Communicating the Smart City
Analysing Economic and Sustainable Argumentation for a New Urban Order:
the Case of Amsterdam Smart City
University of Amsterdam Master thesis Lisanne Buijze MA New Media & Digital Culture Supervisor: dr. M.D. Tuters Second reader: drs. S.M.C. Niederer Final version: 24 June 2016
Abstract
In this study, the case of Amsterdam Smart City is regarded in terms of Michel Foucault’s governmentality framework and more specifically in relation to sustainable issues and goals. Building upon Foucault’s philosophical approach, the historical development of sus- tainable thought, new urbanism and smart city scholarship, this study aims to connect dif-ferent fields of thought that intertwine in such a complex and broad notion of the smart city. Combining a genealogical approach towards the development of sustainable thought and governmentality in Western European society, and performing a case study of the commu-nication material of this smart city initiative in Amsterdam, a more inclusive insight in smart city realisation is given. It appears that economic and ecological goals are theoretical-ly hard to align, but the smart city initiative is an attempt to do so. Technology is proposed as a solution, but specificities are left out. The citizen is presented as an important factor in the smart city, but is governed by the incomplete information provided about technological solutions in the urban environment.
Keywords:
SMART CITIES, AMSTERDAM, SUSTAINABILITY, GOVERNMENTALITY, NEOLIBERALISM, ENVI-RONMENTALITY, COMMUNICATIONTable of contents
1. Introduction ... 6 1.1 Media and governmentality ... 7 1.2 Media and ecology ... 9 1.3 Approach ... 9 2. Theoretical framework ... 11 2.1 Governmentality: from absolute power to invisible governance ... 11 2.1.2 Governmentality and freedom ... 12 2.1.3 Neoliberalism ... 15 2.1.4 Governmentality and the environment ... 17 2.2 The rise of sustainability ... 17 2.2.1 From activism to the economics of sustainability ... 18 2.2.2 Economy vs. ecology ... 19 2.2.3 Sustainability, business and the city ... 25 2.2.4 New urbanism and the sustainable city ... 26 2.3 Smart Cities: technology for liveability and sustainability? ... 28 2.3.1 Defining ‘smartness’ in the city ... 29 2.3.2 Technology, people and institutions ... 29 2.3.3 Smart City: a case of urban governmentality ... 32 2.3.4 The smart city and neoliberalism ... 34 2.3.5 Sustainability and Smart Cities ... 35 2.3.6 The problematics of a seamless socio-technical city ... 36 2.4 About Amsterdam Smart City ... 37 3. Methodology ... 42 3.1 Step one: argumentation ... 42 3.2 Step two: content key questions ... 45 3.3 Choice of objects & approach ... 48 4. Analysis ... 50 4.1 Web text: About ASC ... 50 4.2 ‘Working towards a Smart City’ (2014) ... 53 4.3 ‘Smart City here we come’ (2016) ... 59 4.4 Web texts: Knowledge Centre ... 66 4.5 Video: ‘The future starts now’ (2015) ... 72 4.6 Results ... 75 5. Discussion ... 79 6. Conclusion ... 80 6.1 A smart, sustainable city: a form of governance? ... 80 Bibliography ... 82 Appendix A: Rules for pragma-dialectical assessment of argumentation ... 86 Appendix B: Objects for analysis ... 87 B1: Web text: About ASC ... 88 B2: ASC brochure: Working towards a Smart City (2014) ... 89 B3: ASC brochure: Smart City here we come (2016) ... 96 B4: Web text: ASC Knowledge Centre - Smart Shopping Streets ... 98 B5: Video: the future starts now (2015) ... 104 Appendix C: Argumentation schemes ... 106 C1: Web text: About ASC ... 107 C2: ‘Working towards a Smart City’ (2014) ... 108 C3: ‘Smart City here we come!’ (2016) ... 112 C4: Web text: ASC Knowledge Centre ... 114 DIY concept: Smart Shopping Streets ... 114 C5: Video: ‘The future starts now’ (2015) ... 1191. Introduction
During the last few years, the city of Amsterdam has positioned itself as an area that highly values innovation, which is often connected to a pursuit of sustainable and balanced life-style1. Since the Dutch capital holds a rich history in commerce, capitalist values are em-bedded in the local conception that is still dominant today (Ufer 32-33; 41-42; Wintle 67). This can be seen in significant start-ups founded in the region: examples such as TomTom or Booking.com are considered successful (D’Agostin; Egusa)2. Although the Netherlands are criticized for their tax regulations for (starting) businesses3 (Rumney), the city propos-es the image of an attractive environment to live, do business and test new ideas. This builds upon the themes of innovation and commerce, as the city marketing campaign ‘ I Am-sterdam’ is based on three core values of the city: ‘creativity, innovation and commercial spirit4.
This perspective is also found in one of the initiatives that put Amsterdam on the map as an innovative region: Amsterdam Smart City (ASC). This public initiative is a cross- sectoral collaboration where stakeholders (such as the Municipality of Amsterdam, the Am-sterdam University of Applied Sciences, PostNL and Arcadis) work on ‘smart solutions’ for urban issues such as waste and water management, mobility and energy flows. But what exactly is this idea of becoming a ‘smart city’? How does an existing city, with all its histori-cal, social and spatial structures, become ‘smart’? When trying to render or quote a clear definition of the smart city, a variety of perspectives and understandings seem to have been put forward. Spatial planning scholar Alberto Vanolo notes that the smart city concept in-herits ideas from the New Urbanism trend, where ‘quality of life’ became the ultimate goal or inspiration in urban planning and policy (887; Paskaleva 155). Robert Hollands states that there exists no generally recognized, unified definition that covers the broad concep-tion of smart cities (Nam and Pardo 283; Hollands 303). In chapter 2.3 the concept will be 1 Bloomberg and the Guardian for instance report for instance examples of Amsterdam-based innovations such as techniques reducing waste problems that are fit into business models (Stokes), data to solve parking issues (Balch) or ‘smart grids’ where sensors work on energy efficiency (Scott). 2 Other than that, start-ups with their origins elsewhere boosted their business when settling offices in the Amsterdam Area – think of Uber, Netflix (D’Agostin) or InnerCircle (Van Groningen). 3 The Netherlands was ruled “the worst offender” of tax regulation by the European Commission, as Public Finance International reports (Rumney). 4 See also: http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/amsterdam-marketing/about-amsterdam-marketing/who-we-are
explored elaborately, but in general a smart city is understood as an urban environment where technological tools are put forward to solve urban issues, which leads to an efficient and sustainable environment for urban dwellers.
Although the smart city is not fully established and remains an ideal model, Amster-dam is considered to be one of the leading ‘smart’ city projects because of their approach that builds upon public-private partnerships and citizen ownership, as the Guardian re- ported in 2011 (Berthon). In March 2016, Amsterdam was appointed the iCapital or Euro-pean Capital of Innovation title and additional subsidy by the EU Committee of the Regions in Brussels5. On the other hand, in an interview with in Amsterdam’s local newspaper Het Parool, smart city researcher Anthony Townsend expresses a more worried view of Am-sterdam as a smart city. He addresses the vulnerability of technological solutions, the social and physical (either human or material) implications that are often overlooked, and the lack of ethical or juridical perspectives on the matter (van Zoelen). Although technological solu- tions for urban issues are put forward as a solution, many implications and aspects of in-corporating such technologies into physical urban processes (such as waste or electricity grids) are not always thought through in detail. As Townsend puts forward, smart heating systems that automatically adjust a room’s temperature may save energy. But then some questions remain unanswered: what are the implications for our health? And how are we engaging with or governed by a network of systems that companies design, execute and em- bed in our lives through such an initiative? Are citizens signing away (part of) their auton-omy by adjusting to the smart city and using such proposed technologies, being under the impression of being in control? Who or what is actually creating the boundaries for exist-ence and conduct? These questions relate to the philosophical work of Michel Foucault, and more specifically his concept of ‘governmentality’. 1.1 Media and governmentality The concepts of sustainability and smart cities should also be considered in a theoretical, historical and philosophical framework before conducting a case analysis of Amsterdam 5 See also: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=icapital. The award was awarded to Amsterdam because of its innovative approach to urban issues that are said to have improved local living and economic conditions. See also: http://www.greendigitalcharter.eu/tag/amsterdam-smart-city-approach.
ty-focused approach (as opposed to technological determinist or social constructivism for instance6 ) to new media in the networked, smart city. As Leah Lievrouw states, the materi-ality of communicative media systems is more a complex concept than simply considering the physically tangible aspects of a system; such an approach also considers the social con-nections within a network, the effect of these (actions within) relationships and finally the tangible innovation (or device) itself (Lievrouw 36). To apply this approach to a concrete example of technology in the smart city: the use of solar devices brings along specific social relations, think of neighbours in Amsterdam who share a roof and opt to conjointly place solar panels, and share a responsibility, a device and practices that requires them to inter- act. This implies that the group of neighbours might adapt their behaviour: choosing an en-ergy provider that supports self-generated solar energy, engaging in communal processes and maybe changing their energy consumption behaviour based on insights derived from new knowledge or experience around solar energy. Third, the placement of solar panels on a roof has a profound effect on the tangible space: the roof, newly connected to the existing electricity system for instance. Lievrouw handles a definition of materiality in communica-tion technology that assumes these three factors (the impact of social relations, actions or agency, and the physical device) are intertwined and equally in play (25). The previous passage shows how new media materiality discourse handles social ac- tion and its motivations and consequences as well. Michel Foucaults approach to social ac-tion in relation to new media can be found in his concept of governmentality. This should not be confused with “the government” as an institution, but concerns a set of practices that become common rationalities in society and influence individual agency and the under-standing of how these practices become a norm for human agency – and the environment may be an example of informing such a common rationality (Gabrys 35). For instance, sus- tainable living practices have become quite embedded in Western society: separating dif-ferent kinds of waste, ecological products in supermarkets, and widespread debates on meat consumption or climate problems are now common ground. This study focuses on how such common ideas or practices about sustainable living for the specific urban area of 6 Technological determinism assumes that technology influences social structures, while social determinism assumes that it is the other way around (Lievrouw 22). Technological determinism is said to idealize techno-logical capital as ‘separate and disembodied on-line world’ (Hollands 310), and does often not take historical or political context into account (Dourish 2).
a (smart) city come into being, aided by the governmentality framework of Foucault and finally applied to the specific case of Amsterdam Smart City. 1.2 Media and ecology In chapter 2, the politics of sustainability and smart cities will be put into perspective by addressing two debates: the history of sustainability debate, and Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality. The two are connected by the recent trend of sustainable living, where individuals conduct themselves in a way that is considered to be of positive influence on the natural environment. Think of purchasing green energy, organic food or being concerned with sorting waste. Media scholars Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller for instance raise the importance of “ecological ethics” in their 2008 essay, advocating for a conscience of the eco- logical implications of new media technology (331-332). Our perception of popular sustaability debates and movements in the Western World today have been formed by the in-formation that spread through media, published works of scholars and public education. This developed perspective of sustainability is essentially intertwined with technological revolutions throughout the last decade, since for instance heavily mechanized industry has been often contested for their significant share in ecological pollution, climate change and ecological decay (Mishan 410; Caradonna; Robinson 371). Throughout the years, attempts to unite the concepts of economy and ecology have been made, but both sets of values and knowledge still seem hardly compatible (Caradonna 113-135). It is interesting that in a smart city initiative such as ASC, not only municipalities, businesses and knowledge institu-tions are mentioned as participants, but also many citizens are involved. As will be shown in this study, economic values are incorporated in the smart city concept. The historical overview in chapter 2 of how the sustainability movement emerged (and how this relates to economic thought) offers a background for the emergence of the smart city concept and its communication, which will be analysed in chapter 4. 1.3 Approach This study will handle both a theoretical and an analytical approach. In chapter two, three main debates will pass in review: the concept of governmentality, a historical overview of how the sustainability conception came in to being, and finally the scholarly debate on the smart city concept, both in general and in relation to the governmentality and sustainability concepts. This will inform the analysis of the case in chapter 4, which discusses Amsterdam
Smart City’s argumentation and the content of these arguments in relation to the sustaina-ble, economic and technological governance. These arguments are derived from a set of texts that were published by ASC. The following question is at the centre of this study: how is Amsterdam Smart City communicating the smart city, and to what extent is the citizen in Amsterdam governed by Amsterdam Smart City’s communication in terms of sustainable, eco-nomic and technological values?
2. Theoretical framework
In this chapter, three main debates will be set out and intertwined: the concept of govern-mentality, the rise and problematics of sustainability debate in Western-European culture, and the smart city concept. The smart city argues for ‘sustainable’ technological solutions that make the city ‘smarter’, but this means that technology and the concepts that form the idea of a smart city are influencing the perception of the individual that lives in that particu- lar city. In this chapter, the idea of how the individual is steered by common ideas is dis-cussed in subsection 2.1, then the development and governmentality traits of the idea of ‘sustainability’ is handled in subsection 2.2. Finally, the concept of smart cities will be ex-plained in subsection 2.3 and put into these two perspectives, forming a framework that leads into an analysis of the Amsterdam Smart City case in subsection 2.4.
2.1 Governmentality: from absolute power to invisible governance
Michel Foucault is renowned for his research in power and knowledge structures. Investi- gating the underlying motivations or influences for individual action and thought by prob-lematization: “an approach that would seek to discern all of the various threads in their specificity so as to grasp the ways in which they had been woven together into a new singu- larity” (Koopman 3). Through systematic assessment of specific conditions, events and oth-er factors, Foucault seeks to understand social organization and what is beneath such social structures. In this study, the concepts of Foucault are applied to understand a broadly used concept as is ‘the smart city’ and the implications of such initiatives on urban environments. The governmentality framework stems from Foucault's later work, succeeding his earlier genealogical work that distinguished sovereign and disciplinary power (Dean 17). A sovereign power effectuates an absolute form of power over its subjects – think of a king or emperor in an absolute monarchy deciding on the fate of its people without the interven- tion of others. This can take place on various scales; for the case of the smart city, the citi-zens of a particular city (Amsterdam, for instance) would be subject to governance. On the other hand, according to Foucault, disciplinary power seeks to surveil its subjects in such a way they conform themselves to boundaries, laws or norms that are set by the institutional power (Foucault, The Subject and Power 792). On could for example think of obligatory health insurance, or the fact that attending further education is required in most fields of employment. The most exemplary and well-known example is Foucault’s theory of panopti-cism: a form of surveillance in prison. The panopticon, a concept by philosopher Jeremy
Bentham, is an observation tower from where each and every act of the prisoners can be registered, without the prisoners knowing whether and when they are being observed (Wardrip-Fruin 737). This invisible, yet very present form of control is understood as ‘dis- ciplinary power’ (Foucault, Panopticism 195-207). Educational or tax systems are other ex-amples of such disciplinary power structures (Dean 46); the set boundaries and obligatory components of such systems ‘govern’ the way subjects act. This framework has been ap-plied to analyze the smart city concept as well (Gabrys, Vanolo, Dourish), which is discussed later in subsection 2.3.3. Foucault applies the notion of “conduct” in relation to power rela-tions (Foucault, Subject and Power 189), implying that governmentality is essentially the “conduct of conduct” (Tuters 44; Dean 17). This means that behaviour is steered by some kind of convention, strategy or knowledge that speaks to the beliefs and interests of people (Dean 18). Ultimately, governmentality is an invisible power, masked by the illusion of be-ing a self-controlled subject or individual. This will be discussed further in 2.1.3. Bridging Foucault’s earlier work to modern times, philosopher Gilles Deleuze describes contempo-rary Western societies as “societies of control”, succeeding disciplinary societies (4). In the society of control, the modern company is taken to be a ‘spirit’ rather than employment, and where values such as “perpetual training”, new ‘floating’ forms of capital other than money, and codes that represent the gateway to information (5). In Deleuze’s conception, the socie-ty of control is one of spreading capitalism: introducing business values into all aspects of society and human conduct (7). A critical perspective of this kind of (corporate) govern- ment is necessary in order to understand the development of Western societies and possi-ble implications for the future. Governmentality can be understood as an invisible, abstract form of power that constitutes social and material structures, and creates a form of subjec-tivity. Take for instance citizens in the smart city: by incorporating technology into the city, their social relations and material environment changes, and their behaviour (e.g. using or installing devices or the constant registration of data) changes by means of these technolo- gies. The information that is provided by for instance smart city initiators is of crucial im- portance in constituting the common knowledge in this matter, which feeds citizens’ behav-ior. 2.1.2 Governmentality and freedom Political sociologist Mitchell Dean handles the governmentality framework, building upon
how it has been developed further by recent studies (Dean 17). He presents governmentali- ty as a framework or tool for analysing “linkages between questions of government, author-ity and politics, and questions of identity, self and person” (Dean 20). Asking questions of governmentality, thus, is seeking whether and how the individual’s ideas, convictions and actions could be influenced by politics and governmental power. Governing structures in society (e.g. governments, universities, companies, media) present us certain knowledge or guidelines where we base our actions and ideals on.
Dean mentions the example of healthy eating habits (20) in this respect, but one could also think of environmental issues and sustainability. Interestingly enough, the em-phasis in debate of sustainability issues has come to rest on individual responsibility greatly over the years (Robinson 371; Lombardi and Vanpool 156). Politics on both global and local scales have been concerned with debate and policymaking about for instance saving natural resources, carbon emissions, and deforestation. What is interesting in terms of the govern-mentality concept is the specific influence on knowledge distribution that comes with such institutional involvement. Institutionally funded research, conferences or new regulations provide openly available debate and information, and the information that spreads as such influences a communal take on the matter. For instance, regulations such as tax benefits for electric cars might influence an individuals’ choice of car purchase and thus his behaviour or stance with regards to the matter. This is quite an obvious measure, but by simply dis-tributing knowledge about the phenomenon of electric vehicles that reduce carbon emis- sion (even without tax measures) and connecting this to sustainability debates, a moral is- sue is addressed. The benefits and information on individual moral responsibility with re-gards to an issue such as carbon emission are distributed, and the individual is likely to adopt some kind of ‘desirable’ behaviour (e.g. buying a hybrid or electric vehicle), based on the provided information.
This way of showing individuals their (both causal and possibly beneficial) role and accountability within the debate of carbon emission, is an example of governmentality. Here, not only politics, governments and other institution expressing knowledge on the matter are at play, but also the individual: he or she has the ‘free ability’ to act upon this knowledge, although the information provided tends to point to a certain expedient direc-tion (driving electric cars). Foucault considers governmentality as molding behavior under the premise of human competence to act and think differently (Dean 23). This “possibility of movement” is one of the basic (or technical, as Burchell, Gordon and Miller put it) condi-tions of security or governmentality (Klauser, Paasche and Söderström 874; Dean 23) as a
rational activity rather than an idealistic one (Burchell, Gordon and Miller 24). Although the individual is free to do whatever he wants, governing becomes “an intensely moral activity” as Dean puts it (19), conducting conduct by trying to accost individuals’ sense of responsi-bility, but without applying restrictions or inhibitions. The tax benefits for electric cars are offered, but not imposed. The individual is free to act as he wishes, but might be confronted with a moral choice, generated by the information that is spread: making the choice be-tween sustainable conduct (and benefitting financially), or ignoring such a ‘desirable’ form of conduct. One of the preconditions of Foucauldian government has to do with the concept of freedom (Burchell, Gordon and Miller 24). Dean addresses the assumption that where gov-ernmentality tries to mold the conduct of the governed actor (or the subject of governance), there is room for freedom (21). To explain this shortly: since a human being possesses the ability to think and control its physical agency, he is free to act upon what he thinks or feels is best. Although ideas for what is the ‘best’ or ‘most eligible’ action might be imposed by power structures, the possibility to not act upon those imposed conceptions is still present. This might be either the imposed governmental idea such as “I should get an electric car”, or acting otherwise such as not partaking in the educational system. Here, one could almost speak of a paradox – at least the argument doesn’t seem to fully fit at first sight. While gov- ernance is essentially focused on “conducting conduct” and if conduct is the “locus of free-dom” (Dean 21), then government would make its mark on freedom (and restrict it) in a way. But then again, Foucault assumes that the rational acting and thinking subject pos- sesses at least the possibility of freedom, because one could oppose oneself to forms of gov-ernment and the governmentality framework is mere a theoretical one (Foucault, Society must be Defended 13). The key is: when the subject actually is aware of being governed, it is able to counteract and by extension, be free (Dean 21-22). The key question here is: are we aware of and when being governed? The contradictory dynamics of being governed and simultaneously possessing free-dom lies at the base of liberal government, as is individual distinctiveness and the ability of individuals to think and act autonomously (McNay 56) and thus govern their own selves. For it is through a definition of freedom, human subjects are governed in a liberal system and thus this stands apart from an unlimited employment of freedom (Dean 24). This is an essential aspect of governmentality: the way we think about government. Dean clarifies this in detail by pointing out the explicit distinction between ‘rationality’ and the sociological
notion of ‘mentality’. While ‘rationality’ can be assigned to an individual’s ability of (critical) thought, ‘mentality’ is a (set of) collective thought(s) that are not necessarily questionable to those within this specific mentality. The governed collectively form an image of authority based on the knowledge that is available to them. This knowledge is often provided by both scientific and political discourse (Dean 24-26) and thus these institutions help shape the mentality amongst people. Hence ‘governmentality’: we are governed by a structured com-mon mentality. Promoting the smart city concept amongst citizens provides a good example of how such a proposed mentality might eventually find its place into common conception.
2.1.3 Neoliberalism
As briefly mentioned in the previous subsection, governance is concerned with invisible power structures in modern society. One of those structures is of economic nature. Dean presents collective, common knowledge about national economics as an example hereof (governmentality), and this may well be one of the most important examples of governmen- tality of our time (26). Neoliberalism is often centered on the assumption that Western so-cieties and governments have developed themselves towards being greatly structured by economic principles such as growth and human capital (Foucault, Biopolitics 232). The con-cept ‘human capital’7 combines population with capital, implying that there is capital within the human being – which seems to be an essential part of Foucault’s governmentality. One could think of labour (Foucault, Biopolitics 219) in the broadest sense, like having a job and contributing by working and consuming products, but with the concept of governmentality in mind, there might be more to it. Foucault argued that through specific contexts in the eighteenth century, Western politics have grown to being occupied with the population (Foucault, Biopolitics 217; Dean 28). By placing responsibility on the governed individual through shared knowledge or morality (e.g. the conception on electric car use) without ex-plicit obligations or restrictions, a form of human capital might be recognized here as well. This is not labour as such, but the governed individual adds to governmental and economic goals by acting a certain way, by being governed implicitly and maybe even participate consciously8 7 Human capital is a term that is also often connected to smart cities, and for this perspective urbanist Marga-rita Angelidou describes the essence of human capital as “informed, educated, and participatory citizens” (S6). 8 See the concept of “self as enterprise” (McNay) as shortly mentioned in the next paragraph.
mains and rethinking originally non-economic domains into economic terms and settings (Foucault, Biopolitics, 219). Each domain of governance can be (and might be) reshaped to-wards economic ideals; as Nigel Thrift notes in Adventure of Capitalism, in a world where concepts such as supply and demand are the standard for many aspects of everyday life, it is hard to resist and look beyond this normalized economic language (4). Foucault considers neoliberalism the ultimate exemplification of governmentality (McNay 56). The governed individual can be considered an economic man or homo oeconomicus. Although the concept stems from the late 19th century (Persky 222), in neoliberalism the term represents the modern man as “the entrepreneur of himself” (Foucault, Biopolitics 226) or the “self as enterprise” (McNay 6). The homo oeconomicus is concerned with its own (human) capital, and is responsible for earning the capital (for instance money or goods, but also knowledge or aptitudes) he finds satisfactory (Foucault, Biopolitics 226-227). Again, there is no obvious obligation at stake; the focus seems to lie on self-sufficiency and responsibility, and a sense of maintaining the business of the self. Political theorist Lois McNay talks of “the self as enterprise”: building upon Foucault’s insights of governmentality and neoliberalism, she states that the modern individual and its choices are highly econo-mized (61). With regards to the research at hand, the question whether the smart city ideal is funded on this idea of homo oeconomicus could provide an interesting perspective on the goals that are behind a smart city strategy. Although the individual is self-sufficient and responsible, a state knows several ‘ap- paratuses of security’ (Dean 29). Foucault understands these as all the measures and prac-tices set by the state that aim to ensure the continuity of economic, vital and social process (Dean 29) such as trade, national security. Educational institutions or processes are exam-ples of such apparatuses, and ultimately all these apparatuses of security aim to preserve and prolong the existence of the human and its capital (Foucault, Biopolitics 229). For the smart city initiative in Amsterdam, this is indicated by the partnerships with educational institutes and the emphasis on incorporating citizens in all activities and projects9. So in sum, neoliberalism puts human capital forward as one of the important drivers for main-taining the existence of a population. By providing information, education, legislation and other resources, this population is being governed by the state while under the impression of taking responsibility for their own lives and their influence on the (social and natural) 9 See also: https://amsterdamsmartcity.com/p/about or Appendix B1.
world. The way the state operates here is what Foucault also refers to as ‘biopolitics’ or “the form of investment in human capital” (Foucault, Biopolitics 232). The human biological body of a human being is governed, and thus subjected to politics, as well as his acquired compe- tences or knowledge (227). The sum of human traits that are beneficial on an economic lev-el is thus classified as human capital. 2.1.4 Governmentality and the environment
As new media scholar Tiziana Terranova states, the contemporary European networked city is a typical place that reflects the economic freedom or neoliberal tendency (Tuters 43) that has been discussed in the previous subsection. New media scholar Marc Tuters notes that Foucault's understanding of the milieu represents the relationship between this eco- nomic freedom and the way we understand space, in particular urban space: the State con- sists of multiple milieus that function separately, but all with the common goal of maintain-ing the health of a population (Tuters 43). In order to maintain the population, the envi-ronment it lives in should be maintained as well: it is commonly known that living beings need air, water, food and shelter in order to exist – which is all found in the physical space of the earth. But as Tuters states, the environment is a factor that is shared by both econom-ics and ecology (41), and new media theorists such as Jennifer Gabrys and Carlos Bar- reneche have put forward a critique of environment-specific governmentality or rather en- vironmentality. These analyses focus amongst others on (computational) technology in ur-ban environments (Tuters 46). As the smart city is a place where this kind of technology is applied in order to find solutions for sustainability issues with a sharp focus on the role of the citizen (or population), environmentality seems to be at stake in the smart city dis-course. In subsection 2.3.5, the environmentality perspectives that are applied to the notion of smart cities will be examined more in-depth. But in the next subsection, ecological per- spectives on the notion of the environment will first be further developed to provide con-text for possible sustainability arguments that are given (or left out) in the communication of the smart city.
2.2 The rise of sustainability
As has been briefly mentioned before and will be explained later on, the smart city is a con-cept that envisions sustainable living and growth in urban environments (Albino, Berardi and Dangelico 4; Baccame 5; Gabrys 30-31; Hollands 306). To put this into context, in thissubsection the emergence and development of sustainability as we know it today will be addressed. In order to understand the emergence of the smart city concept from an envi-ronmentality-perspective, the post-1960s context is most relevant to the object of study at hand. Although plans for cybernetic cities had been developed well since the sixties (Gabrys 30; Easterling 3), networked (computational) city plans did not occur in urban planning be-fore the 1980s and the concept of the smart city is an even more recent one (Gabrys 30).
Starting with a brief overview of the public emergence of ideas crucial to current sustainability movements, subsection 2.2.2 will thereafter focus on the clash between eco- nomic and ecological values. As discussed in subsection 2.1, neoliberalist thought is an ex- ample of governmentality in modern Western society, and the vast anchorage of these val- ues will be illustrated by taking a genealogical approach. Although Gabrys addresses envi- ronmentality in smart city initiatives, she does not take the historical context of the sustain- ability into account. This historical approach will lastly put the phenomenon of sustainabil- ity in business and urban environments into context, which will show the role of sustaina-bility in the domain of the smart city. This will eventually be beneficial to the case study of Amsterdam Smart City as well in chapter 4. 2.2.1 From activism to the economics of sustainability In the 1960s, arguments for a new ecological perspective emerged from both a growing par-ticipation in activism and new scientific insights, among which the application of cybernetic thought for ecological purposes. It could be argued that the base of the contemporary smart city has been laid out at this time. The new ecological movement led to a more globalist view of the world, succeeding anthropocentrism (Anker, Caradonna, Crutzen)10 . When envi-ronmentalism emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, this perspective was challenged and slowly started to change. Environmentalists took a non-anthropocentric stand, raising the im-portance of non-human biotic entities and the natural environment in planning, policy and economics (Anker 106; Caradonna 111). This new perspective was often accompanied by a strong critique of industrialism and capitalism (Anker 105, Caradonna 94). 10 The Anthropocene is the term for a geological era that supposedly began around the end of the eighteenth century, around the time of Watt's invention of the steam engine, and designates the influence of human agen-cy on the global ecology (Crutzen). Although it was scientifically recognized that humanity had a profound effect on the ecosystem, anthropocentrism assumes that humanity is the most significant species on earth, and the main director of the natural environment (Caradonna 3).
The dystopia called ‘future’
The context of activist and environmentalist engagement at the time explains the need for such initiatives. As historian and environmentalist Peder Anker describes, this age of eco-logical crisis and gloomy future perspectives on the global environment (101) provoked scholars to hunt for change and solutions11 . Although the expressed ideas found a lot of re-sistance amongst the general public, debate opened up to the effects of socio-economic structures on the natural environment. Ecology scholars advocated for new means of poli-tics and urban planning, connecting ecology to other fields such as economics, policy and urban planning, with an emphasis on the incorporation of the global environmental context in local activities (Anker 102-110). Thus, a new balance was sought in order to restore the harmony between human agency and the physical earth. The urgency expressed with this kind of dark predictions for the future can be still found in sustainability arguments today (Diederichsen and Franke 5; Coole and Frost 16). Even though large-scale industry has been criticized greatly in these ecological de- bates, cybernetic theory was known to be essential to developing solutions. In his discus- sion Anker does not explicitly explain the exact role of cybernetics, but the computer simu-lation model for a fish culture ponds project presented by Wolfe et al. shows this approach more clearly (Wolf, Schwerin and Enstrom 1)12. So although most industry-based systems were questioned or even contested by ecology, at the same time computational models were applied in the search for resolving ecological problems.
2.2.2 Economy vs. ecology
In the development of the sustainability movement, the discrepancy between economics and ecological goals seems unsolvable but develops itself into new forms of business and practice. When treating the 1960s and 1970s, Caradonna13 11 Several studies and reports were published, presenting a negative, dystopian image of the future global eco-logy (Anker 101). Influential and debate-fanning publications were for instance biologist Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller on overpopulation (‘The population bomb’), and scientist-activist organisation the Club of Rome’s 1972 critique on growth-focused industry and economy (‘The limits to growth’) (Anker 101, Caradonna). 12 In this particular case, the system is divided into its different components (for instance fish, oxygen and bac-teria groups), which are translated into algorithms. The simulation model then measures and represents how the system develops itself and the level of stability and predictability of different components, in order to fine-tune the organization of the ecosystem as a whole (Wolf, Schwerin and Enstrom 1).
nomics’, which denotes the development of sustainability ideals and criticism of neoclassi-cal and classinomics’, which denotes the development of sustainability ideals and criticism of neoclassi-cal economics14 to a new economic perspective. This mostly remained a cri- tique of neoclassical economy rather than posing solutions for constructing a new, sustain-able economic system (Caradonna 113-116). The Club of Rome15 for instance theorized en-vironmental problems with systems theory, arguing that constant series of feedback loops were aggregating the destructive effects of growth (Caradonna 119). To concretize: such a feedback loop occurs for instance for the production of cars. As long as we drive cars, and the human population keeps on growing, the production of cars will keep on going and even grow along. Eventually this results in a depletion of resources necessary to both construct and maintain and employ the car, but even more factors should be taken into account: think for instance of infrastructural and logistic implementations. A concept such as that of the smart city borrows greatly from such identified problematics, focusing on logistic and re-source infrastructures for instance. A few specific topics are of importance that ecological economists rose in the 1970s are currently still relevant objects of discussion. Amongst these are the costs of growth, ig-norance of the natural environment and the idealisation of technology (Caradonna 113-135; Gabrys 40 and 43; Dourish 2-3). Although the ideal of ecological economists foresaw a future where the economy had been reorganized to take into account ecological limits and move away from the goal of growth (Caradonna 135; Daly 24), the question remains whether this ideal will ever draw near reality. Theorists who attempted to construct an all-inclusive (ecological and economic) system, encountered problems. To mention some is-sues: the resource decline was still not fully put to hold in these models, the ecosystem was still damaged by economic activity, pollution could not be eliminated and other economy-driven social costs such as wealth inequality were not degraded (Caradonna 128). What is 13 In this study, the historical overview of Caradonna forms the base of the sustainability contextualization, since this is a broadly oriented, inclusive and recent publication of the matter taking into account the socio-economic developments and as concise as possible. 14 According to sociologist Johanna Bockman, classical economics assumed that the “objective costs” of goods production determines its value, while neo-classical economics assumes that an object’s value is determined by its subjective value. Crucial components of neo-classical economics, which emerged in the late 19th centu-ry, are “a centralized social state and a competitive markets” (10-11). 15 At this time, a few pioneering organisations were founded, of which the Club of Rome is a well-known and disruptive example. The Club of Rome still exists today, and by studying global problems and its connection to socio-economic evolution collaboratively, a group of scientists attributed to the controversial publication of “The Limits to Growth” in 1972 (Club of Rome, Anker 101, Pepper 6).
striking, is that concepts from cybernetic and mathematical theory already were incorpo-rated into studies for sustainable initiatives. This could be a precursor for the tendency to apply computing technology for sustainability purposes as we see is happening in the Smart City. Growth The principle that probably was most contested by ecological economists is that of constant striving to “growth”. The matter of “growth” is a fixed metaphor for positive development in socio-economics (Caradonna 116), which has left neither modern economics nor policy as a central focus point or goal. But growth became contested, not only with regards to the topic of population growth, but particularly economic growth. Notorious critiques of this growth thinking approach in Western societies were given by ecological economists like Herman Daly, Ezra J. Mishan and E.F. Schumacher (Caradonna 120). These theorists all contested the widely accepted arguments for growth, of which Mishan for instance refutes them as ab-stractive, having a blind faith, and refuting a lack of validation as a reason for ignorance (Caradonna 122). Mishan is a good example of radical views for “non-growth ‘develop-ment’”, where Daly is more moderate in his argument for what he calls a “steady-state economy” (Caradonna 124). To put this in contrast: the ASC initiative proposes a “sustaina-ble economic growth”16, which seems unimaginable for Daly and Mishan in this respect. In Daly’s proposition, it is the role of the state to account for the stabilization of growth, par-ticularly of the population, material artefact numbers, and wealth inequality (Caradonna 124-125) by moving away from globalization and handing back the power to local authori-ties (Daly 24). The growth argument addresses both social as nature-human inequali124-125) by moving away from globalization and handing back the power to local authori-ties here, by addressing the interests of nature as well as those human beings who do not profit from economic growth and wealth. As will be described in subsection 2.3, Robert Hollands for instance criticizes the smart city concept for just that: social inequalities are currently inadequately addressed (314). Caradonna notes that institutions, whether governmental or private, were initially hesitant to employ the anti-growth ideas, and didn't advocate for eco-nomics (115). Although the period 1980-2000 shows tremendous ‘development’ of ecological concepts into
tive activities, the movement of ‘sustainable development’ remains a doubtful one (Caradonna 136-152). The word ‘sustainability’ firstly appeared in relation to ecology in the Club of Rome’s book The Limits of Growth (Bartlett 4-5; Caradonna 138), and was soon to be adopted by institutions to promote ecologically responsible lifestyles (Caradonna 136). The smart city is an example of such a promoted lifestyle, since it encourages citizens to get in-volved in (proposed) sustainable practices in the urban environment. As arguments, models and proof for a more ecologically considerate economic sys-tem rose in academics and even public debate, governmental actors seemed to get engaged. The UN involvement after the Stockholm conference in 197217 might be the first trace of governmental involvement in sustainable urban planning, as municipalities and other insti-tutions engage in and co-organize the smart city concept of Amsterdam Smart City too. The notable difference between sustainability concepts of the 1970s and the UN approach to sustainable development was the transition from rethinking the concept of growth to de- velopment of the concept of sustainable societies. The term ‘sustainable development’ be- came then criticized for having replaced the “growth” concept, therefore representing eco-nomic goals rather than incorporating ecological ideals (Caradonna 152). Contradictory, the words “sustainable” [preserve] and “development” [grow or advance] already express dif-ferent arguments than it formally represents: the preservation of growth instead of an equal consideration of ecology and economy (Bartlett 7-9; Robinson 367; Caradonna 152). Although the UN-initiated World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) stressed explicitly that economics and environmentalism could not be seen as separate is- sues in their 1987 publication Our Common Future, it can be questioned to what extent eco- logical issues were actually a priority. It seems that growth is still a recurring value in insti-tutional organizations. What is more: by initiating conferences and (research) institutions, the UN, a worldwide governmental organization, provides the knowledge and framework for environmental debate to a broad audience. As we’ve seen in subsection 2.1, this can be considered a form of governmentality. The UN is a strong influencer here for general takes and debates on environmental issues. It could be argued that the idea of environmental is- 17 With the Stockholm conference in 1972, a big turning point seemed to have been reached. Firstly, the UN international environmental program was created, and secondly the Stockholm Declaration was signed (Cara- donna 140), establishing 26 principles for ‘sustainable development’. From here on out, the UN actively advo-cated for sustainable development in policy and research, by creating programs, conferences and institutions in order to realise a more sustainable world order.
tainable lifestyles encompass for instance eating less meat, responsible waste management in your home, buying sustainable products – in any case, a common perception has been formed around this concept. Could it be that the involvement of far-reaching organisations such as the UN or large companies has been of influence informing such a broad perception of sustainability? Although the way for the sustainability movement has been paved in the period of the early 1960s until the end of the 1990s, it was only after this period that sustainability ideals and ideas started to change practice. The lack of concrete action that truly addresses and tackles the underlying causes for environmental issues is one of the critiques on UN sustainability engagement18. As ecologists argue, neoliberalism and the economics of growth have not been reconsidered and social inequalities and climate problems were not alleviated just yet (Caradonna 155-157). So governments got involved and even started to set up initiatives for improved sustainable living, but it remains questionable whether this is actually productive. Ecological systems: factoring nature in Other than the growth-critique, a second argument that ecological economists put forward in the 1970s is the ignorance of the natural environment in neo-classical economic thought and activity (Caradonna 125; Rees and Wackernagel 41). Systems thinking has been very much apparent in this critique of neo-classical economics, where nature was brought for-ward as a crucial factor within economic environments or systems, opposing the assumed tendency to debar nature from economic systems (Caradonna 126). Biologist E.P. Odum sketched the image of the world as a system, formed by a hierarchically organized chain of subsystems (Sagoff 2). Odum stated that the system strives to expand itself in size and di-versity as much as possible, but within the boundaries of available energy and physical conditions (Sagoff 2). After the insights of a global ecological ecosystem, a change in the perception of eco-logical scale started to evolve. In the 1970s, ecologist G.E. Hutchinson had also connected insights about ecological ecosystems to mathematics from different scientific areas, for in-stance statistical mechanics, thermodynamics and cybernetics. Ecologist Simon Levin, who 18 An example is the Kyoto protocol of 1997, obligating developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emission. Surprisingly enough, even though the treaty is lawfully valid since 2005, any state can pull out at any moment without consequences – and so did Canada and the United States.
stated these theoretical models were ‘discovered’ at the expense of real-world experiments that study the organizational forces of the ecosystem itself, criticized the creation of many mathematical and cybernetic theoretical models. Following Levin, those theoretical systems became proof for ecological structures, while it was not based on empirical evidence from the original ecosystem that all was about: earth (Sagoff 3). Based on the early twenty-first century-insights of botanist Henry Gleason, Daniel Simberloff argued that the assumed gen-eralized laws and principles of an integrated ecological system do not enable predictions for the future (Sagoff 4). The holistic idea of “one ecosystem” or large-scale “eco-systems” with predictable evolution schemes staggered (Anker 104). This points to the start of a focus on individual or local initiatives with regards to common ecological goals, such as is the smart city concept based on. Technological idealism or adoration
The earlier-discussed “de-growth” advocacy of ecological economists lies close to the re-sistance to technological development (Sagoff 5) in a time where technological solutions were found in order to produce more in a shorter period of time. But according to ecologists in the 1960s and 1970s, the environmental cost of this large scale technologization was mostly ignored or, as Caradonna mentions, set away as “worth the collateral damages” (131). While energy resource issues (and solutions) were receiving a large share of atten-tion in environmental debates in the 1960s and 1970s, ecological economists also argued that the attitude towards the constant development (and use) of new technological arte-facts was ethically problematic (Caradonna 134). To an extent, technology was developed in order to increase comfort and productivity or efficiency only, merely economic values, without taking into account moral issues about inequality or biological boundaries and con-sequences of this large scale production or use (Caradonna 134). Ecological economists thus contested technological idealism or determinism as unethical or immoral at the time. In the debate of smart cities, this is an argument that re-appears. Applying technological so-lutions on large scales in urban environments without properly setting out all (possible) implications (Greenfield 61-62), let alone the material and environmental implications by technology itself (Gabrys 40). Increasing application of technology for sustainable and eco-nomic purposes, like the ASC initiative seems to advocate, can be considered governance (Gabrys 35). The involvement of businesses in sustainability initiatives, as we will see in the
next paragraph, adds to the question whether such sustainable technology truly has less economic than ecological purposes, as sustainability advocates strive for.
2.2.3 Sustainability, business and the city
In the 1990s, attempts to merge sustainability into business were made. A good example Caradonna mentions is the initiative of The Natural Step (166-167) that was founded in 1989 in Sweden and still exists today as an NGO19. One of the founding partners of the US division of The Natural Step, Paul Hawken, published a book that focuses not so much on the great ecological growth-critiques or anti-capitalism, but opts for ecological capitalism (Caradonna 167-169). As he lends a term from ecologist Schumacher to explain this: “natu-ral capital” – understood by Hawking and Lovins as “sum total of the ecological systems that support life” (Caradonna 169). Quality of life became a focus point to which natural capital was contributing. The popularity of the sustainability framework staggered a wide applica-tion of the term and became an issue in fields from education to urban planning to health (Caradonna 177-178). For business, this was convenient: the large interest in sustainable living opens a market, for instance for ecologically produced food or goods, or ‘green’ ener-gy services. Sustainability became marketable (Söderström, Paasche and Klauser 307) and a true market or sustainability economics (Caradonna 215) came up. One could ask whether this is truly progress in terms of ecological goals, but Caradonna remarks that economic thought is somehow ‘recalibrated’ along the way – which might be a good thing (ibid). Then again, as ecological economist Daly argues, the increase of bicycle use as a ‘green’ mode of traveling also increases production, which is not necessarily desirable from an ecological standpoint (21). On the surface the argument for zero-emissions seems to have ecological benefits, but a rise in bicycle production has other complications that are often overlooked or remain unaddressed. Such sustainability-based arguments are exemplary for smart city initiatives. I would like to suggest that the same may be applied to so-called “smart technol- ogy” in the city; as it’s presented as a solution, an effective and automatized manner of or- ganizing city infrastructures. As urbanism scholars Stephen Graham and Simon Marvin ar-gue, technology’s specifics are often overlooked; in fact, these ubiquitous systems often are 19 See also: http://www.thenaturalstep.org/
ally substantial – to mention their main argument: systems need maintenance, human effort to remain running efficiently and correctly and continuously (182).
In their attempt to advocate for sustainable business, Lovins, Lovins and Hawken do not reject technology but instead advocate for a sustainable society, realised by a ‘workable’ revision of current economic structure and applying technological solutions (Caradonna 169) that are environmentally friendly (Lovins, Lovins and Hawken 151). Lovins Lovins and Hawken developed one of the models for a more sustainable economic structure20. In a more critical approach, Nigel Thrift argues that by collecting large amounts of (customer) data and determining our conception of space and time through technological artefacts, technology is often used for profit, and thus became a means of governing bodies (10) and that even regulation has been connected to economic gain (5). Connecting business with ecological goal seems a precarious thing to do; as discussed in chapter 2.1.3, the spirit of business is applied to many fields in society. The ecological debate seems to have resisted to economic principles for years, but business applying sustainable principles to create new products for consumption seems to go against the established work of ecological econo- mists. The notion of the smart city seems to do just that: advocating for “sustainable eco-nomic growth” through sustainability projects is contradictory in itself (Caradonna 116-125). Governing bodies through speaking to the morality of individual sustainable practices seems to be the strategy (Gabrys 41), but what is at stake? Is it economic growth, an ecolog-ically responsible city or both? In order to get to sustainable practice, many businesses should revise their mission – especially those who are engaged in practices that contributed the ecological crisis we are currently in (Caradonna 220). ASC provides businesses a convenient alternative: engaging in “sustainable” practice as a business (which may add to a positive reputation), while pro-moting their products or services to the citizen in Amsterdam. 2.2.4 New urbanism and the sustainable city
An important focus point in sustainability debate both in academics as in governmental programmes was that of the urban environment. Urbanization was predicted to only in-
20 Amory and Hunter Lovins and Paul Hawken developed the Natural Capitalism model and corresponding
non-profit organisation in order to integrage sustainability principles into governmental, corporate and social practices. See also: http://natcapsolutions.org/.
ing the world’s ecosystem beyond their own limits (Wackernagel and Rees; Beatly 3-4; Caradonna 200). The New Urbanist movement sought to create a liveable, clean and dense urban environment (201). Circular waste cycles, self-sufficiency in energy and food, and a general change in lifestyle of the inhabitants are essential values for New Urbanism; for in-stance by adopting alternative transport modes than travelling by car or producing and consuming food from local resources (Beatly 6-8). Such New Urbanism ideas can be traced in smart city concepts too (884), where ‘smart solutions’ for waste, energy and infrastruc-tural issues are put forward.
As promising as such ideas sound, urban problems do not cease to exist. Although the sustainability debate is on the top of governmental agendas, both national and urban planning still focuses on growth (Caradonna 203; Colantoni et al. 330), and social equity remains a great challenge for sustainable life- and living styles in cities (Caradonna 224; Hollands 314). Caradonna argues that in this respect, governments can do more to push overall sustainable living: strictly prioritize and follow up on policy action plans about sus- tainability, revise subsidy provided to businesses that are known to pressure the environ-ment, and put environmental issues on the agenda that had remained under-discussed in political settings up until now (230-231). In advocating for sustainability and revision of harmful practices such as the developed countries’ constant striving for growth (Mishan 422), governments are considered a necessary actor for significant change (see for instance Bartlett 33; Daly 24). But Robinson argues that governments could not establish change alone – not only is the business world a second important player to take into account, but change needs to be accepted, carried out and be embedded by society as a whole (378). The ASC initiative, where local governments as well as knowledge institutions are greatly in-volved or even the organizing stakeholder, are an example of how governments try to get involved in urban issues and sustainability. Governments and knowledge institutes as pos-sible governance drivers are notable partners in such an initiative with seemingly self- governance goals for citizens. As businesses are also getting involved in offering or present-ing sustainable products and services, the appeal for their products or engagement in smart city initiatives seems evident. But what about the citizen in this respect – to what extent is its own judgement and practice free from governance by all those stakeholders’ ideas influ-encing the smart city concept?
Although progress has been made since the merely activist 1960s, ecologic and economic goals still seem to be essentially incompatible, and conjoining them into a new order that puts sustainability of both man and nature first seems problematic to this day (Caradonna). The smart city concept is a specific and practical example of this issue: the individual case of a city is in its essence an urban ecosystem (a subsystem to speak with Odum), but it can and should be placed into a larger perspective of the earth’s ecosystem. The next subsection will focus on the concept of smart cities, an overarching notion for many initiatives that aim to tackle urban problems and increase the liveability of cities.
2.3 Smart Cities: technology for liveability and sustainability?
The smart city is a place where technology is applied to improve the flows and quality of urban environments. This is an excellent example of environmentality: applying environ-mental techniques to govern norms and citizen’s behaviour (Gabrys 34-35). This is where chapter 2.1 and 2.2 collide: in the smart city, promoting sustainable practice but imposing a new idea or norm of how the urban environment should be constituted. But when is a city a smart city? Chapter 2.3 will set out the concept of smart cities, focusing specifically on the different stakeholders such initiatives and the power relations this might implicate. Starting off by addressing environmentality in the smart city, this subsection will thereafter succes-sively address smart city definitions (and its problematics) the different actors at play in smart city initiatives, how power manifests itself in these collaborative programmes, and the role of sustainability in the smart city concept.
Environmentality in the smart city
A perspective that explicitly takes governmentality of smart cities into account in terms of sustainability is that of Jennifer Gabrys, a sociologist whose research focuses greatly on en-vironments and communication technology. Gabrys addresses the issue of sustainability ‘urgency’, where she stresses that, in line with Foucauldian theory, the socio-economic and natural conditions in an environment that are classified as urgent issues are essential to en-vironmentality and politics and thus constitute some “rules of the game” (35-38). One could wonder whether the ‘urgency’ of urban sustainability issues are reflected in the multimedia communications material smart city initiatives spread; and thus the issue of ‘urgency’ con-nected to environmentality will be part of the analysis of the ASC case, in order to assess whether and how some sort of governmentality is actually imposed on the ‘smart citizen’.
2.3.1 Defining ‘smartness’ in the city
The smart city concept could be defined21 from technology-focused perspective stressing self-monitoring and self-responsiveness of urban innovations, but also from a more social perspective advocating for equality, inclusion and participation (Nam and Pardo 284). The social component has become present in smart city descriptions, emphasizing both human qualities and communities besides technological innovations (Albino, Berardi and Dangeli-co 14). To clear this up, it is useful to mention an example of both perspectives. Urban plan- ning theorists Nam and Pardo choose to put an emphasis on a technology-focused concep- tion of the post-industrial, smart city that treats the urban environment as an interconnect-ed network of ubiquitous computing in buildings, transportation, electricity, waste, water, production and safety/security systems (284)22. The ‘smart’ component can in this regard be understood to reference a concept called “the intelligent city”, concerning the incorpora-tion of technology into urban space and its relation (Vanolo 888). By contrast, Gil-Garcia et al. define a socio-technical description of the smart city concept by stressing the perfor- mance on future-focused governance, economy, mobility, environmental activities and liv-ing – all based on the collaboration between governments and citizens (296)23.
2.3.2 Technology, people and institutions
Following the conceptualization of Nam and Pardo, a smart city consists of three core at-tributes: technology, people and institutions (285-286). Although definitions of the smart city concept remain diverse, scholars have considered a set of crucial characteristics of the smart city, which Nam and Pardo set out accordingly with the three core attributes men-tioned. Firstly, regarding the technological dimension such characteristics are both an 21 See for instance Albino, Berardi and Dangelico 6-8 for an elaborate set of definitions. 22 The full definition by Nam and Pardo: “A smart city infuses information into its physical infrastructure to improve conveniences, facilitate mobility, add efficiencies, conserve energy, improve the quality of air and water, identify problems and fix them quickly, recover rapidly from disasters, collect data to make better deci- sions, deploy resources effectively, and share data to enable collaboration across entities and domains” (Albi-no, Berardi and Dangelico 6-7). 23 Another example of such a socio-technical definition is the following by Gaffing et al.: “A city well perform-ing in a forward-looking way in economy, people, governance, mobility, environment, and living, built on the smart combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent and aware citizens. Smart city generally refers to the search and identification of intelligent solutions which allow modern cities to enhance the quality of the services provided to citizens.” (Albino, Berardi and Dangelico 6-7)
“ubiquitous/pervasive computing infrastructure” and available online government services connected internally as well as externally (287). This means that ideally, the government not only sets up a well-working internal Internet-based infrastructure, but also extends it- self into business’ and citizens’ practice. Vanolo talks of “smart-mentality” here; the incor-poration of citizens into creating and maintaining smart city initiatives (Söderström, Paasche and Klauser 317). In terms of Foucault’s governmentality concept, geographers Klauser, Paasche and Söderström explicate this later on as “governing through code”, build-ing upon new media theorists as Graham, Kitchin and Dodge, and Thrift and French when stating that code is “never neutral”, regardless of its goal (882). As is typical in Foucault’s approach to governmentality, the effects of such governance through technology or code on the common space, activities and knowledge of people remains unnoticed (Klauser, Paasche and Söderström 882). Often, we will probably simply not be aware of being governed. Second, for the human dimension, scholars are concerned with ‘smart people’, which stands for creativity and ‘smart [science-based] solutions’, and the concept of human capital (Nam and Pardo 287). Think of factors such as knowledge and physical human skills, inclu-sion of all citizen groups, and foremost educational networks, institutions and (research) initiatives (Söderström, Paasche and Klauser 317). Finally, Nam and Pardo state that for the dimension of institutions, the notion of “smart government” is sometimes used and consid-ered crucial for the smart city. The ‘citizen-centric’ approach is crucial here, meaning that governments, businesses, citizens, educational and knowledge institutes collaborate with each other, with an emphasis on the citizen’s perspective (Nam and Pardo 287; Albino, Berardi and Dangelico 14). In their approach, ASC puts an emphasis on involving the citizen as both a central role in strategy and execution. Such a citizen-driven approach can also referred to as the ‘quadruple helix’ (Baccame et al 5; Paskaleva et al 121; Carayannis, Barth and Campbell 3; Carayannis and Campbell 338) approach for innovation. Adding the citizen as the fourth component to the previously con-structed triple helix model (government, business and academics with an emphasis on the last), the quadruple helix approach is considered to contextualize the triple helix (Carayan- nis and Campbell 327). So smart city initiatives are not just collaborations between institu-tional and business stakeholders, but prioritize the citizen’s role in both their approach and