Governing smart cities: analysing the presence of sociotechnical interactions within smart governance of urban safety in The Hague

(1)

Governing smart cities

Analysing the presence of sociotechnical interactions within smart governance

of urban safety in The Hague

Student: Sasja Smit Student number: 1525115 Supervisor: Dr. T. van Steen

Course: Master Thesis Crisis and Security Management Date: June 9th_{, 2019}

(2)

2

List of Abbreviations

ANT Actor-Network Theory

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation

HSD (the) Hague Security Delta

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IOs International organizations

IRMCT International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals LLIZ Living Lab International Zone

LLS Living Lab Scheveningen

NSS Nuclear Security Summit

OPCW Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

PIA Privacy Impact Assessment

(5)

5

Abstract

The political and academic discourse around smart cities is either very positive or highly critical. The use of technologies in collaboration between public and private organizations (i.e. smart governance) seem to provide, on the one hand, a solution for urban problems. On the other hand, there is a fear that private companies process data inconsistently through technologies and that information is not well secured. The aim of this research is to come to a nuanced understanding of what smart governance entails. A two-cases study is done in order to analyse sociotechnical interactions within smart governance of urban safety. The findings of this research indicate that technologies and data may influence urban perspectives, decisions, and power relations. However, the use of technologies and data is, in turn, bounded by urban perspectives, rules and regulations, and requirements of actors. Hard statements can, however, not be made since technological innovations are not (continuously) tested yet. In approximately five years, further research should indicate to what extent balances in the usage of technologies and other forms of knowledge and perspectives are made.

(6)

6

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Governing smart cities

The world of today is facing socioeconomic problems like population growth, global warming, environmental pollution, and so on. Such problems are to be solved and managed by cities to ensure wealth, sustainability, health, and safety (Meijer & Bolívar, 2015: 393). However, it appears that cities’ traditional approaches are becoming insufficient in tackling these challenges and that innovative solutions are needed (Bolívar & Meijer, 2016: 673). Recently, innovation and e-government studies are linked to urban governance to establish new approaches that make cities “smart” in order to address urban problems (Meijer & Bolívar, 2015: 393). Smart cities have gained increased academic and political attention. The general definition of a smart city is that the aforesaid city aims to improve the quality of life with the use of technologies (Di Bella, Corsi & Leporatti, 2015: 654). The core element of smart cities seems to be smart governance: with the use of developments in ICT and collaborations between governments, knowledge institutions and technology companies, it is possible to make the city “smart” in order to solve urban problems (De Lange, 2016: 58; Edwards, 2016: 31). In smart cities, technologies are presented as the tools to make cities wealthier, more safe, innovative, and sustainable (Gil-Garcia, Pardo, & Aldama-Nalda, 2013: Caragliu, Del Bo & Nijkamp, 2011; Nam & Pardo, 2011). Examples of such technological systems are waste and energy systems (Trownsend, 2013: 24), but also surveillance systems like video cameras, heat sensors, and social media that obtain data which are used to respond to criminals and to solve crimes (Samoei, 2018: 18). Optimists of the use of technologies state that these tools provide data which offer possibilities for more effective urban management (Batty, 2013: 274-279).

Nevertheless, critics have noticed a downside to the promises of smart cities. According to Hollands, some smart city examples hide the increasing social polarization behind the positive image of technologies and prioritize the business interests in information (2008: 314). Information gathering and - sharing through technologies have become the kingpin in collaborations between actors. According to Edwards (2016: 28), privacy and surveillance experts have expressed their concerns about the security of such information. Several private companies appear to be inconsistently processing personal data. As a consequence, concerns have arisen that such actors own a variety of personal information (Edwards, 2016: 28) which makes it possible to track and trace people (Kitchin, 2014: 11). Moreover, through data

(7)

7 collection in smart city practices, the line between public data and personal data seems to have become blurred, which makes the smart city, according to Edwards, similar to an urban Panopticon (2016: 39).

Literature among the use of new technologies in smart cities is either really positive or highly critical (Meijer, 2017: 203). For that reason, Meijer and Bolívar call for sociotechnical analyses of smart cities in order to better understand the interactions between social structures and technologies (2015: 403). A nuanced assessment of the values and limitations of these collaborations and technologies might give a better understanding of smart governance. This research, therefore, examines the presence of sociotechnical interactions in smart governance of urban safety in The Hague, which is “the international city of peace and justice” and “the hub of the largest security cluster in Europe”, (Den Haag, n.d.). The Hague attempts to internationally be at the cutting edge on the use of technology and open data for security. Furthermore, The Hague has the responsibility of the smart city theme "Safety & Security" in the collaboration between the five large Dutch cities (G5) to cooperate in smart city ambitions (Hartholt, 2018). This research examines smart city projects related to urban safety in The Hague and analyses the dynamics regarding sociotechnical synergies of the smart governance structure by doing qualitative research. Thus, this research seeks to answer the following research question:

“To what extent are sociotechnical interactions present in the smart governance of urban safety in The Hague and how can the (non-)emergence of the sociotechnical synergy be

explained?”

In order to answer the research question, several sub-questions also have to be addressed: 1. What actors are involved in smart governing the urban safety of The Hague? 2. What technologies are used in smart governing the urban safety of The Hague? 3. What are the interactions between the actors involved and the technology used? 4. How can the relations between the actors and the technology be explained?

1.2 Academic and societal relevance

Besides that "smart city" is a vague concept that needs further clarification (Granier & Kudo, 2016: 61), it appears that the notion "smart governance" – a requirement for the smart city vision

(8)

8 – is also a fuzzy one that does not have a systematic academic description thus far (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 30). Paskaleva, Evans, Martin, Linjordet, Yang, and Karvonen (2017: 15) call for further research in order to examine "why, how, when and where smart city governance occurs". Furthermore, Meijer and Bolívar (2015: 403) call for sociotechnical analyses of smart cities "to present an empirical understanding of the sociotechnical dynamics of a smart city". Research into smart governance of urban safety is once done in the Dutch city Eindhoven by Meijer (2017) and Meijer and Thaens (2018; 2018). Similar research will give a better understanding of the dynamics of smart governance regarding urban safety in (Dutch) smart cities. This research will, therefore, contribute to the academic literature about smart governance of urban safety. In addition, this research contributes to the multidisciplinary field of Crisis and Security Management – in particularly the governance of safety and security – by addressing the field of safety and security in smart city studies. Current empirical knowledge regarding new smart practices in urban safety is limited (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 29) since smart city studies do not necessarily focus on safety (Lacinák & Ristvej, 2017: 523). This is rather notable since the concept of safety is an essential component of the quality of life which “a smart city” aims to improve.

The societal relevance of this research lies in the context of improving policy, policymaking, network collaborations, and sociotechnical interactions within collaborations by providing engaged actors and professionals empirical knowledge related to current smart city projects in this field. Besides, smart cities are on the rise (Winters, 2011). The Hague attempts to take the lead as a smart city of Safety & Security (Bruines, 2018: 1). Other cities with the aim of becoming a smart city to improve safety and security might view The Hague as a best practice. Hence, this thesis provides insights into practices of smart governance for The Hague itself, as well as for other (upcoming) smart cities.

1.3 Thesis outline

This thesis consists of six chapters. The next chapter provides an introduction into the field, a literature review of the topic of smart governance and a theoretical framework that includes the Actor-Network Theory, the Sociotechnical Framework on Urban Technological Innovation, and the Public Governance Perspective which will be applied to the case study of this research. Following chapter two, the methodology used to examine the cases is discussed. The analysis of the cases follows thereafter. The discussion chapter formulates what hypotheses are accepted

(9)

9 or rejected, answers the sub-questions related to this research, and describes limitations and recommendations. This research finalizes with a conclusion of the findings in chapter six.

(10)

10

Chapter 2. Theoretical framework

This chapter, first, gives an introduction to the field. A literature review of the concept of smart city, as well as the concept of smart governance, follows. Thereafter, the chapter continues with the analytical description of the Actor-Network Theory, the Sociotechnical Framework on Urban Technological Innovation, and of the Public Governance Perspective in order to formulate propositions related to this research.

2.1 Introduction to the field

During the past decades, concerns have arisen over the increasing extent of surveillance activities in urban areas with the developments of diverse technological systems. These systems make it possible to track and trace people through the gathering of data because of the drive to control and secure (Kitchin, 2014: 11). The fear for a Big Brother society wherein the life of citizens are followed and captured requires, according to Kitchin, new modes of governance wherein the benefits of data analytics balances with social and individual elements (2014: 12).

This research focuses on smart city projects regarding urban safety within the city of The Hague in order to come to a nuanced understanding of the practices of smart governance. The concept of urban safety is defined by Finka, Ondrejička and Jamečný as “safety of any kind with respect to a man in any area within the city (urbanised area), where the public has more or less free access without restrictions, or any kind of man-related safety tied to phenomena and activities in these public areas,” (2016: 823). Smart governance is commonly defined as “the capacity of applying digital technologies and intelligent activities in processing of information and decision-making”, (Peraira, Parycek, Falco & Kleinhans, 2018: 149).

The Hague proliferate itself as the city of peace and justice and steers the “Safety & Security” theme of the Dutch Smart City Strategy. The city has set up several “living labs” wherein technologies are to be tested in order to improve safety and security. The Living Lab International Zone is established with the aim to improve the safety and security in an area where international organizations are situated. The aim of the living lab is to eventually scale up its practices to city level and even national level. Thus, the living lab is a testbed for technological innovations that eventually may be used for the improvement of urban safety of cities. Another smart city project in The Hague is the Living Lab Scheveningen which focuses

(11)

11 on more subjects than just (urban) safety. Also liveability, sustainability, and attainability are subjects addressed in the living lab.

2.2 Smart cities in the academic literature

Although the literature among smart cities is increasing exponentially (Dameri & Benevolo, 2015: 695), the concept remains fuzzy since academics use different definitions. According to Nam and Pardo (2011: 283), “smart” can refer to several things. In marketing usages, it refers to a user-friendly perspective. A smart city, then, should meet the needs of the user. Hence, the term might be used to attract the city for citizens, investors, businesses and tourists (Boisen, 2007; Hollands, 2008: 306-311). “Smart” can also entail being able to make strategic decisions. Strategies and policies of governments should enhance the quality of life of citizens, promote economic growth and develop sustainability. In the context of technology, “smart” refers to the application of intelligent products and services which imply automatic computing (Nam & Pardo, 2011: 283).

Commonly, three distinguishes can be made in the definition of a smart city: as smart technology, as smart people, and as smart collaborations. The main focus of a smart city seems to be on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Caragliu, Del Bo & Nijkamp, 2011: 66; Gil-Garcia, Pardo & Aldama-Nalda, 2013: 296). Innovation in ICT infrastructure enables to effectively improve life and work in a city (Nam & Pardo, 2011: 286). Other definitions of smart city focus on human infrastructure: smart people are necessary to create smart solutions to urban problems (Albino, Berardi & Dangelico, 2015: 11). Other academics focus on the smart collaborations that describe a smart city. Smart collaboration can also refer to "smart governance". Various stakeholders are involved in decision-making in a smart city. Important components in this dimension are the involvement of citizens, transparent governance, networking, and partnerships (Nam & Pardo, 2011: 287). A smart city should, then, be citizen-driven (Albino et al., 2015: 12). Others state that a smart city contains all of the above (Nam & Pardo, 2011). Although there is a vast amount of literature on the smart city concept, ambiguities remain. The various definitions of the smart city show that there is no universality around the concept and that smart cities can have different visions and ambitions (Albino et al., 2015: 18). According to Paskaleva et al., one common vision on the smart city concept emerges: “the smart city is a multi-dimensional and multi-layered concept that includes a wide range of elements. Thus, smart cities should be studied and analysed on the basis of multiple components, in their specific context,” (2017: 3).

(12)

12 2.3 Smart governance in the academic literature

Although most smart city conceptions in the academic literature focus on the technological aspect, smart governance is considered to be the core element of a smart city (Paskaleva et al., 2017: 4; Ruhlandt, 2018: 1). “Governance” is the way or action to govern a state, an organization or a group of actors (Peraira et al., 2018: 143). A governance framework, then, is assumed to be the desirable choice to deal with the challenges urban cities nowadays are facing (Dameri & Benevolo, 2015: 693-695). Traditional approaches are, however, becoming insufficient in tackling urban challenges like population growth, global warming, environmental pollution, and so on (Peraira et al., 2018: 143; Bolívar & Meijer, 2016: 673). Since the digital era modifies governance structures in disruptive manners, a new model of governance is needed to manage the dynamics of smart cities. As a consequence, smart governance is an emerging study domain that draws scientific as well as policy attention (Peraira et al., 2018: 143). The notion "smart" refers to the combinations of ICT, technology, and innovation but also to some form of democratic aspect. According to Peraira, Parycek, Falco & Kleinhans, smart governance is commonly deﬁned as "the capacity of applying digital technologies and intelligent activities in processing of information and decision-making", (2018: 149). However, different concepts of smart governance exist and therefore, fuzziness also emerges in the concept of smart governance.

There is not yet a clear definition of smart governance – or smart city governance – since several conceptions can be found in the academic literature (Meijer & Bolívar, 2015; Nam, 2012; Ruhlandt, 2018). Commonly, four conceptualizations can be described: smart governance as (1) government of a smart city, (2) smart decision-making, (3) smart administration or (4) as smart urban collaboration (Meijer & Bolívar, 2015). The conceptions refer to different theoretical perspectives on the role of the government and differ in the level of government’s transformation to make the city smart. Smart governance as the government of a smart city refers to making the right policy choices and effectively and efficiently implementing them (Meijer & Bolívar, 2015: 399). This type of governance does not require a transformation of governmental structures and processes. Nam (2012: 193) even states that smart governance is only about promoting smart initiatives. The second type of smart governance, as smart decision-making processes, requires a medium-low transformation of governmental structures since decision-making processes need to be restructured. It is the use of new technologies to gain more accessible information for decision-making processes (Meijer & Bolívar, 2015: 400). Smart governance as a smart administration has a medium-high level of transformation. Smart

(13)

13 governance is, according to Gil-Garcia, “the use of information technologies that link information, institutions, processes, and infrastructure in order to give better services to the community”, (in Meijer & Bolívar, 2015: 400). Administrations, therefore, need to be innovative in dealing with space-specific elements of smart cities. The fourth conceptualization of smart governance has the highest level of transformation and seems to be most common in the academic literature among smart governance (Peraira et al., 2018). Smart urban collaboration requires a transformation of the internal, as well as of the external organization. It is defined as a collaboration between organizations and across communities, using new technologies to promote economic growth and making urban services citizen-centric (Meijer & Bolívar, 2015: 400). Collaboration with stakeholders, citizen participation, and data-based evidence are the main elements of smart (city) governance (Peraira et al., 2018: 156).

The overview shows that different conceptualizations are being used for smart governance and the concept appears to be even more vague than the smart city concept itself (Ruhlandt, 2018: 11). Therefore, there continues to be unclarity about the smart governance definition and what the concept entails (Ruhlandt, 2018: 1). Nevertheless, smart governance as smart collaboration seems to be most appealing to make cities smart (Meijer & Bolívar, 2015: 403). Most smart city researchers describe smart governance in terms of stakeholders and technology (Ruhland, 2018: 5). Since The Hague uses technology in collaboration with diverse actors within the living labs, this research focuses on the concept of smart governance as smart collaboration.

2.4 Analysing smart governance: frameworks and perspectives

As described in the previous paragraph, smart governance commonly constructs of collaborations and technologies. However, literature among the use of new technologies in collaboration with private companies is either really positive or very critical (Meijer, 2017: 203). The use of technologies in collaboration with stakeholders seems to be, on the one hand, a solution to address urban problems. On the other hand, critics fear that smart governance leads to information sharing between public-private partnerships which will allow the following of citizens’ lives (Edwards, 2016: 28; Kitchin, 2014: 11). Meijer and Bolívar, therefore, called for sociotechnical analyses of smart cities in order to better understand the interactions between social structures and technologies in order to form a nuanced understanding of smart governance practices (2015: 403). For that reason, this paragraph describes the actor-network of smart governance based on the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) which allows the analysis of interactions between human actors and technologies. The ANT is complemented with the

(14)

14 Sociotechnical Framework on Urban Technological Innovation (Meijer & Thaens, 2018) which allows analysing the driving forces for urban technological innovation. Technology, in turn, generates data which allows human actors to use this data for decision-making. Hence, sociotechnical interactions also emerge between human actors and data. Therefore, the theoretical framework is amplified by the Public Governance Perspective (Meijer, 2017) in order to analyse the sociotechnical interactions between human actors and data. Additionally, hypotheses regarding the research question are formulated.

2.4.1 Interactions between human actors and technology 2.4.1.1 Actor-network

Smart governance commonly occurs as a combination of collaborations and technologies. Therefore, smart governance structures consist of human actors as well as non-human actors (i.e. technology). In order to analyse the interactions between social elements and technical elements within smart city projects, the Actor-Network Theory allows the description of the network functioning in smart governance. Within an actor-network, not only humans have an active role. Also non-human actors (technology) are active in the network since they shape the structure of the network and its functioning (Latour, 1990: 2).

Technologies have a prescribing function in the actor-network. Actors have designed technologies with a specific "script" which allows or inhabits certain functions of the technologies for its users. Users, in turn, may or may not follow the prescriptions of the technologies or may modify the script. This can thus lead to adjustments in the technologies. Hence, technologies influence the roles of other actors, and other actors, in turn, influence the technologies (Akrich, 1992: 207-209).

In smart city projects, public and private actors, as well as citizens, are the common actors that form the category of human actors (Meijer, 2017). Non-human actors (technologies) in smart governance for urban safety are "sensors", "effectors" and "controllers" according to Meijer and Thaens (2018). A description of both actors is described below.

Human actors

As Meijer explains in his article, three human actors in smart governance can be distinguished: state, market, and civil society (2017: 197). The state actor consists of public organizations, the market of private (IT) companies, and the civil society consists of citizens and citizen

(15)

15 organizations. Each actor in the governance structure has different motives and objectives. It is often stated that public organizations have organizational and political objectives like effectively making policy, enhancing public services, increasing their legitimacy and transparency (Gil-Garcia, 2012: 272). Private companies, however, mainly aim to increase their profit. The interaction with citizens is seen as an important component of smart governance (Hasbini, Eldaby & Aldallal, 2018: 89; Granier & Kudo, 2016: 61). However, the extent to which citizen participation is present in a smart city is still dubitable (Paskaleva et al., 2017: 1).

Non-human actors

Technology seems to be a crucial element of smart governance. A myriad of technologies is used in order to obtain relevant information and to act effectively and efficiently upon signals. The use of information and communication technologies for maintaining and improving safety in urban areas has been done for a long period of time (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 29). In the United Kingdom, for instance, ICT has paved the way for the police forces to protect the urban area by the use of CCTV (Samoei, 2018: 19). Meijer and Thaens state that technologies used for urban safety purposes are sensors, effectors, and controllers. First, sensors – like cameras, noise detectors, lightning sensors, social media – scan the urban surroundings for relevant information. The Living Lab Stratumseind in Eindhoven, for instance, uses cameras and sensors to gather information about possible incidents. Effectors – like advanced lighting, gaming, or a spreading a particular smell – translate the signs coming from sensors into actions by formulating a reaction. In the living lab, special lighting is used to nudge citizens in a certain behaviour in order to prevent incidents. Furthermore, the information that stems from sensors has to be analysed by a controller in order to control the effectors, such as software for data analysis (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 31).

2.4.1.2 Sociotechnical Framework on Urban Technological Innovation

The Sociotechnical Framework on Urban Technological Innovation, conceptualized by Meijer and Thaens (2018), allows an understanding of the driving forces of urban technological innovation within smart city projects. Urban technological innovation is the innovative adoption of technologies to address urban problems which is a common practice of smart cities (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 363). It includes the adoption of technologies but also the transformations of coalitions, roles of actors, and procedures. The framework accounts not solely for the technological dimension within urban innovation but also allows empirical and theoretical understanding of these technologies ingrained within social elements. Meijer and

(16)

16 Thaens identify four perspectives on urban technological innovations: a technological, an instrumental, a collaborative, and a symbolic value.

First, the technological value implies that the adoption and use of technology in itself is perceived as valuable for users. Then, technology is seen as an innovation. Second, the instrumental value of technology implies that technologies are an essential tool to realize individual objectives. Hence, technology is an outcome of innovation. The collaborative one states that technology in itself does not really matter but is only a condition for actors to come together and establish collaborations. Technology, then, is a platform for innovation. Finally, the symbolic value entails that technology provides legitimacy to innovation because of the belief that technology helps to improve the quality of life. It furthermore stresses that the social construction of success is essential to the legitimacy of the innovation process. As a consequence, technology is seen as a symbol of innovation (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 368-369). Figure 1 shows an overview of the sociotechnical framework.

Meijer and Thaens have researched the interactions between these dimensions in the city of Eindhoven, mainly the Living Lab Stratumseind. It appears that the technological and symbolic values seem most essential in the process of innovation. The actors1 perceive technology as useful. More data will help to solve the problem (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 375). Furthermore, technology is publicly framed as a success. The living lab is new and innovative and has a good narrative. The institutional and collaborative values were, however, less visible in the case of Eindhoven. The institutional value entails the realization of the individual objectives of the actors. However, it could not yet be assessed to what extent these objectives were realized (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 376). The collaborative value was positive at the development stage of the living lab but appeared to encounter some risks during the implementation. Collaboration around the use of technology began to develop because the mayor of the city wanted to improve the safety and liveability in the street and called upon other actors for cooperation. The other incentive for collaboration was research. The Eindhoven University of Technology acquired funding for an inquiry into the effects on lighting on the public situation. This asset motivated others to collaborate to establish a testbed for technologies, called the Living Lab Stratumseind. Hence, technology improved collaborative innovation. Nevertheless, conflicts regarding the

1_{The municipality of Eindhoven, citizens and business, technology producers, research institutes, and project}

(17)

17 ownership over and profits of technology eventually started to emerge (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 378).

Figure 1. A Sociotechnical Framework on Urban Technological Innovation.

Note: Reprinted from Urban Technological Innovation: Developing and Testing a Sociotechnical Framework for Studying Smart City Projects, by Albert Meijer and Marcel Thaens (2018: 369)

To conclude, the values reinforced each other. The success of technology contributes to a diversity of objectives and develops a collaborative platform. Akin to that, success develops the symbolic value. Thus, there is a positive synergy between the symbolic value and the other values. All actors want to improve the public image of Stratumseind and thus, technology is viewed as a valuable tool (technological value) that strengthens the realization of objectives (institutional value) and the drivers for collaboration (collaborative value) (Meijer & Thaens, 2018: 380). For that reason, it can be expected that the living labs in The Hague will have indeed a high technological and symbolic value. Therefore, the following hypothesis will be tested.

Hypothesis 1: smart governance of urban safety in The Hague entails the perception of technology as an innovation and as a symbol of innovation.

(18)

18 2.4.2 Interactions between human actors and data

2.4.2.1 The public governance perspective on smart cities

The public governance perspective developed by Meijer (2017) presents a “lens” in order to study and administer the adoption of technological systems that generate data in smart cities. This perspective gives a theoretical comprehension of smart (city) governance as it focuses on the interactions between the political community of citizens on the one hand, and on urban data-infrastructures in the “Datapolis” on the other hand (Meijer, 2017: 195-196). The Datapolis consists of “a political community of citizens that uses data collectively in order to guarantee individual as well as collective interests”, (Meijer, 2015: 22).

Mutual shaping is an important element of the Datapolis: data are created and used by the political community, and, simultaneously, data influence the interactions within the political community (Meijer, 2017: 196; Meijer, 2015: 25). This makes the polis a sociotechnical system. In addition, the Datapolis is an innovative polis too. It seeks to find solutions instantly in the future. Data, then, is gathered in order to establish innovative solutions that are to be tested and further developed. The Living Lab Stratumseind in Eindhoven is an example of a Datapolis – or innovative polis – that tests special lightning (Meijer, 2015: 23). The perspective, therefore, can be applied to show how living labs in The Hague are being governed and to show how data-infrastructures shape the governance structure.

2.4.2.1.1 Governance rules

The previous paragraphs have academically described the relations between actors and technology within smart governance. This paragraph formulates the relations between actors and data. The following governance rules and governance games show how actors and data interact with each other. According to Meijer (2017), governance structures are encountered with three governance issues which can be influenced by actors, as well as by data: urban problems or perspectives, power relations, and decision-making.

Perceptual rules

Urban problems can be perceived by human actors as well as non-human actors. Human actors may signal urban problems based on their own perceptions. This means that perceived urban problems in a city determine what data have to be gathered by the use of technologies. Non-human actors may, indeed, indicate urban problems based on generated data. This means that

(19)

19 generated data can change perceptions of the city and its problems (Meijer, 2017: 199). Figure 2 below clarifies this interaction by an illustration.

Figure 2. Mutual shaping of urban problems.

According to Meijer, smart cities highlight the superiority of knowledge through data over knowledge through diverse experiences (2017: 199). Technologies generate statistic information which may indicate urban problems. This can, however, be problematic when there are different perspectives on problems. The governance challenge is, thus, “to balance between the different perceptions of urban problems for a pluriform democracy”, and not to fully rely on quantitative data that indicate problems (Meijer, 2017: 199). Figure 3 shows the dynamics of the governance rules. Based on Meijer’s statement, it can be expected that smart city The Hague emphasizes the dominance of knowledge through data. Therefore, the following hypothesis can be described:

Hypothesis 2: smart governance in The Hague entails focusing on urban safety problems that are indicated through data without accounting for different perspectives on urban problems.

Power rules

Another governance challenge is to generate a balance of power between the stakeholders by guaranteeing checks and balances in information access (Meijer, 2017: 200). However, Meijer states that public and private organizations may influence the decision-making process because of their access to data. In Eindhoven, the position of the government is strengthened since it collects more data. Also the position of private companies is strengthened since it legitimizes the idea that Stratumseind can be used to test new technologies and has the ability to showcase their products (Meijer, 2017: 203). Although it is needed to balance the power relations of

(20)

20 stakeholders, it can be expected that smart governance in The Hague empowers certain positions through data. The following hypothesis can be described:

Hypothesis 3: smart governance in The Hague entails the reinforcement of the positions of the local government and private companies through technological data-infrastructures.

Decision rules

The third challenge of governance is to balance between experiences and knowledge of various stakeholders and quantitative data gathered by technological systems for decision-making (Meijer, 2017: 200). Smart governance structures should not fully rely on quantitative data in decision-making. Other forms of knowledge, from different stakeholders, also have to be taken into account in the decision-making process. However, in a smart city, using data to make decisions and policies is seen as a legitimate manner since quantitative information only is viewed as a rational basis for decision-making (Meijer, 2017: 200). The use of data to improve decision-making and performance is already done by public sector organizations (Peraira et al., 2018: 150). The fourth hypothesis can, therefore, be formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 4: smart governance in The Hague entails the embedding of data in the (informal) rules for decision-making.

Figure 3. Dynamics of Governance Rules.

Note: Reprinted from Datapolis: a public governance perspective on “Smart Cities”, by Albert Meijer (2017:

200)

2.4.2.1.2 Governance games

The governance of urban data as described above also entails playing different “games” by human actors. As mentioned earlier, data gathering by different stakeholders concerns various groups in society. Governance structures are, therefore, concerned with several challenges regarding data. Meijer (2017: 201) mentioned five governance challenges related to the "data games" the stakeholders are to play. The first is the challenge related to data collection. In smart

(21)

21 cities, much data is gathered about the public sphere and about citizens in order to tackle urban problems. However, the collecting of data should also respect the privacy of citizens. Another governance challenge is related to data storage. Who owns the data? Cameras used for surveillance gather data that is in the hands of, for instance, Philips, which may sell the data to other organizations. Hence, while storing the data, legitimate forms of ownership may not impinge. Also, the (re-)usage of data may be a dangerous activity. Governance structures should guarantee that this usage should not harm citizens or other stakeholders. Furthermore, data visualization is also a challenge that has to be taken into account. It has to be provided to facilitate discussions but it should not leave crucial perspectives out. The last challenge is related to data access. Open data should be stimulated and enabled but, at the same time, should be restricted when it touches privacy and security interests (Meijer, 2017: 201). However, it can be expected that the actors in the governance structure are playing different “games” in data processing in order to maximize their preferences for smartness (Meijer, 2017: 200). For example, privacy may, then, not be an element that is taken into account. Therefore, the following hypothesis can be formulated:

Hypothesis 5: smart governance in The Hague entails the processing of data by the actors (government, market, citizens) in such a way that it maximizes their preferences for smartness.

(22)

22

Chapter 3. Methodology

This chapter presents the methodology used for this research and clarifies the selected methods. First, a conceptual model of the subject of this research describes the independent and dependent variables. Second, the selected case study design will be presented and justified, followed by a description of how data is collected and analysed. Furthermore, an operationalization of the hypotheses forms the bridge between the theoretical framework and the analysis of the research. Finally, the reliability and validity of this research will be described.

3.1 Conceptual model

This research aims to clarify to what extent sociotechnical interactions are present in smart governance of urban safety in The Hague and how the (non-)emergence can be explained. The emergence of the sociotechnical interactions within smart governance depends on (1) the appropriation, rejection, or modification of technologies, (2) perceptual rules, (3) power rules, (4) decision rules, and (5) what governance games are played. These rules and games are thus the independent variables, whereas the sociotechnical interactions are the dependent variable. Figure 4 below shows the conceptual model of the independent and dependent variables.

Figure 4. The conceptual model of the independent and dependent variables.

socio-technical interactions Appropriation, rejection or modification of technologies Perceptual rules Power rules Decision rules Governance games

(23)

23 3.2 Case study

The aim of this research is to demonstrate whether, and if so, to what extent sociotechnical interactions within smart governance of urban safety in The Hague are present. For that reason, this research is based on a qualitative two-cases study design. A case study design is most useful in conducting this research since it allows an in-depth analysis and detailed examination in answering the research question. An advantage of a case study is that many stakeholders can be part of the research. In that way, much information can be gathered from different perspectives (Swanborn, 2010). It is chosen for two cases in order to give a more common understanding of smart governance of urban safety in The Hague. Examining more than two cases was not feasible due to the scale and scope of this research.

The Hague is selected as an overall case study since the city proliferates itself as “the international city of peace and justice” and “the hub of the largest security cluster in Europe”, (Den Haag, n.d.). In 2014, the municipality of The Hague started the ambition of becoming a smart city. The Hague attempts to internationally be at the cutting edge on the use of technology and open data for security (Den Haag, n.d.). Furthermore, The Hague has the responsibility of the smart city theme “Safety & Security” in the collaboration between the five large Dutch cities (G5)2 to cooperate in smart city ambitions. Eindhoven pulls the theme Smart Mobility; Utrecht Healthy Urban Living; Amsterdam has the responsibility for Circularity and Rotterdam over Sustainability (Hartholt, 2018). The Hague is, therefore, a proper case to examine the sociotechnical interactions within smart governance in the context of safety and security.

