Provincial but Smart—Urban-Rural Relationships in Brandenburg/Germany

  • Antje MaternEmail author
  • Carolin Schröder
  • J. Miller Stevens
  • Silke Weidner
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


While the idea of intelligent or smart cities started a vivid discussion and brought up a whole variety of strategies to transform urban areas into smart cities, the discussion about smart regions is less developed and rather vague. By looking into trends and strategies developed in the first implementation projects, one general lesson learned is that there is not just one approach to transforming regions into smart regions, but that innovation and smartness need to be related to their specific spatial, infrastructural and sociopolitical contexts (place-based approach). This contribution discusses existing concepts of Smart Regions and argues that peripheral regions may similarly become smart by implementing place-based approaches. In a first step, a short literature review on smart regions and challenges of the peripheral is presented. In a second step, new approaches in peripheral regions will be analyzed and discussed by providing and comparing four case studies from the Brandenburg region in Germany.


Smart regions Urban-Rural-Relationships Metropolization and peripherization 


  1. Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities—The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 41(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  2. BBSR (Federal Institut for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development) & DV (Deutscher Verband für Wohnungswesen, Städtebau und Raumordnung e.V.). (2012). Partnership for sustainable rural-urban development: extisting evidences.
  3. Calzada, I. (2013). Critical social innovation in the smart city era for a city-regional European horizon 2020. Accessed as May 4, 2017 from
  4. Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: Toward smart innovation policies. Growth and Change, 44(2), 355–389. Scholar
  5. Davoudi, S., & Stead, D. (2002). Urban-Rural-Relationships: An introduction and a brief history. Built environment, 28(4), 269–277.Google Scholar
  6. EPRS (European Parliamentary Research Service). (2016). Bridging the rural—urban divide. rural—urban partnerships in the EU
  7. Fischer-Tahir, A., & Naumann, M. (2013). Peripheralization. The making of spatial dependencies and social injustice. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Greenfield, P., Hammond, L., Milsom, N., & Rayner, M. (2006). Smart regions: Characteristics of globally successful regions and implications for Queensland. Accessed as May 04, 2017 from
  9. Herrschel, T. (2012). Regionalisation and marginalisation. Bridging old and new divisions in regional governance. In Danson, M. & DeSouza, P. (Ed.) Regional Development in Northern Europe. Peripherality, Marginality and Border Issues (pp. 30–48). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Kühn, M. (2015). Peripherization—Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lang, T. (2012). Shrinkage, metropolization and peripherization in East Germany. European Planning Studies, 20(10), 1747–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. LBV (Landesamt für Bauen und Verkehr). (2015). Stadt-Umland-Wettbewerb Brandenburg, Übersicht ausgewählter Strategien. Accessed as May 4, 2017 from
  13. Lindberg, M., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2014). Quadruple Helix as a way to bridge the gender gap in Entrepreneurship: The case of an innovation system project in the Baltic Sea Region. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(1), 94–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MIL (Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Landesplanung des Landes Brandenburg). (2015). Stadt-Umland-Wettbewerb Brandenburg, Wettbewerbsaufruf—Entwicklung von Stadt und Umland durch Kooperation und fondsübergreifende Förderung in der EU-Förderperiode 2014–2020 im Land Brandenburg. Accessed as May 4, 2017 from
  15. MWE (Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Europaangelegenheiten des Landes Brandenburg). (2012). Energiestrategie 2030 des Landes Brandenburg. Accessed as May 4, 2017 from
  16. OECD. (2013). Rural-Urban Partnerships: An integrated Approach to Economic Development. Paris: OECD Publishing. Scholar
  17. Pezzi, M. G., & Urso, G. (2016). Peripheral areas: Conceptualizations and policies. Introduction and editorial note. IJPP—Italian Journal of Planning Practice, 6(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  18. Rogerson, C. M. (2001), Knowledge-based or smart regions in South Africa. South African Geographical Journal, 83(1), 34–47. Scholar
  19. Rosenfeld, S. (2002). Creating smart systems: A guide to cluster strategies in less favoured regions. Carrboro, North Carolina: Regional Technology Strategies. Accessed as May 2, 2017 from
  20. Roth, K. O., & Hirschmann, T. (2013). Smart regions: Two cases of crowdsourcing for regional development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(3), 272–285. Scholar
  21. TA 2020. (2011). Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Accessed as May 4, 2017 from
  22. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban Outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced Marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antje Matern
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carolin Schröder
    • 1
  • J. Miller Stevens
    • 1
  • Silke Weidner
    • 1
  1. 1.Brandenburg University of TechnologyCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations