I conceptualize smart cities based on three dimensions: technology, people, and community. Due to the use of ICT to fundamentally transform life and work in a city, these authors consider technology as a crucial dimension. In addition, the role of human infrastructure, human capital, and education, and the support of government and policies constitute crucial factors in a smart city too) seek to address public issues via digital connected solutions on the basis of a multi-stakeholder, municipally based partnership ( This urban model includes using Internet of Things (IoT) facilities to deliver public services. However, the implementation of public service delivery and use through IoT in smart cities is frequently fragmented, hindering a sustainable urban development. Citizens remain unaware of multiple single tools developed without their participation. Security issues also prevent citizens from using IoT facilities in smart cities. The objective of this chapter is to explain the development of a participatory governance approach aiming to establish a sustainable development path for the design and implementation of public services for work and mobility delivered through IoT in smart cities. Departing from key issues extracted from existing research about public service delivery using IoT in smart cities, the approach adopts a socio-technical processual methodology combining several social research methods as well as visualization and game simulation techniques. The chapter concludes with a short discussion on the application of this participatory framework for the ongoing design and evaluation of sustainable public service delivery using IoT in smart cities.


Smart cities Participatory urban design IoT Public service delivery Sustainable cities Data security 


  1. Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60, 234–245. Scholar
  2. Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery. Managing with external providers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avoine, G., et al. (2014). Passengers information in public transport and privacy: Can anonymous tickets prevent tracking? International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 682–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2014). Social awareness in HCI. ACM Interactions, 21(4), 66–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, S., Berg, T., & Morse, S. (2016). Rich pictures: Encouraging resilient communities. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., Amitrano, C. C., & D’Auria, A. (2016). “ICT and sustainability in smart cities management”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 132–147.Google Scholar
  7. Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bijker, W. E. (2001). Understanding technological culture through a constructivist view of science, technology, and society. In S. H. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and society studies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boring, S., Gehring, S., Wiethoff, A., Blöckner, A. M., Schöning, J., & Butz, A. (2011). Multi-user interaction on media facades through live video on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brynskov, M., Carlos Carvajal Bermudez, J., Fernandez, M., Korsgaard, H., Mulder, I., Piskorek, K., et al. (2014). Urban interaction design: Towards city making. Amsterdam: Book Sprints.Google Scholar
  12. Buscher, M., Shapiro, D., Hartswood, M., Proctor, R., Slack, R., Voss, A., & Mogensen, P. (2002). Promises, premises and risks: Sharing responsibilities, working up trust and sustaining commitment in participatory design projects. In Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 183–192).Google Scholar
  13. Caldwell, G. A., & Foth, M. (2017). DIY/DIWO media architecture: The InstaBooth. In A. Wiethoff & H. Hussmann (Eds.), Using information and media as construction material. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Chambers, R. (1995). Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In N. Nelson & S. Wright (Eds.), Power and participatory development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Cinderby, S. (2010). How to reach the Bhard-to-reach: The development of Participatory Geographic Information Systems (P-GIS) for inclusive urban design in UK cities. Area, 42, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2012). The role of feedback in foreign language learning through digital role-playing games. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards, L. (2016). Privacy, security and data protection in smart cities: A critical EU law perspective. European Data Protection Law Review, 28(58).Google Scholar
  18. Firmino, R. J., Kanashiro, M., Bruno, F., Evangelista, R., & da Costa Nascimento, L. (2013). Fear, security, and the spread of CCTV in Brazilian cities: Legislation, debate, and the market. Journal of Urban Technology, 20(3), 65–84. Scholar
  19. Fischer, M. (2007). Four genealogies for a recombinant anthropology of science and technology. Cultural Anthropology, 22(4), 539–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, P. T., & Hornecker, E. (2012). Urban HCI: Spatial aspects in the design of shared encounters for media facades. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Foth, M., Choi, J. H., & Satchell, C. (2011). Urban informatics. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Foth, M., Brynskov, M., & Ojala, T. (Eds.). (2015). Citizens right to the digital city: Urban interfaces, activism and placemaking. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Fredericks, J., Tomitsch, M., Hespanhol, L., & McArthur, I. (2015). Digital pop-up: Investigating bespoke community engagement in public spaces. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction. Melbourne: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Fredericks, J., Hespanhol, L., & Tomitsch, M. (2016). Not just pretty Lights: Using digital technologies to inform city making. In Proceedings of the 2016 Media Architecture Biennale. Sydney: ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Fredericks, J., Hespanhol, L., Parker, C., Zhou, D., & Tomitsch, M. (2017). Blending pop-up urbanism and participatory technologies: Challenges and opportunities for inclusive city making. City, Culture and Society, 12, 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A., Mabee, W., Reed, M. S., McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 78(2), 114–127.Google Scholar
  27. FTTH Council of Europe. (2015). FTTH smart guide. Brussels: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  28. Gabrys, J. (2014). Programming environments: Environmentality and citizen sensing in the smart city. Environmental Plan and Social Space, 32(1), 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gascó, M. (2016). What makes a city smart? Lessons from Barcelona. In HICSS ‘16 Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 2983–2989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geser, H. (1990). Organisationen als soziale Akteure. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greater London Authority. (2016). The future of smart. Harnessing digital innovation to make London the best city in the world. London: Greater London Authority.Google Scholar
  32. Hespanhol, L., & Tomitsch, M., (2015). Strategies for Intuitive Interaction in Public Urban Spaces. Interacting with Computers, 27(3), 311–326.Google Scholar
  33. Hespanhol, L., Tomitsch, M., McArthur, I., Fredericks, J., Schroeter, R., & Foth, M. (2015). Vote as you go: Blending interfaces for community engagement into the urban space. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Communities and Technologies. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Hoggenmüller, M., & Wiethoff, A. (2014). LightSet: Enabling urban prototyping of interactive media façades. In Proceedings of 2014 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hyysalo, S., & Johnson, M. (2015). The user as relational entity. Information Technology & People, 28(1), 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Janssen, M., Matheus, R., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2015). Big and open linked data (BOLD) to create smart cities and citizens: Insights from smart energy and mobility cases. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 79–90). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jing, Q., Vasilakos, V. A., Wan, J., Lu, J., & Qiu, D. (2016). Security of the internet of things: Perspectives and challenges. Wireless Networks, 20(8), 2481–2501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kitchin, R. (2016). Getting smarter about smart cities: Improving data privacy and data security. Dublin, Ireland: Data Protection Unit, Department of the Taoiseach.Google Scholar
  41. Kushner, D. (2013, February). The real story of Stuxnet. How Kaspersky Lab tracked down the malware that stymied Iran’s nuclear-fuel enrichment program. IEEE Spectrum.Google Scholar
  42. Laamarti, F., Eid, M., & El Saddik, A. (2014). An overview of serious games. International Journal of Computer Games Technology, 2014, 358152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Latour, B. (1999). The trouble with Actor Network Theory. Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381.Google Scholar
  44. Lee, J. H., Hancock, M. G., & Hu, M. (2013). Towards an effective framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 89, 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Löw, M. (2008). The constitution of space: The structuration of spaces through the simultaneity of effect and perception. European Journal of Social Theory, 11, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Löw, M. (2012). The intrinsic logic of cities: Towards a new theory on urbanism. Urban Research & Practice, 5(3), 303–315. Scholar
  47. Madner, V., Mayr, S., Prochazka, K., Hollaus, B., & Hartlieb, J. (2012). Smart cities from a legal and governance perspective. In Smart city. Vienna: Schmid Verlag.Google Scholar
  48. Marsal-Llacuna, M. L., & Segal, M. E. (2016). The Intelligenter Method (I) for making “smarter”city projects and plans. Cities, 55, 127–138.Google Scholar
  49. Memarovic, N., Elhart, I., & Langheinrich, M. (2011). FunSquare: First experiences with autopoiesic content. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  50. Mitchell, V., et al. (2015). Empirical investigation of the impact of using co-design methods when generating proposals for sustainable travel solutions. CoDesign.
  51. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualising smart city with dimensions of technology, people and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times (pp. 282–291).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pereira, G. V., Macadar, M. A., Luciano, E. M., & Testa, M. G. (2017). Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart City context. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Popescu, D., & Radu, L. D. (2016). Data security in smart cities: Challenges and solutions. Informatica Economică, 20(1), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quack, D., & Ruiz Ben, E. (2004). Sustainable evolution of E-Solutions. Bewertungsmethodik innovativer I&K Konzepte für die sozialökologische Transformation der Informationsgesellschaft. SEE Report—BMBF-Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.Google Scholar
  55. Raybourn, E. M. (2014). A new paradigm for serious games: Transmedia learning for more effective training and education. Journal of Computational Science, 5(3), 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Robinson, J., & Cole, R. (2015). Theoretical underpinnings of regenerative sustainability. Building Research and Information, 43(2), 133–143. Scholar
  57. Ruiz Ben, E., (2017). Visualisation methods for the analysis of the digitalisation of work. Workshop, Open University and University of Oxford, Department of Geography.Google Scholar
  58. Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). From designing to co-designing to collective dreaming: Three slices in time. Interactions, 21, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schroeter, R., & Foth, M. (2009). Discussions in space. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group. Melbourne: ACM.Google Scholar
  60. Shin, Y., Shin, D. (2012). “Community informatics and the new urbanism: incorporating information and communication technologies into planning integrated urban communities.” Journal of Urban Technology, 19(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
  61. Talari, S., Shafie-khah, M., Siano, P., Loia, V., Tommasetti, A., & Catalão, J. P. S. (2017). A review of smart cities based on the internet of things concept. Energies, 10, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taylor, N., Marshall, J., Blum-Ross, A., Mills, J., Rogers, J., Egglestone, P., et al. (2012). Viewpoint: Empowering communities with situated voting devices. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  63. Tomitsch, M., & Haeusler, M. H. (2015). Infostructures: Towards a complementary approach for solving urban challenges through digital technologies. Journal of Urban Technologies, 22(3), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695–719. Scholar
  65. van Waart, P., Mulder, I., & Bont, C. (2016). A participatory approach for envisioning a smart city. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 708–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vienna City Administration. (2014, July). Smart City Wien: Framework strategy. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from
  67. Wolff, A., Barker, M., & Petre, M. (2017). Creating a Datascape: A game to support communities in using open data. 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, 26–30 Jun 2017, Troyes, France.Google Scholar
  68. Zambom Santana, E. F., Macedo Bastista, D., Kon, F., & Milojicic, D. S. (2016). SCSimulator: An open source, scalable smart city simulator. Tools Session of the Brazilian Symposium on Computer Networks.Google Scholar
  69. Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1), 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zelt, T. (2017). Smart city, smart strategy. Cities around the world are embracing the digital revolution. But how well are they really doing? Munich: Roland Berger.Google Scholar
  71. Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38(9), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of SociologyTechnical University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations