Smart City Participation: Dream or Reality? A Comparison of Participatory Strategies from Hamburg, Berlin & Enschede

  • Ton A. M. SpilEmail author
  • Robin Effing
  • Jaron Kwast
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10595)


Urbanization is forcing local government to revisit their way of communicating with citizens. By using Information Technology, cities can become smarter, more livable and more sustainable. The purpose of this study is to identify critical success factors for local government regarding smart city strategy and participation. The literature study consists of concepts such as smart city, participation and digital strategy. The qualitative study shows that the city of Hamburg defined a digital vision while the other two cities lacked setting such strategies. Bottom-up planning was their primary approach for smart city activities. Regarding the topic of participation we recognize that Hamburg can be recognized as a best practice example. Although the participatory practices were still in its infancy, they showed promising results. Remarkably, all three cities stress the importance of collaboration of different types of stakeholders. The quadruple helix structure ensures effective participation of citizens, companies, universities and government.


Smart cities Participatory governance Intelligent city Digital strategy Urban planning 



We express our gratitude for students who have contributed to this paper. We want to thank Julia Steinke and Johann Rick Harms who helped collecting case material. Their thesis projects were part of the broader research collaboration regarding smart city strategy of both University of Twente and Saxion University of Applied Sciences (Project TFF


  1. 1.
    Niaros, V.: Introducing a taxonomy of the “smart city”: Towards a commons-oriented approach? (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. Global Report on Urban Health, equitable cities for sustainable development (2016). Accessed 30 Apr 2017
  3. 3.
    Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., Nijkamp, P.: Smart cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 18(2), 65–82 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, B.: Urbanization in developing countries: current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technol. Soc. 28(1–2), 63–80 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A., Nam, T.: What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Inf. Polity 20(1), 61–87 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kettl, D.F.: The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for the Twenty-First Century. JHU Press, Baltimore (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., Oliveira, A.: Smart cities and the future internet: towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. Future Internet Assem. 6656(31), 431–446 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Granier, B., Kudo, H.: How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese “Smart Communities”. Inf. Polity 21, 1–16 (2015). (Preprint)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spil, T.A.M., Effing, R., Both, M.P.: Enable, engage and evaluate: introducing the 3E social media strategy canvas based on the european airline industry. In: Dwivedi, Y.K., et al. (eds.) I3E 2016. LNCS, vol. 9844, pp. 15–30. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45234-0_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Scholl, H.J.: Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework. In: Paper presented at the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS) (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., Weijnen, M.: Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 109, 25–38 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hollands, R.G.: Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 12(3), 303–320 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van den Bergh, J., Viaene, S.: Unveiling smart city implementation challenges: the case of Ghent. Inf. Polity 21, 1–15 (2016). (Preprint)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zubizarreta, I., Seravalli, A., Arrizabalaga, S.: Smart city concept: what it is and what it should be. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 142, 04015005 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castells, M.: The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and The Urban-Regional Process. Blackwell Oxford, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    SG Network, ICCM Association: Getting to smart growth: 100 policies for implementation: Smart Growth Network (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    SG Network, ICCM Association: Getting to Smart Growth II: 100 more policies for implementation: Smart Growth Network (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albino, V., Berardi, U., Dangelico, R.M.: Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 22(1), 3–21 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vogt, S., Förster, B., Kabst, R.: Social media and e-participation: challenges of social media for managing public projects. Int. J. Public Adm. Digit. Age (IJPADA) 1(3), 85–105 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klages, H., Vetter, A.: Bürgerbeteiligung auf kommunaler Ebene: Perspektiven für eine systematische und verstetigte Gestaltung, vol. 43, edition sigma (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vogt, S., Haas, A.: The future of public participation in Germany: empirical analyses of administration experts’ assessments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 98, 157–173 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khansari, N., Mostashari, A., Mansouri, M.: Impacting sustainable behavior and planning in smart city. Int. J. Sustain. Land Use Urban Plan. (IJSLUP) 1(2) (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J.: Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25(1), 3–29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., Hughes, J.E.: Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Edu. Res. 38(4), 246–259 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., Venkatesh, A.: Has the Internet become indispensable? Commun. ACM 47(7), 37–42 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leiner, B.M., Cerf, V.G., Clark, D.D., Kahn, R.E., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D.C., Wolff, S.: A brief history of the Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 39(5), 22–31 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Åström, J.: Should democracy online be quick, strong, or thin? Commun. ACM 44(1), 49–51 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Medaglia, R.: eParticipation research: moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Gov. Inf. Quart. 29(3), 346–360 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 53(1), 59–68 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brabham, D.C.: Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Plan. Theor. 8(3), 242–262 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ornebring, H.: The Consumer as Producer* of What? User-generated tabloid content in The Sun (UK) and Aftonbladet (Sweden). Future Newspapers 142 (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rebillard, F., Touboul, A.: Promises unfulfilled? ‘Journalism 2.0’, user participation and editorial policy on newspaper websites. Media Cult. Soc. 32(2), 323–334 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Evans-Cowley, J., Hollander, J.: The new generation of public participation: internet-based participation tools. Plan. Pract. Res. 25(3), 397–408 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schweizer, P.-J., Renn, O., Köck, W., Bovet, J., Benighaus, C., Scheel, O., Schröter, R.: Public participation for infrastructure planning in the context of the German “Energiewende”. Util. Policy 43, 206–209 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scholl, H.J., AlAwadhi, S.: Creating smart governance: the key to radical ICT overhaul at the city of munich. Inf. Polity 21, 1–22 (2016). (Preprint)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dameri, R.P.: Searching for Smart City definition: a comprehensive proposal. Int. J. Comput. Technol. 11(5), 2544–2551 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Effing, R., Groot, B.P.: Social smart city: introducing digital and social strategies for participatory governance in smart cities. In: Scholl, H.J., et al. (eds.) EGOVIS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9820, pp. 241–252. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44421-5_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Städtetag, D.: Culture of Participation in Integrated Urban Development: Working Paper of the Working Group on Public Participation by the German Association of Cities, Deutscher Städtetag (2013)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zygiaris, S.: Smart city reference model: assisting planners to conceptualize the building of smart city innovation ecosystems. J. Knowl. Econ. 4(2), 217–231 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cretu, L.-G.: Smart cities design using event-driven paradigm and semantic web. Informatica Economica 16(4), 57 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bingham, L.B., Nabatchi, T., O’Leary, R.: The new governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Adm. Rev. 65(5), 547–558 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Afonso, Ó., Monteiro, S., Thompson, M.J.R.: A growth model for the quadruple helix innovation theory (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cohen, B.: The 10 Smartest Cities in Europe (2014).
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
    Numbeo. Quality of Life Index 2016 (2016).
  46. 46.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Remenyi, D., Williams, B.: Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. Sage, London (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E.: Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50(1), 25 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zainal, Z.: Case Study as a Research Method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan 9, 1–6 (2007)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hove, S.E., Anda, B.: Experiences from conducting semi-structured interviews in empirical software engineering research. In: Paper presented at the 2005 11th IEEE International Symposium Software Metrics (2005)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Spil, T.A.M., Pris, M., Kijl, B.: Exploring the BIG Five of e-leadership by developing digital strategies with mobile, cloud, big data, social media, and the Internet of things. In: E-proceedings IC Management Leadership &Governance, Johannesburg South Africa (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of Applied SciencesEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations