Online neighbourhood platforms for bottom-up initiatives

ONLINE NEIGHBOURHOOD

PLATFORMS FOR

BOTTOM-UP INITIATIVES

Bachelor thesis: Human Geography and Urban Planning

Name:

Roshn Najmeddin

Studentnumber: 11301341

Supervisor:

Beatriz Pineda Revilla

Second reader:

Ori Rubin

Course:

Human Geography and Urban Planning

Word count:

18442

Content

INTRODUCTION ... 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 5

Conceptualizing the smart city ... 5

Alternative frameworks for the smart city ... 6

Participation and engagement: from smart cities to smart citizens ... 6

Collaborative governance in the smart city ... 11

Bottom-up and community-oriented online platforms ... 11

METHODOLOGY ... 14

Research design ... 14

Case study: Hallo IJburg... 14

Geographical context: IJburg, Amsterdam ... 15

Institutional context ... 16

The development of the platform: Hallo IJburg ... 17

Current state of the platform: functionalities ... 19

Choosing this particular case study ... 20

Methods of data collection ... 21

Methods of data analysis ... 22

Ethical considerations ... 24

Methodological limitations ... 24

RESULTS ... 25

Shaping the platform: participation and collaboration ... 26

Shaping the platform: Power of the users? ... 30

Functionalities and indirect participation ... 31

Knowledge sharing ... 34

Compass on IJburg: bottom-up organization ... 35

Area-Plan: Towards collaborative governance ... 35

Participation process of Strandeiland: new experimentations ... 39

Critical points ... 40 CONCLUSION ... 42 DISCUSSION ... 44 Limitations ... 44 Future research ... 44 REFERENCES ... 45 APPENDICES ... 48

INTRODUCTION

Smart city initiatives typically claim to be based on a citizen-centric approach. The initiatives are generally branded with terms such as ‘citizen-focused’ or ‘citizen engaged’ (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). This goes hand in hand with the double shift as narrated by Maarten Hajer in ‘The Experimental City’ (Evans, et al., 2016). The first one being a transition of urban planning controlled by experts with a top-down and systemic approach, towards governance with more collaborative approaches. The second being the digitalization and technological advancement, which has also led to more possibilities with regard to engaging and involving citizens in the processes (Andreani, et al., 2018). Within the smart city paradigms, some ideas focus on realizing future urban visions through advanced technological advancements, by for example making transport and public services of the city ‘smarter’. Other ideas relate more to innovation and the development of human capital. This is based on the assumption that technology is able to provide the power to the people of the city to innovate and participate in society, solving problems for the collective good (Angelidou, 2014). Technological advancement has brought radical change to the production and management of knowledge within cities. It has enabled large-scale collaboration through establishing knowledge exchange networks and the use of databases by innovative means. Simultaneously, it has improved the capability of the people of the city to produce new ideas and approaches, both individually and through social networks (Komninos, 2009). The contribution of knowledge, creativity and the joint intelligence of the inner communities can be elevated and lead to further knowledge production and to more innovating capabilities from multiple perspectives, which then in turn can contribute to confront the problems of the city and deliver new services or improve older ones (Angelidou, 2014). Technology can also contribute to the interaction between urban players (such as citizens, researchers, designers, professionals, stakeholders, etc.), stimulating collaborative innovation (Pereira, et al., 2017). It can also improve the qualitative relation between the citizens and their government, since it can increase engagement with citizens by various means. Technological tools, such as social media and other online platforms, can improve the processes of informing and collecting feedback from citizens on a large scale, thus improve decision-making that is based on the needs of the public (Castelnova, et al., 2015).

However, the discourse of smart cities has often been critiqued by scholars for still being overly technocratic and using a top-down approach in the interest of states and corporations over the interests of citizens (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). The visions and ideas behind the initiatives differ from their translation to actual urban implementation in many cases. Generally, smart city initiatives are failing to place the experiences of citizens in the forefront, for the sake of efficiency and optimizing urban processes and systems (Andreani, et al., 2018). They are often supply-driven, and citizens are mainly considered as potential end-users of the services, in other words the citizen has a sole active contribution of the choice on whether to accept and use those services or not. In the design of the experiments, the focus can either be on designing for the citizens, designing with contribution from the citizens or on designing and implementing by the citizens (Bolívar & Muñoz, 2019).

Angelidou (2014) stresses that many current smart city strategies fail to capitalize on both technological advancement (digital intelligence) as well as the development of knowledge and innovative networks (human intelligence). Technology and the development of knowledge both need to be acknowledged and capitalized to achieve urban development. Andreani et al. (2018) argue that the techno-utopian smart city initiatives are even becoming rhetorical narratives to divert attention away from the real problems that citizenship is

facing. Additionally, Cardullo and Kitchin (2018) consider the rebranding to be designed to continue capital accumulation and technocratic governance while silencing critics. Bolívar and Muñoz (2019) state that smart city initiatives should put people at the core instead of technologies, if they were to become truly citizen-centric. This goes hand in hand with the alternative smart urbanism narrative, which aims for an alternative conceptualizing of smart urbanism that begins with knowledge and place and is potentially – only when needed – supplemented by technological solutions which are shaped by the actual place-relevant urban knowledge (Söderström & McFarlane, 2017). Furthermore, the concerns about citizen participation in the smart city discourse stated by numerous critical works, combined with the rise of smart city initiatives and investments on a global scale (Evans, et al., 2016), leads to the need for more research on the topic as this is important for citizens possibly affected now and in the future.

The discourse of smart city initiatives is complex, and it constantly advances and develops in a fast manner, while researchers are trying to keep up with it. The concepts of smart collaborative governance and smart citizen participation recur in various academic debates, with diverse advantages and criticisms stated. Several researchers have pointed out and acknowledged multiple points of theoretical scrutiny and ‘gaps’ in the literature. According to Pereira et al. (2017) how technology is contributing to provide information and increase the engagement of citizens is not yet wholly covered in research. They argue that although in most literature collaborative governance and citizen participation are stressed to be crucial components in the context of smart cities, there is still a gap existing in the ways how technology can leverage collaborative governance. Additionally, there has been little critical theoretical scrutiny when we look at how citizens are engaged by various smart city technologies (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). Furthermore, Kitchin (2015) also addresses multiple shortcomings in the literature, accounting for the lack of in-depth case studies of specific smart city initiatives and lack of detailed understanding and conceptualization of the concept of smart city and the initiatives. Furthermore, he argues that there needs to be more qualitative research to understand how – among other things – different initiatives which are led by many diverse stakeholders “work together or compete to produce a certain kind of smart city”. Moreover, he states that more in-depth studies are needed to be able to do comparative studies, to understand similarities and differences in initiatives and effects.

Concerning the previously portrayed background, this thesis addresses the concepts of smart collaborative governance and citizen participation within the context of smart cities. Regarding the mentioned gaps in the literature, the aim of this research will be to analyse and examine how technology can be used to enable citizen participation and promote collaborative governance in smart city initiatives. Currently, the expansion of advanced technology and the deployment on large scale make many smart city ideas seem more likely to be realized and achieved, in contrary to previous decades in which the ideas of smart cities were portrayed as abstract visions of the urban future (Angelidou, 2014). Therefore ‘the key question is no longer technological; as ever it is organisational’ (Batty, 2012). Academic debates and discussions surrounding the dominant discourse of smart cities have led to several critical research within the alternative smart urbanism paradigm. Furthermore, numerous initiatives are being experimented in cities with different types and forms of organization marking their differences.

Similar to municipal centres that attempt to become smarter and use technology as a means to promote collaborative governance and engage citizens as well as other stakeholders in a top-down organizational manner (Pereira, et al., 2017), technologies are also being experimented with by bottom-up movements. One of the types of technology that is being experimented with in bottom-up movements, is the use of online platforms (van Dijck, et al., 2016). These online platforms are increasingly found within cities, representing local networks and their initiatives to enhance their participation in processes regarding their environment (Niederer & Priester, 2016). Examples of these initiatives are attempting to increase the quality of life, promote social cohesion, increase safety and promote place identity in a particular context (Priester, 2017). These platforms represent dynamic and various networks and aim to improve life on different scales, such as on street level, neighbourhood scale or the whole city.

In the context of Amsterdam, an initiative of local networks has led to the establishment of an online platform called Gebiedonline, which provides people with the needed software to launch their own platform to enable online interaction and organizing. Most of the platforms that are currently created are based on a neighbourhood scale and it seems that initiatives on this scale are becoming increasingly more common (Priester, 2017). Gebiedonline provides a technological tool for local networks in bottom-up movements and makes an interesting topic to examine further from an alternative smart urbanism perspective. The research will be focussed on the ‘how’, thus it will be conducted using an in-depth qualitative methodology. The research question is formulated as follows:

“How can online neighbourhood platforms promote collaborative governance and enable citizen participation in bottom-up

community-oriented smart city initiatives?”

The aim of this thesis is an attempt to answer this research question by means of a single case study based on a local smart city initiative called ‘Hallo IJburg’, which is part of the broader community-oriented platform of Gebiedonline. Hallo IJburg is established for the neighbourhood called IJburg, located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The platform of Gebiedonline is cooperatively owned and aims to enable citizen participation and collaboration of local urban networks (Hallo IJburg, 2019). The platforms then potentially inspire and drive innovation in a democratic manner and eventually lead to more broadly supported (bottom-up) initiatives. The choice for this particular case and its relevance to the theoretical framework will be elaborated within the chapter of methodology.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The general purpose of smart cities is to promote the use of technologies to reach more efficiency in urban planning processes and enable interactive opportunities for citizens to collaborate with other actors such as governments, universities and organizations, to improve urban living (Hollands, 2008). The smart city narrative sounds optimistic and many institutions have tried to enforce it because it may bring many benefits such as enhancing efficiency, accurate addressing of problems and lead to achieving economic and social development (Ianuale, et al., 2015). However, the ‘smart city’ is a concept which is still emerging and developing while there is still no consensus on a particular definition. The current conceptualization within academic literature is broad and encompasses many different perspectives. Some of these emphasize technological characteristics while others underline the development of human capital or physical infrastructure (Gil-Garcia, et al., 2015, p. 62). Numerous scholars stress that the smart city should be viewed as a socio-technical phenomenon, in which smart technologies that drive innovative change are not the sole central element, and complexities and interconnections with other social factors within the city should be regarded as central elements as well (Nam & Pardo, 2011). After analysing commonalities and dissimilarities within academic literature, Gil-Garcia et al. (2015) propose a comprehensive conceptualization framework of understanding the smart city, identifying four core components: (1) technology and data, (2) government, (3) society, and (4) physical environment. Technology is considered a dimension that enhances and interconnects all of the aforementioned dimensions (Pereira, et al., 2017). Two of the three components within the dimension of society are ‘governance, engagement and collaboration’ and ‘human capital and creativity’ (Gil-Garcia, et al., 2015, p. 78). Regarding the research aim of this thesis, these components will play a central role along with the dimension of technology that is potentially a factor of enhancement of these components.

The technological developments related to smart city ambitions raise hope that technological transformations of the smart city paradigm will help cities with finding appropriate solutions to challenges related with global environmental change and other urban challenges of the 21th century, but many concerns arise over the approaches that cities take to implement such technologies (March, 2018). Various scholars have voiced critique on the means by which these technologies are force-fitted into cities. The dominant discourse of smart cities has received numerous critiques, smart city initiatives are blamed to be overly technocratic and instrumental. Furthermore, they are usually top-down in orientation (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). Recently, critical scholarship in the smart city literature have pointed out that many smart cities are driven by corporate-driven approaches (Kummitha & Crutzen, 2019), primarily serving the interests of states and corporations over that of citizens (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). Although, as Andreani et al. (2018) state, if the aim of smart cities is to explore the future scenarios of urban life and the intention is to offer the citizens the highest achievable quality of life, citizens should be placed at the forefront instead of the priority for efficiency and optimization of the urban systems and processes. Moreover, Söderström & McFarlane (2017) stress that the smart city is becoming an increasingly powerful force that drives urban change and argue that the potentially dangerous consequence of smart cities is that it allows for urban management where data and technology overshadow local knowledge, interpretations and expertise. Reacting to these critiques, many companies and cities have repositioned their initiatives to be ‘citizen-centric’ or ‘community-centric’. Nevertheless, in practice this shift is still criticized

to be a re-branding exercise, designed to continue capital accumulation a technocratic governance while silencing critics (Kitchin, 2015). Some authors even argue that the techno-utopian smart city initiatives are even becoming rhetorical narratives to divert attention away from the real problems that citizenship is facing (Andreani, et al., 2018). Most strategic planning for the realization of smart cities are based on thoughts about technology-led visions for urban planning, although capitalizing on both technological advancement as well as the development of knowledge and innovative networks (human intelligence) is crucial to realize smart cities (Angelidou, 2014).

Alternative frameworks for the smart city

Within the academic literature, several researchers have attempted to establish alternative understandings, frameworks and approaches in the smart city discourse. Andreani et al. (2018) argue for an alternative approach on smart cities, replacing the technocentric and universalist perspective with an approach that is human-centric and design-driven. This unfolds in a three-part understanding, in which initially the grounded vision is an important step to understand the smart city initiatives. This addresses the ideation of alternative future scenarios arising from certain needs and local opportunities. The second part involves the term embraced technology, which aims at understanding the role played by urban technologies to uplift the inner intelligence of places and communities. The third aspect contains the term co-evolution, which aims at the need to foster mutually-constructive collaboration between urban actors such as citizens, researchers, the government and other stakeholders, leading to cooperative innovation. This approach fits within the framework of the alternative smart city paradigm, in which Söderström and McFarlane (2017) argue that smart urbanism should begin with the actual place, knowledge and needs. If these locally based needs and urban knowledge lead to the demand for technological solutions, then technology can play a role in the development of the city. Even if these technological solutions are needed, it is important that they are shaped by place-relevant forms of knowledge. Thus, it is important not to immediately look at smart technology for solutions, but to start with urban knowledge initially and complement this with technology when needed (Söderström & McFarlane, 2017). Moreover, their research states that the alternatives to the dominant smart urbanism paradigm exist within numerous smaller scale initiatives in which technology is used to empower local urban networks or enhance sustainable living (Söderström & McFarlane, 2017).

Participation and engagement: from smart cities to smart citizens

Alongside the counter paradigm of alternative smart urbanism, there is another counter trend characterized as the shift from smart cities to smart citizens (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). This goes hand in hand with a shift of top-down structures to more collaborative governance structures (Evans, et al., 2016), and governments pushing for a more participatory society, in which citizens can engage in ‘city making’ (Waal, 2014). City making in this context refers to the society in which citizens are equipped with the skills and tools to participate in urban development. Despite the common understanding that the role of citizens in smart cities is crucial, many authors suggest that citizens barely play a role in many smart city initiatives (Kummitha & Crutzen, 2019). To illustrate the role that citizens play within smart city initiatives, Cardullo and Kitchen (2018) have created a scaffold of smart citizen participation. Based on their research of multiple initiatives, they complemented an already existing conceptual ladder of determining involvement and participation of citizens in urban planning

processes (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217), and fitting it within the smart city discourse (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). Since many initiatives are repositioned and re-branded as ‘citizen-centric’ as a response to critiques, it is essential to have a tool with which the amount of participation and engagement of citizens can be analysed. This relates back to the overall conceptualizing framework proposed by Gil-Garcia et al. (2015), in which governance, engagement and collaboration was highlighted for this research. In understanding this dimension of the concept, the scaffold of smart citizen participation will be used (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018), to determine how citizens are engaged, collaborated with and what kind of role they have. Additionally, the scaffold can assist in determining whether initiatives are bottom-up or top-down in orientation. The scaffold is visible in figure 1.

Figure 1: The scaffold of smart citizen participation, from Cardullo & Kitchin (2018, p. 5) Cardullo and Kitchen (2018) developed this ‘heuristic’ tool and describe its usefulness as follows: “The scaffold is a map of smart city inclusion and participation through which scholars and stakeholders can better understand who is involved and in what capacity in any existing and forthcoming smart city initiatives, beyond the powerful rhetoric of the smart city discourse.” (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018, p. 10). Furthermore, it is divided by the columns ‘form and level of participation’, ‘role’, ‘citizen involvement’, ‘political discourse/framing’ and ‘modality’ and the main rows of ‘non-participation’, ‘consumerism’, ‘tokenism’ and ‘citizen power’. The upper part of the scaffold can be characterised as bottom-up, inclusive and experimental while the lower halve is more top-down, paternalistic and bound-to-succeed. The critique surrounding smart city initiatives primarily is on the projects that are on the lower part, in the forms of ‘consumerism’ and ‘non-participation’. Critical scholars argue that

smart city projects are moving down this scaffold, both in their creation as well as in their implementation and use.

Arguably, this is the result of neoliberal ideology and corporate interests being dominant in the drive to create smart cities (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). The different forms of participation are relevant for this thesis and will be elaborated briefly:

 Non-Participation: This form of participation occurs when citizens are steered towards behaviours and practices of some sorts. Initiatives that fall under this level of participation are underpinned by technocratic aspirations, meaning that features of the city can be considered as technical issues which can be addressed by technical resolutions. Characterized by top-down civic paternalism, citizens are rarely or never consulted how initiatives should be formulated or implemented. Citizen participation in this essence is framed in a very instrumental manner. Think of algorithmically-mediated services, in which citizens can become part of a ‘data product’. The resulting big-data can be used for insights, but also to be traded with other actors, resulting in a multitude of ethical questions surrounding the issue of privacy among others.

 Consumerism: Similar to ‘non-participation’, this form of participation is underpinned by a strong technocratic impulse. Examples are app-drives services that aim to transform urban life, such as the sharing economy (e.g., Airbnb and Uber), and the most of them are owned and implemented by private corporations. Citizens in this sense have a few choices of services or products, but their choice remains constrained. The systems are mainly pre-determined in nature and the choice between the services is usually limited to a few providers in monopoly positions. In designing the services, citizens have limited involvement, other than being a user of the product or service. In some cases, citizens are involved, but merely to give feedback in the design phase or as beta-testers for newly developed products. In this framing, the feedback will solely be used to tweak existing designs, rather than to influence the design in the first place. Eventually, the market largely determines what is best for citizens, characterizing this form of participation as stewardship and paternalism.

 Tokenism: This form and level encompasses several degrees of public engagement and citizen voice. It has both a lower as well as a higher form.

o The lower form is characterized by ‘informing’ citizens about what is happening in the city. Additionally, it can concern open data, which citizens can re-use. This ‘informing’ can go through dashboard-like platforms that are available for the public. This information can be useful to create more transparency, with regards to decision-making and actions by administrators and governmental institutions. There are two critical points to be addressed: 1) Despite being highly useful, informing is regularly unidirectional, meaning there is limited or no option to provide feedback. 2) Information is regularly provided after the processes of key decision-making and planning, meaning that there is little or no room for adjustment (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018).

o The higher forms of tokenism are composed of ‘consultation’ and ‘placation’. Consultation refers to when “citizens are requested to provide feedback representing their views through various forms of social media and online tools for citizen consultation” (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018, p. 8). Examples are online tools where citizens are able to discuss and comment on draft

development plans. ‘Placation’ enables citizens to suggest alternatives and additions to the plans proposed, rather than solely provide feedback. In the context of the smart citizen, this occurs through online tools as well. Both these higher forms of tokenism are useful to challenge civil paternalism, often driven by politicians and so-called experts. Again, there are some critical points to be highlighted: 1) Citizen consultation can happen after project objectives are generally determined and 2) Both ‘consultation’ and ‘placation’ can be biased towards the views of certain people that are higher educated and more familiar with technological tools, in other words: “although smart technologies seek to promote engagement, they might deepen structural barriers to socio-political participation related to education, class, gender, age and ethnicity.” (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018, p. 8). Another problem that arises, concerns collected data from these online consultation platforms, that can be sold to third parties. This can lead to “citizens and their views sliding down the scaffold to ‘product’” (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018, p. 8).

 Citizen power: In the original ladder of participation by Arnstein, ‘Citizen Power’ was at the top and consisted of “more rewarding and representative forms of civic participation in which citizens have increasing degrees of decision-making clout” (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). In the context of smart citizen participation, initiatives are “co-owned and co-created, and citizens share or have the dominant decision-making authority” (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018, p. 9). ‘Citizen Power’ can be divided into the forms of ‘Citizen Control’, ‘Delegated Power’ and ‘Partnership’, which can be elaborated properly in the following quotation: “In ‘partnership’, planning and decision-making is shared, with agreed ground rules and mechanisms for moving projects forward and resolving impasses. ‘Delegated power’ occurs when citizens gain the dominant decision-making authority and genuine specified powers within a co-shared initiative. ‘Citizen control’ happens when citizens are fully in charge of the policy and managerial aspects of a program or institution and ‘‘can negotiate the conditions under which ‘outsiders’ may change them’’. Examples are usually in initiatives that are the result of partnership between community groups and governmental entities, but Cardullo and Kitchen (2018) note that such initiatives are very rare in the context of the smart city. Examples of initiatives that can arguably be placed within in this level of smart citizen participation, are certain Living Labs initiatives that are community-oriented and led by universities. Additionally, examples of ‘citizen control’ are initiatives that are owned and run by citizens or community-oriented initiatives, in which citizens “can decide on the projects to be pursued and undertake the required development and implementation work” (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018, p. 9). Initiatives that can be characterized as a form of ‘Citizen Power’ can be very diverse, since it is considered as experimental of nature.

All in all, the scaffold seems to be a useful tool to examine smart city initiatives with regards to smart city participation. Despite the fact that many smart city initiatives claim to be citizen-centric, Cardullo and Kitchen (2018) have found that in many of these initiatives, citizen participation is low on the scaffold. Usually, citizens seem to have an instrumental role and the initiatives have a technocratic impulse, mainly led by corporate and governmental interests.

Collaborative governance in the smart city

In the literature about smart cities, governance often refers to citizen participation (Lombardi, et al., 2011) and to collaboration between different stakeholders (Baccarne, et al., 2014). It is an important element of smart city frameworks, as became apparent in the framework proposed by Gil-Garcia et al. (2015). Moreover, participation and collaboration are typically used in interchangeable manner within the smart city literature, though Bartenberger and Grubmüller-Régent (2014) argue that the confined concept of ‘collaborative governance’ should be used, so that smart city governance remains divided from the more extensive concept of participatory democracy. Additionally, collaborative governance can be defined as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets” (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 544). Typically, collaborative governance requires an alteration of how governance is applied in particular contexts, “through collective decision-making processes that include both public and private actors and that, in the case of smart cities, are enabled by ICTs” (Castelnova, et al., 2015, p. 730).

Castelnova et al. (2015) state that citizen engagement underpins smart city collaborative governance, since many academics, experts and leaders are now gradually reaching consensus on the idea that traditional methods of governance in top-down structures are no longer sufficient regarding the present demands of public decision-making. Therefore, many scholars argue that a new form of public participation is essential and valuable (Nam & Pardo, 2011). Ideally, one in which citizen involvement (under diverse stakeholder roles) is stimulated in all phases of initiatives and projects, including post-implementation (Castelnova, et al., 2015).

Thus, collaborative governance is regarded as an essential element in the smart city and is closely related to citizen participation. The definition as provided by Ansell and Gash (2008) and the framework as proposed by Castelnova et al. (2015) will be adopted for this thesis.

Bottom-up and community-oriented online platforms

As mentioned before, the truly community-oriented and citizen-centred smart city initiatives are found within the smaller scale initiatives that characterize the alternative smart urbanism framework. These initiatives are also found in bottom-up movements, which have led to technological ways of knowledge production in some cases. Additionally, Kummitha & Crutzen (2019) argue that cities are recommended to create an environment in which communities and citizens themselves can start initiatives to address local problems and potential solutions.

Examples of these initiatives can be found in the urban context of Amsterdam, where the use of online platforms as complementary for urban bottom-up movement has increased rapidly since 2010 (Niederer & Priester, 2016). These online networks are primarily established on a neighbourhood scale, striving to connect inhabitants through offline activities and an online platform. Simultaneously, there are increasing amounts of different tools and apps created for citizen participation and promoting governance through collaboration of different stakeholders on a neighbourhood level. The bottom-up movement in Amsterdam tries to enable and organize citizen participation with the use of technology, making these initiatives fit within the framework of the alternative urbanism with its human-driven central element.

An example of an online neighbourhood platform is the American ‘Nextdoor’ application and platform, which strives to become some kind of Facebook for neighbourhoods (van Dijck, et al., 2016). Another example is Gebiedonline, which enables people and organisations to create an online platform for their neighbourhood. Although these initiatives might seem similar and have comparable aims – such as improving the quality of life, connections between residents and safety – there are remarkable differences. Especially in the way that they are organized and oriented (van Dijck, et al., 2016). Nextdoor has been created in Silicon Valley, which has already made millions of profits through the data they are collecting from the participants. Thus, it could be characterized as a profit-oriented platform, which strives to reach out to as many people as possible to maximize their collection of data and therefore their profits. The means by which it is organized is designed and created by experts, implemented through a top-down manner on neighbourhoods on a global scale. In contrary, Gebiedonline is the result of an initiative by residents striving to improve their own developing neighbourhood (Priester, 2017). It is a cooperative platform, which the members that are participating themselves own. Additionally, the generated data that is collected is owned by the members wholly. Therefore, the data is not the model of revenue as it is in most other platforms such as Nextdoor.

In the context of this research paper, bottom-up community-oriented online neighbourhood platforms will be understood as online platforms that are owned by, oriented towards and created by the bottom-up networks and communities (Priester, 2017, p. 59).

One of the important researchers involved in the development of Gebiedonline (and Hallo IJburg) is Ruurd Priester. In a meeting, the software developer (Michel Vogler) presented his own sketch of the ‘levels of functionalities in an online neighbourhood platform’. Priester developed this idea further into a model, which he then eventually – based on various presentations where he received feedback – developed into the model seen in figure 2. It is important to note that the model is originally in Dutch, so the resulting model is the result of my own translation. The model consists of five levels: stories, information, resources, projects and priorities. The division of types of online neighbourhood platforms are separated into 5 typical levels of functionalities that resemble those of well-known categories of online platforms. Online neighbourhood platforms do not necessarily develop according to these levels as a chronological process, since in practice it can be dynamic and start at a random level and follow another order. Thus, it is not always a linear process (Priester, 2017).

The reason the model starts with ‘stories’, is that the collectively expressed story of a neighbourhood forms the fundamental element of every societal activity aimed for the neighbourhood. This is described as the phase in which an identity is constructed for a neighbourhood, in which the common history is shaped and shared and where themes surface that seem relevant for the neighbourhood to discuss about (Priester, 2017, p. 120). The second level is ‘information’, which consists of people’s profiles, a functionality for news and a calendar. The informative functionalities serve to stimulate ‘offline’ meetings, since it keeps people updated as to what is happening in the neighbourhood and when and where meetings in any form are being held. Arguably, when interaction increases, the need for the sharing of ‘resources might increase. Resources encompass products, facilities and services, which are made available either by paying or on voluntary basis. The next level describes ‘projects’, and these consist of functionalities that provide insights about what is going on in

the neighbourhood, what ideas there are and functionalities that define how projects can be implemented (Priester, 2017, p. 121). The last level is labelled as ‘priorities’ and is about being able to determine priorities collectively. Examples are functionalities that enable overviews of alternatives, assisting in considerate and thoughtful decision-making.

All in all, the model (figure 2) demonstrates the different functionalities of online neighbourhood platforms and can provide guidance in examining the functionalities regarding the analysis in this thesis.

Sharing Functionality Category

Priorities

Alternatives _Preferences Voting

E-democracy

Projects

Insights Ideas Implementation

Productivity-tools

Resources

Money Tools Efforts

Sharing-economy platforms

Information

People News Calendar

Social media

Stories

History Identity Themes

Blogging

Figure 2: Types of online platforms and typical functionalities (Priester, 2017, p. 121), translation: Najmeddin (2019)

METHODOLOGY

Several points of theoretical scrutiny exist in the literature in the context of smart cities, as mentioned before. Authors such as Söderström & McFarlane (2017) have urged that alternative narratives about smart cities are necessary. Regarding these mentioned gaps, in-depth understanding of cases fitting in the alternative smart city narrative are relevant for the aim of this research thesis. Therefore, a case study design is appropriate for this thesis, since it allows for an intensive and detailed analysis and understanding of a single case (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, the qualitative methodology used for this thesis is grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006), which will be used for both data collection as well as data analysis. Grounded theory is a methodology that is grounded in the data that is collected. This approach is concerned with people’s experience within a process and aims at generating a theory of how that process works (Bryman, 2012). From grounded theory, both methods of data collection as well as methods for data analysis are derived, and both are intertwined throughout the process of conducting this research. Thus, the approach for this thesis is iterative, a process in which the collection and analysis of data repeatedly relate to each other: transcripts will be coded throughout the whole process and lead to insights which then can be tested with further data collection. The case study is a unique type of case study (Bryman, 2012), with specific exceptional traits which have not yet received enough theoretical coverage. This will be elaborated in the following paragraphs.

Case study: Hallo IJburg

This research is particularly focused on how technology can enable citizen participation and promote collaborative governance within the alternative smart city narrative; thus, a case is selected that is aimed at enabling bottom-up community-oriented initiatives, alternative to the main narrative of corporate and government led initiatives. Moreover, similar case studies within this academic context have focussed on more top-down governmental (municipal) initiatives (Pereira, et al., 2017; Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018). The particular case that is selected for this research thesis is ‘Hallo IJburg’, which is an online platform dedicated to the neighbourhood of IJburg in the Dutch capital city of Amsterdam. Hallo IJburg was developed in 2012 by a team of residents of IJburg with the central aim: “connecting people with ideas, with people with knowledge, experience, energy and/or money. Striving to make it as easy as possible for people to find each other.” (Hallo IJburg, 2019). Additionally, it aims to “promote the collaboration among all people (whether professional or not) who are concerned with developments in and around IJburg” (Hallo IJburg, 2019). When accessing the website, the first thing that is visible is a quotation (illustration: 1) that translates to “Inhabitants, entrepreneurs and professionals share their information here with everybody that is interested in developments on IJburg. We decide the content on this website together. There is almost no editorship.” (Hallo IJburg, 2019). Terminologies like ‘collaboration’, ‘decide…together’, ‘connecting, ‘to share’ and ‘everybody’ imply that there is some kind of co-operation in which various individuals can partake. The lack of strong editorship suggests that people that partake in the platform, collectively decide on the content. Additionally, people are encouraged to submit their ideas and suggestions for the functionalities (Hallo IJburg, 2019). It has grown to involve more than 6000 participants with numerous projects listed online. Thus, it makes for an interesting case of an online tool that aims to promote collaboration and strives to enable participation.

Illustration 1: The homepage of Hallo IJburg (Hallo IJburg, 2019)

Geographical context: IJburg, Amsterdam

The neighbourhood in which the platform is developed is an area that has a specific context which should be mentioned in order to understand the development and trajectory of the platform. IJburg is a neighbourhood that consists of artificial islands built in the IJmeer – the ‘bordering lake’ – which is still developing since the construction initially began in 1999. To visualize the neighbourhood, a map will be used that consists of numbers indicating the different islands (illustration: 2). While some parts – such as Haveneiland (2) – are considered established, other parts – such as Steigereiland (1) – are still undergoing construction. In addition to the existing islands of Steigereiland, Haveneiland and Rieteilanden (3), several new islands are planned to be created in the coming years. The planned islands include Centrumeiland (4), Strandeiland (5) and Buiteneiland (6), which will double the current IJburg.

Since the first residential buildings were finished in 2002, the number of residents gradually increased in IJburg, leading to a current population of more than 23.000 inhabitants (OIS Amsterdam, 2018). Statistics reveal that IJburg consists of a population with a relatively high percentage (78%) of higher educated residents (OIS Amsterdam, 2015). Additionally, the municipal planning of the newly built islands aims at establishing similar demographic composition (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). Moreover, it is worth noting that ‘participation’ is something that recurs throughout the plans and reports of the municipality regarding the development and expansion of IJburg (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018).

Institutional context

The city of Amsterdam has a specific institutional context that should be mentioned, since it is relevant for the aim of this thesis. Since the concepts of citizen participation, collaborative governance and the smart city are related closely to the institutional context. There are several features the municipality of Amsterdam and the laws in the Netherlands that should be elaborated. By providing this information, the results found can be placed in this particular context. The most relevant characteristics will be explained briefly.

The city of Amsterdam consists of seven districts (Dutch: stadsdelen), that each have multiple own commissions (Dutch: stadsdeelcommissies) with representatives of the neighbourhoods within the districts. The Eastern District is divided into four parts and one of them constitutes of IJburg and Zeeburgereiland. Once in four years, elections will be held for people to vote. Each district will have an area-team consisting of a gebeidsmanager, gebiedsoordinator and several gebiedsmakelaren, respectively roughly translated into an area-manager, an area-coordinator and area-brokers. The translation of area-broker, however, does not accurately describe the function of gebiedsmakelaar. Therefore, the function will be briefly described. Area-brokers are often referred to as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the municipality on the streets or the mediator between the people and the municipality. Their responsibility, like that of the rest of the area-team, is to maintain a good relation and connection between the area (for example the residents, entrepreneurs, schools and police) and the municipal organization. This already indicates, that the area-teams of the districts have another role and position than the central municipality. They can be considered as separate parts within the municipality, with each their own priorities and tasks. Thus, the municipality does not indicate one stakeholder in the context of this thesis, since interviews were held with both employees of the central municipality as well as the particular district municipality, and both are involved differently in the processes examined.

The districts and their area-teams assess what is happening, what needs to be handled and what the demands are of the particular areas they are representing. Their task is then to inform the policy makers of the central municipality what the local needs of the specific areas are. Furthermore, the municipality in general takes on a area-oriented approach to development, since they acknowledge that tasks differ between each area within the city, This approach has led to the area-team annually making plans for the specific areas they represent, these are called the gebiedsplannen, translated into the ‘area-plans’. These plans are taking different shapes across the different areas within the city. The interesting feature of the area-plans of IJburg (and Zeeburgereiland) specifically, is that the process of making the area-plans goes through an online platform, created by citizens: Hallo IJburg (and zeeburgereiland.nl). This process will be analysed further illustrated with the findings in the results chapter.

The development of the platform: Hallo IJburg

Residents moving in to the new neighbourhood of IJburg developed a sense of responsibility to partake in making the neighbourhood a more liveable place together (Priester, 2017). This led to several residents establishing a network for further developing of the newly built IJburg in 2010, called ‘IJburgDroomt – IJburgDoet (IJDIJD)’, which translates into ‘IJburgDreams – IJburgDoes’. It was characterized as an informal network in which “residents, entrepreneurs and representatives of the municipality and civil society each contribute to the common goal of the further development of IJburg. Additionally, everybody that is interested in contributing, is welcome to join.” (Priester, 2017, p. 158). IJDIJD began to organise multiple meetings and developed in to a dynamic bottom-up movement stimulated by a local network. The growth of the network led to the need for more organisation and in one of the meetings organization by means of an online tool was voiced (Priester, 2017). The network now included a core partner that is a software developer and resident of IJburg, Michel Vogler. He dismissed using a Facebook page, instead, he stated that he was able to voluntarily create a specific platform in his spare time (Interview: Software Developer, 2019). This platform became ‘Hallo IJburg’, which enabled IJDIJD to organize their ideas and reach out for a larger audience, leading to numerous plans and projects put to practice in the following years.

The platform started as an initiative by IJDIJD, but now encompasses numerous initiatives of all kinds and serves as an informative dashboard for the neighbourhood and its surroundings. The software behind Hallo IJburg is provided by the company named CrossmarX of which Vogler is the co-owner. The growth of Hallo IJburg and its contribution to the development of IJburg led to more curiosity by residents of other areas, subsequently leading to the developers of Hallo IJburg being invited to lectures about locally oriented bottom-up movement and the role of technology (Priester, 2017, p. 174).

Eventually, after residents inquired to use the technology for their own neighbourhood, a cooperative platform called Gebiedonline was established in 2015. Leading to the possibility of people making use of the software for their own purposes, such as the development of their own neighbourhood. Vogler (the software developer) explained that the software is developed in such a way, that people can shape it and create the content to the preferences and demand of the target audience. Usually these involve neighbourhood scale, since many of the created platforms are neighbourhood scaled in cities such as Amsterdam, Amersfoort, Gouda, Badhoevedorp. However, the software also allows for platforms to be built for a certain theme, for example to increase participation for the enhancement of ‘green’ in the city. This exceeds the scale of the neighbourhood (Interview: Software Developer, 2019). Moreover, the functionalities of Hallo IJburg are accessible and possible to be implemented in the other platforms as well, but the owners of the other platforms can choose what they want to include and what not (Interview: Software Developer, 2019). Thus, the online platform of Gebiedonline can be used for numerous targets on several scales, by making use of an automated software where certain functionalities can be picked for the platform to be adjusted to the specific targets. Overall, most of the functionalities are being experimented with in the first platform of its kind, Hallo IJburg, which has the most participants and options involved. Therefore, all of the above makes it an interesting single case study to examine in-depth.

Current state of the platform: functionalities

Currently, the platform has grown out to include multiple kinds of functionalities providing an informative dashboard with a calendar (illustration: 3), a weekly newsletter, an overview of projects in the neighbourhood and multiple posts by a diversity of people. The platform also includes an overview of all people and organizations that are member, with profile pictures, descriptions and logos. Making a profile is fairly simple, as I made one too for the purpose of this research. In the process, one is required to provide their role or what they represent, such as ‘resident’, ‘professional’, ‘entrepreneur’ and put a photo of themselves on it. Additionally, it enlists all locations possibly relevant to the events and activities taking place, in which it is enabled to filter accordingly and display using a map (illustration: 4). This map view is also available for the events and activities on the calendar. Furthermore, functionalities that are available are an online ‘marketplace’ concept with demand and supply, a page with ‘wishes’ pinpointing wishes and demands of people of IJburg. Moreover, ‘Gebiedsplan 2019’ is visible in the menu, which are plans for the area, as result of collaboration between multiple stakeholders such as the municipality of the district and the residents of IJburg.

It is important to note that the platform is not available in another language rather than Dutch, thus it is not easily accessible for non-Dutch speaking residents of IJburg. A glance at the calendar reveals that it is not primarily used for societal and developmental initiatives: most of it consists of promotion of certain activities such as yoga and painting.

Illustration 4: Map of locations, with icons and filter options (Hallo IJburg, 2019)

Choosing this particular case study

Hallo IJburg initially started as an initiative by a bottom-up local network, attempting at organizing their ideas and plans in an online manner. Growing out to include several new functionalities – such as an event calendar, weekly newsletters, enlisted projects, collection of wishes of the residents and an online marketplace – it has become a well-established online platform for the neighbourhood with numerous people involved. The mission is to promote collaboration between people and enhance the development of the neighbourhood, while also serving as an informative dashboard, in which activities and events on the local level are displayed. The platform has led to a broader online platform called Gebiedonline, on which the software is available for use by other entities for their purposes, by filling out a form and providing an investment for the server costs. The functionalities and theme of the platform can then be decided for by the preferences of the initiative taker(s). The content on the platforms is decided by its users, therefore it is shaped by local demands. The data on the platforms, in contrast to platforms such as Facebook, is owned by the members themselves, because Gebiedonline is co-operatively owned. Therefore, the platforms are non-profit oriented and can be characterized as community-oriented. These traits are dissimilar to the predominant narratives of smart city technologies, thus suited for in-depth examination as a unique single case study. The geographical and historical context of the neighbourhood, and its demographic composition are factors that should be included in such a research thesis, since it may be a crucial determining contextual factor to the results of this thesis.

Methods of data collection

The methods of data collection consist of interviews, document reviews and functionality reviews. I conducted the interviews in two different phases. The first phase of interviewing people was characterized by open unstructured interviews. These were conversation-like interviews, aimed to reveal the processes of thought and opinions of the respondents, without steering them with questions based on prior assumptions. Data collection within the grounded theory approach relies on beginning with a blank state and avoiding prior assumptions and biases (Bryman, 2012). Additionally, I tried to conduct the open unstructured interviews in locations the respondents were comfortable in, such as their house, office or a public place of their choice. The gathered data are transcripts full of rich information, in which relevant concepts emerge and relate to others. Therefore, I tried to keep the respondents talking on the subjects relevant for my research and improvised questions throughout the interview. I was aware of the potential consequences of conversations falling quiet, respondents dwelling off-topic or the interview ending if I could not come up with new improvised questions. Despite the nature of the grounded theory approach, for this research I had conducted preliminary literature review and collected background information on the topic and the respondent. This has undoubtedly led to some prior assumptions and possible steering, influencing the particular follow up questions (Bryman, 2012). Additionally, the literature review did enable me to come up with relevant questions in instances when respondents were done talking and follow-up questions were challenging.

As the whole process of data collection is intertwined, there was no clear distinction between the first and the second phase of interviewing. Nevertheless, the second phase of interviews was conducted differently. The second phase started when I had conducted at least two interviews with respondent with that particular perspective. The format of the second interview interviews was semi-structured and questions as well as topics were more prepared than in the previous phase. They were still spontaneously conducted with improvised follow-up questions taking place based on the answers of the respondents. The point of this second phase was primarily theoretical saturation (Bryman, 2012), comparing the found concepts and ideas from the previous interviews with new respondents. This took place throughout the whole process and both the phases of interviews, since the first interview already led to interesting findings to be examined further in the second interview. The additional review of documents consists of texts that are on the platform itself, such as the policy terms, privacy terms, FAQ’s and other available data. This will be complemented with a brief functionality review, by analysing the options on the platform, the posts, functionalities, etc.

When conducting interviews and choosing respondents, several aspects were considered. I aimed to collect as much rich data as possible from multiple perspectives. Therefore, I strived to find respondents that took part in creating and launching the platform, respondents that actively use the platform, respondents that were involved in the process of giving form to the platform using their expertise and respondents representing the government which interact with the platform in some way. Moreover, the process of searching for respondents was easier, due to contact information of people on the platform. I reached out to various people based on their perspective and role with regards to the platform and received some response. Eventually, the most useful method of collecting respondents for my research was through snowball-sampling (Bryman, 2012), by which people I interviewed recommended me to talk to other people and sometimes even

arranged these interviews for me. Ultimately, I end up with 13 in-depth interviews, representing different perspectives on my particular case study. Conveniently, the interviews are with respondents from different perspectives which makes the findings more wide-ranging. An overview of the 13 interviews is available beneath (figure 2).