Since this research can be seen as similar research of Meijer (2017) and Meijer and Thaens (2018; 2018) of the city of Eindhoven, the focus lies on akin projects in The Hague. Thus, living labs are selected for analysis in this research. The two cases selected are the Living Lab International Zone (LLIZ) and the Living Lab Scheveningen (LLS). Both living labs are using technologies in collaboration with stakeholders in an urban area, the city of The Hague. Therefore, the living labs can be regarded as smart city projects. Moreover, both projects aim to improve, among other things, safety in the public space.

(24)

24 3.3 Data collection

The reason for doing qualitative research is because the research question tends to find an answer on the ‘how' question rather than finding numbers. Methods that will be used are documentary and desktop analyses and conducting semi-structured interviews.

First of all, desktop information about smart city projects regarding urban safety in The Hague is examined. By doing desktop analysis, it becomes known what smart city projects were developed related to safety: the Living Lab Scheveningen and the Living Lab International Zone. Desktop research is called a secondary analysis. It is the analysis of information that already is collected by earlier studies. It is essential to know information related to smart projects of The Hague before conducting interviews. An advantage of secondary analysis is that is cost and time effective (Bryman, 2016: 309-310).

Secondly, this research is focused on policy documents regarding the living labs. It is the analysis of documents to compute the content in categories based on the theoretical framework (Bryman, 2016: 285). Policy reports that are examined are “Roadmap Smart City Den Haag 2014” and “Concept plan van aanpak living lab Scheveningen” of the municipality of The Hague. The policy reports are strategic plans of how the smart city The Hague and living labs should be developed. Appendix E shows an example of a document analysis.

Furthermore, semi-structured interviews are conducted since document and desktop analyses exclusively do not allow for analysing the perspectives of different actors and underlying choices made in the context of the living labs. Conducting semi-structured interviews gives in-depth information about how (smart) the city is being governed with regard to urban safety and makes it feasible to examine the extent of sociotechnical interactions. An open interview is not useful since the interviewee may tell about other elements where this research is not aiming for. In addition, a fully standardized interview is not useful because it will not give in-depth information about the ‘how' question. With semi-structured interviews, wherein questions are arranged but not limited to that arrangement, it is possible to ask about certain elements and examine how and why the interviewee has this perspective. Appendix A gives an overview of the interview questions.

Interviews are conducted with the most relevant stakeholders within the living labs. Within the LLIZ, the relevant involved stakeholders are the municipality of The Hague, the Hague Security

(25)

25 Delta, TNO, Thales, Siemens, the police, Europol, Eurojust, OPCW, IRMCT, and World Forum (The Hague Security Delta, n.d.). Except from TNO, Europol, OPCW, and World Forum, all stakeholders are interviewed. Europol and OPCW were not able to participate in this research due to other priorities. An interview with World Forum is not conducted because involved stakeholders explained during the interviews that interactions within the living lab are merely with Europol, Eurojust, OPCW, and IRMCT. These four international organizations form one stakeholder in the living lab. Thus, conducting two of the four international organizations provides sufficient information for this research. TNO is indeed not involved within this research as the actor did not see the relevance of participating since TNO is not any more involved within the living lab.

The document “Plan van aanpak living lab Scheveningen” states that the municipality of The Hague is the initiator of the Living Lab Scheveningen and that TNO, the Province of South-Holland, and T-Mobile are possible involved actors. Therefore, these actors are approached for participating in this research. During the interviews, it appeared that many other stakeholders are engaged within the Living Lab Scheveningen. Due to feasibility issues of this research, the main relevant partners were interviewed following from the document "Plan van aanpak living lab Scheveningen". However, an interview with T-Mobile is lacking. Figure 5 shows an overview of the involved actors within both living labs that participated in this research. For this research, twelve interviews are conducted.

3.4 Data analysis

Using the theoretical framework described in chapter two, the data coming from the interviews and documents are analysed in order to get a good comprehension of the information. This research has, thus, a deductive approach. The theoretical framework in combination with empirical scrutiny is needed to reject or confirm the hypotheses made beforehand (Bryman, 2016: 21). The interviews are recorded and transcribed. All useful information is transcribed, coded and categorized. This information is included in appendices B, C, and D.

3.5 Operationalization

This paragraph forms the bridge between theory and practice and describes how the hypotheses will be examined. The first hypothesis states that smart governance entails the perception of technology as an innovation and as a symbol. Technological innovation is, thus, driven by the

(26)

26 adoption of technologies and the idea that technologies give a positive image. Document analysis and interviews focused on phrases as “technology is a tool to realize objectives”,

“technology solves urban problems”, “many technologies are used”, “technology helps to proliferate as a city”. Appendix B gives an elaborated overview of keywords and phrases

related to this hypothesis. The second hypothesis is related to perspectives on urban problems. Interview questions focus on what perspectives stakeholders have on the city and how technologies may influence these perspectives on urban problems. Hence, are urban problems observed and supported by technologies or do technologies change perspectives and “cause” urban problems? Smart governance should balance between different perceptions to create a pluriform democracy. Interview questions related to this hypothesis are: “What were the

reasons to use technologies and data in the living lab?” and “Did/can the scale and scope of the problem change due to the gathered data?”. The third hypothesis is related to power

relations. Powerful actors may determine what data should be collected. The smart governance structure should, therefore, guarantee checks and balances in access to urban information. The following interview question is asked: “How is access to data distributed among actors?”. The fourth hypothesis entails that smart governance structures rely on quantitative data in decision-making. However, other forms of knowledge, from different stakeholders, also have to be taken into account in the decision-making process. Questions asked related to this hypothesis are the following: “How are decisions being made?” and “Why is data generated?”. The fifth hypothesis digs in deeper to data processing. The following questions are asked: “How is data

collected?”, “How is data stored?”, “How is data used?”, “What are the main technical barriers in sharing data?”, “Have you implemented new ways to collect, store and use data, and why (not)?” “Who is responsible for gathering, facilitating, controlling and managing data?”, “How do you take into account the privacy of citizens?”.

3.6 Reliability and validity

Reliability and validity are criteria of research that need to be described to understand the purpose and outcomes of the research. Reliability refers to whether or not the outcomes of the research are repeatable. This means that the used concepts are measured consistently. With regard to the concept of privacy and security, reliability might be a problem. This is because the concepts are vague and are used differently by different actors. Validity is the criterium that refers to the issue of whether or not the research has examined what it had to examine (Bryman, 2016: 41). It is possible that interviewees respond in a certain way that is favourable for them. To give more credibility to this research, several methods are used. The outcomes of the

(27)

27 interviews will, therefore, be compared with the document and desktop analyses. The different sources and perspectives will give an overall conclusion. Furthermore, the internal validity is likely to be high because of the two-cases study design in one general case: The Hague. It is not necessary to generalize the outcomes to a wider scope (Bryman, 2016: 43). The external validity is likely to be, in turn, low since the findings of the case study cannot be generalized. It should, however, be noted that two cases are selected in order to reinforce the external validity. Yet the statements followed from the findings of this research can solely be made for the two cases selected: the Living Lab International Zone and the Living Lab Scheveningen. The insights, however, provide an empirical understanding of sociotechnical interactions within smart governance of urban safety.

(28)

28

Chapter 4. Analysis

In this chapter, the sociotechnical interactions within the smart governance of urban safety in The Hague are analysed by the examinations of two projects: the Living Lab International Zone and the Living Lab Scheveningen. Firstly, the Living Lab International Zone (LLIZ) is described and analysed. Afterwards, the analysis of the Living Lab Scheveningen (LLS) is presented. Each paragraph begins with a general description of the living lab, followed by the construction of the living lab regarding involved actors and used technologies. Subsequently, the sociotechnical interactions are analysed regarding urban perspectives, power distributions, and decision-making. A description of the "governance games" follows up to eventually describe the (non-)emergence of sociotechnical interactions. The analyses are based on desktop and document analyses and interviews. This chapter includes quotes stemming from the interviews and referring to the number of the interviewee as mentioned in Appendix B.

4.1 Living Lab International Zone

The International Zone in The Hague is the home of several international organizations like Eurojust, OPCW, Europol and more. The area is, furthermore, an important centre for the United Nations. While most international areas in other cities are remote, the International Zone lies amid the city in a residential area. The high level of security is a top priority of all international organizations. Every organization and its building has its own security measures. To make the International Zone more attractive for other international organizations and residents whilst maintaining and improving the level of security of the area, The Hague invests in security. The living lab has the aim to balance between security, safety, liveability, and business climate (The Hague Security Delta, n.d.; The Hague Security Delta, n.d.) by achieving maximum security with minimum appearance (van Aartsen, 2014). This project started in 2015, after the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) was held in the area of international organizations. It appeared that the security measures taken for the event affected the accessibility and liveability of the area.

The living lab was initiated by The Hague Security Delta (HSD) and its partners Thales, Siemens and TNO. In the living lab, security innovations are tested. The first innovation to be tested is the Shared Security Information Platform (SSIP). The platform has the function to

(29)

29 come to an integrated security approach for the international zone. Furthermore, the eye-and-ear project will be executed later in 2019.

4.1.1 Interactions between human actors and technology 4.1.1.1 Actor-network

Human actors

The living lab consists of state and market actors. One of the public organizations involved is the municipality of The Hague. Her interest in the living lab lies in the aim to make the city of The Hague more attractive. The LLIZ has the object to eventually attract more international organizations and residents in the city of The Hague by improving the business climate, the appearance, the liveability, and the safety in the International Zone. Furthermore, the LLIZ fits the image of the city of The Hague: the city of peace and justice. Hence, the municipality (financially) contributes to the living lab. Another public actor involved in the living lab is the police. The police are involved in the LLIZ since they have the operational duty to guarantee the safety and security of the international organizations in the area. The LLIZ is of interest for the police because they see a probability to enlarge their view on the international zone. Furthermore, the LLIZ allows for collaborating between stakeholders which is important for the police since they "are not able to function alone in society", (interviewee 7). Moreover, the use of technology may lead to less capacity of the police needed in the area. In addition, the police support the vision of the municipality to proliferate itself as the international city of peace and justice.

The market consists of private organizations. The private actors engaged in the LLIZ are The Hague Security Delta and Thales. The HSD has the objective to make The Hague the largest European security cluster. At the beginning of the living lab, a program manager function was assigned to the HSD. The HSD performed this task as a neutral actor, an intermediary party. The reason, therefore, lies in the ownership of "the problem". "All international organizations want to improve their security but not one organization has the job to achieve that. It has to be achieved jointly. It was thought that, otherwise, one organization would be the dominant overlying party", (interviewee 2). In addition, the project was well suited for the functioning of the HSD. Accordingly, the HSD managed the project. The other private actor involved is Thales. Thales is one of the founding partners of the HSD. The organization has knowledge and experiences of different processes and procedures which are relevant in the living lab since the international organizations aim to come to an integrated approach of security. Thales offered

(30)

30 “a solution” to the problem with the Shared Security Information Platform (SSIP), wherein information of all organizations are gathered and shared if necessary. The aim of Thales is, thus, to sell the platform to the municipality of The Hague and eventually other cities in the Netherlands. In addition, TNO and Siemens were indeed private parties involved in the LLIZ. However, they did not continue to be involved since they had done their tasks and because their relevance was questioned during the process of the living lab (interviewee 4; interviewee 5).

The civil society does not seem to be a relevant partner in the Living Lab International Zone. This is rather remarkable since the living lab had the incentive to make the international zone a more safe and lively area indeed for the residents in the zone. Only one time the police had invited residents to walk through the area and to share their experiences with each other related to the international zone. This procedure is, however, not followed up because "the priority lies in establishing a good functioning system for the living lab before the next step is made", (interviewee 5). Nevertheless, the international organizations can be regarded as the civil society since citizens are mainly end-users of smart city projects (interviewee 1). In the LLIZ, the international organizations, and the national police are the end-users of the SSIP. The international organizations (IOs) were approached by "the making-parties" (i.e. HSD and its founding partners) which explained their ideas around the international zone. The idea of not having security features like high walls and fences sounded plausible. Another reason for the IOs' interest in the living lab is because "it is important to have good cooperation with all relevant stakeholders" since the police and the municipality of The Hague have the operational responsibility for the security of the IOs (interviewee 8).