Perspective Technique Role of respondent(s)

Software developer 1st round: unstructured Software developer (creator)

Software developer 2

nd

round:

semi-structured Software developer (creator)

Expertise 1st round: unstructured Expert on knowledge of IJburg

and partaker launch platform

Expertise 1st round: Expert on citizen participation

and partaker launch platform

Expertise 2

nd

round: semi-structured

Expert on citizen-participation and former municipal employee involved in

launch platform

(Active) Users 1st round: unstructured User of platform

and associated with citizen initiatives

(Active) Users 1st round: unstructured User of platform

and associated citizen initiatives

(Active) Users 2

nd

round: semi-structured

User of platform and community-builder associated with citizen initiatives

(Active) Users 2

nd _round: semi-structured

User of platform

and associated with citizen initiatives

Municipality 1st round: unstructured Municipal employee (central municipality)

Municipality 1st round: unstructured Municipal employee (district municipality)

Municipality 2

nd

round:

semi-structured Municipal employee (central municipality)

Municipality 2

nd _round:

semi-structured Municipal employee (district municipality) Figure 3: An overview of the profiles of the interviewees

Methods of data analysis

The methods of data analysis for this thesis are related to the coding process of grounded theory as proposed by Charmaz (2006). It is a method of coding that is more optional and fluid than the procedural approach by Corbin & Strauss (1990) and consists of three steps of coding that are fairly similar to the other approaches (Cresswell, 2012). First, initial open coding takes place in which several categories are developed from coding the interview transcripts with the software of Atlas.ti. Then, this will proceed into focused coding, which is a process to narrow down the primary categories to more recurrent and significant codes. Additionally, theoretical sampling takes place, which is a process to discover relationships between the codes and categories, potentially resulting in a theory (Charmaz, 2006). Throughout the process, memos are written down, to clarify my thought process as a researcher and comprehend the choices for the particular codes and categories. The

categories were conceptualized after which themes were developed. As a result, the surfacing categories and their relationships to one another emerged. The most important categories and relationships are presented in a model in the results chapter and will be elaborated in a narrative.

To illustrate the methodology used, a model has been created that is visible in figure 4.

Ethical considerations

For the purpose of analysis, interviews conducted for this thesis were preferably recorded. In 12 of the 13 instances, this was the case. Their consent was asked before every interview. Additionally, respondents were asked whether they wished to remain anonymous or not. If they wish to remain anonymous, this is respected in multiple ways. Firstly, their function or role is written broadly so that it is not easily found who the respondent actually is. Secondly, wording is important, since sometimes the way people speak can reveal their identity. However, the quotes that are used in this thesis are translations from Dutch and therefore the original terminology changes. Furthermore, interview recordings were kept in a safe place with initials as titles, to prevent data leaks.

Methodological limitations

Since grounded theory is time consuming and the time for writing this thesis was just a few months, a more simplified version is used. After conducting 13 interviews, there was limited time available to transcript all the data entirely, which is essential to proceed with line-by-line coding for the grounded theory approach. Due to time constraints, I transcribed the most relevant interviews with rich data directly relevant for my research question, with at least one entire transcript per each perspective as divided in figure 2. This has possibly led for some potential findings to be overlooked within the data. For the interviews that are not transcribed entirely, several quotes have been picked out, to be included in the analysis.

Secondly, the quotes that were picked for the result section are translated from Dutch to English, by me personally. Therefore, changes of terminologies might potentially lead to different interpretations. Some words or proverbs are difficult to be translated accurately.

Thirdly, this research is solely conducted by using qualitative methods. Ultimately, I chose the data that I found most relevant for the aim of this thesis. Therefore, the findings may be somewhat affected by my subjectivity.

Additionally, I am fully aware that my role as a researcher may influence the outcomes of this thesis, since I as a researcher actively construct a specific understanding of the phenomenon I am investigating. Thus, “grounded theory does not capture social reality; instead it is itself a social construction of reality” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 45).

RESULTS

It seems that the ways in which citizen participation is enabled and collaborative governance is promoted through the use of this online neighbourhood platform are complex and multifaceted. To illustrate the dynamics of Hallo IJburg in relation with citizen participation and collaborative governance, I have attempted to create a model (figure 5) in which the key processes of the findings are demonstrated. Since a model is merely a simplified illustration of the complexity of reality, I will go through it and provide the necessary perceptions from different perspectives, in order to explain the relations between the different concepts and their underlying processes. Additionally, I will elaborate other important results afterwards.

One of the central elements of the results with regards to answering the research question, is ‘knowledge sharing’ and its surrounding processes. This has been illustrated in figure 5, surrounded by arrows, indicating certain relations with other aspects. The sharing of knowledge is an important point that seems to surface in the analysis of the data collected for this thesis. It is the result of certain processes, while it simultaneously can be regarded as the driver of the processes illustrated in the model as well. To comprehend the model and how it is related to enabling citizen participation and promoting collaborative governance will be further elaborated in this chapter.

Shaping the platform: participation and collaboration

The ‘owners’, the ‘creator’ and ‘others involved in the development’ are put at the top of the model. They are connected with arrowless lines, indicating that they have a similar position in the processes surrounding the platform. Related to the theoretical framework and the scaffold of participation in figure 1 (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2018), this position of participation within the smart city initiative of Hallo IJburg can be characterized as a form of ‘citizen power’. In the case study description within the methodology chapter, it became clear that the platform is the result of a bottom-up movement. The software developer created it voluntarily, while negotiating with others involved in the process, such as the partakers of the “IJburgDroomt-IJburgDoet” (IJDIJD) network which consisted of various actors. Hallo IJburg is therefore the result of co-creation, grounded in the ideas and visions of the creator, the owners and the others involved in the development of the platform.

The creator, a citizen and resident of the neighbourhood, is involved as a creator – since he is the one essentially creating the functionalities on the platform. So, the actual creation of the functionalities primarily relies on the capabilities of the software developer and the technological capabilities of the software automation company ‘CrossmarX Application Platform’ (see crossmarx.nl for more information) of which the software developer (Michel Vogler) is the co-owner. Functionalities are mainly the result of already existing software within the company, although new functionalities are also developed specifically for the platforms as well – either by the software developer individually or as a result of collaboration with others involved in the company. This collaboration happens when there seems to be a ‘win-win’ situation, in where functionalities that will be newly developed for the needs of the platform, could also potentially be used for other clients of the company or the other way around. Thus, technological functionalities to some extent rely on the capabilities of the software developer himself and the capabilities of CrossmarX. Additionally, there is also a dependence on available resources, such as money and time. Although the software developer states that he enjoys developing functionalities and that “with just a little bit of money and lots of passion, we can go a long way” (Interview: Software Developer, 2019). In figure 5, the connection between the creator and the functionalities is indicated with an arrow and is an essential part of the processes that are demonstrated. This connection is more complex than one might assume from viewing the model. Since the platform is not profit oriented and not bound by governmental limitations, there is room for visions and ideas to take form – even if they would be radical of nature. Thus, the platform can afford to be experimental and is not bound-to-succeed.

The theoretical framework in this thesis indicated that there are numerous ways the smart city can be conceptualized and various ways how citizens are can be involved in it. Therefore, it is relevant to note how the creator views the concept of the smart city and what his ideas and visions are with regards to what he ultimately wishes to create.