Non-human actors

The LLIZ uses technology in order to gather information which is seen as useful for more effective and efficient security of the area. First, the Shared Security Information Platform (SSIP) is a technological information system which makes it possible to share information related to the international zone with relevant others. The first version, made by Siemens, did however not comply with the wishes and needs of all stakeholders. For that reason, Thales modified the platform. The SSIP is tested in the years 2017/2018. The testing phase led to several requirements of IOs and the police to modify certain functions of the platform. In 2019, an improved version of the SSIP will be tested. The platform is visualized on a laptop and allows international organizations and the police to share their information with each other. All stakeholders will be able to put information into the platform regarding suspicious situations,

(31)

31 traffic incidents, or just to inform others about security-related issues, like massive events. This information may stem from "sensors" (Meijer & Thaens, 2018), or other sources like the media, but it can also be information regarding events. The information shared on the platform is mainly textual. As a sender of information, it can be chosen what stakeholders may view the content or the information can be sent to all relevant stakeholders. The information sharing should lead to more efficient and effective dealing of incidents or other security issues. The platform itself, then, can be seen as the "controller" which allows or restricts the information sharing between actors. Nevertheless, preceding the decision-making, the controlling is done by a man in the middle who does the decision-making. In the case of the LLIZ, the police control what information is gathered on the platform and decide with whom to share this information with or how to act upon it. However, there are no "effectors" as stated by Meijer and Thaens. The information gathering is used as a source for decision-making by the police and the IOs.

Another technological innovation that will be tested in the LLIZ eventually is a technological system of the eye-and-ear project. In 2019, masts will be situated in the international zone, installed with audio sensors. On the basis of particular sounds, cameras will be turned on and record three seconds before and after an event. The system detects sounds of aggression, glass breaking, gunshots, alarms, and other sounds related to emergencies or dangerous situations. The software which detects certain sounds can be regarded as the "controller". The video and audio fragments will be displayed within the Diplomatic Front Office of the police which has to analyse the incoming data in order to (in)act upon it (Meijer & Thaens, 2018). The "effector" is, thus, the camera. The camera will record the surrounding after the detection of particular sounds. However, there are no nudging effects within the system, like advanced lightening or the spread of a particular smell. The security officers control the data and decide which actions should be taken upon them. This technological innovation will be tested in the LLIZ to analyse to what extent it can be deployed in the international zone. It is believed that this technology can make it possible to guard and secure in a more efficient way by the police.

4.1.1.2 Urban technological innovation

This paragraph analyses how technological innovation within the living lab occurred based on the four perspectives of Meijer and Thaens (2018).

(32)

32

Technological value

The technological perspective on technology states that technology in itself is seen as useful and valuable. For instance, the SSIP is seen as the solution for more efficient and more effective information sharing which eventually should enhance the safety in the international zone and should lead to less unfriendly security measures in the street. “With our platform, information can be shared within a millisecond which allows an easy and better disclosure of information”, (interviewee 4). Furthermore, the platform allows communication between IOs and the police for risk management in less urgent situations. The idea for establishing the SSIP and the technological system of the eye-and-ear project lies in the belief that more or better information makes it possible to be more effective and efficient in securing the area. Thales explains that “information is power”, (interviewee 4). It is believed that technology is a tool to collect data which will create more effective and efficient security and, thus, lead to more safety and liveability. Particularly the municipality of The Hague seems to value technology. In her “Roadmap Smart City The Hague 2014” (2014), the municipality explains that ICT is needed to make digitalization work and that technologies provide “enormous possibilities”. It is assumed that technology is the opportunity to solve social, societal and technical problems. Therefore, the international zone is “a testbed for innovative security techniques in the international zone The Hague that maintains the security of international organizations while improving the liveability of local residents”, (Resilient The Hague, n.d.).

However, experience should indicate if more or better information indeed leads to a more effective and efficient secured area of the international zone and, thus, to an improved area regarding security, liveability, appearance, and business climate. An involved actor admits that the usage of technology for improving safety and security "is an assumption made in advance", (interviewee 5). Furthermore, the relevance of the technologies is indeed something to be assessed during the next test phase. An IO explains: "I am not convinced the SSIP is of much use in The Hague because there is very little going on. Were are not missing information", (interviewee 6). Nevertheless, some stakeholders want to be progressive in their security measures. IOs cannot be sure of what the future will bring related to safety and security. "The threat landscape can be hard to predict", (interviewee 8). In accordance with all IOs, the SSIP continues to develop and will be tested again in 2019.

Hence, the success of technology lies in the adoption and functioning of technology. “For the future of the living lab, it is needed that technology is actually working and used”, (interviewee

(33)

33 5). Moreover, the LLIZ is used as a springboard to deploy the SSIP in other Dutch cities or even other countries. The subsequent success of technology seems to be related to the adoption of the SSIP in other cities. Therefore, the technological value is high.

Instrumental value

The instrumental value is related to the extent to which individual objectives are realized. The overall objective of the LLIZ is to improve the security, liveability, and appearance of the international zone. The municipality of The Hague, furthermore, wants to attract more IOs and residents to the city as they are viewed as a good incentive for the economy. For Thales, technology has value when it can be sold to other cities, whereas the IOs and the police view technology as valuable when it leads to more efficient and effective ways of securing the area. Moreover, the HSD view technology as valuable when it contributes to the establishment of the largest European security cluster. Hence, the living lab concerns public as well as private interests.

It seems too early to assess the value of technology since the technological systems are not actively and frequently tested yet. However, the individual objectives of two parties involved have already been realized. Thales was able to deploy the platform within the organization of the air force and within the organization of the coastguard. Thus, its individual objective to deploy the platform in other cities and contexts has been realized. Furthermore, the HSD has the aim to become the largest European security cluster. The project has realized good cooperation between the IOs and other stakeholders (interviewee 5; interviewee 6). Thus, the project contributed to its individual objective. However, the overall instrumental value has yet to be assessed. An assessment method of how to eventually measure the performance of the technologies and of the living lab is, however, lacking. There are no indicators set up in order to measure the success and failures of the LLIZ. It is plausible that the instrumental value, therefore, will be assessed post hoc. Based on this analysis, the instrumental value is regarded as low.

Collaborative value

The living lab was established after several actors came together who wanted to do something with the international zone in order to improve the area (interviewee 4; interviewee 5). The aim was to improve the area by connecting relevant stakeholders with each other because “it was believed that cooperation was the boundary condition in order to achieve anything”,

Governing smart cities: analysing the presence of sociotechnical interactions within smart governance of urban safety in The Hague