- PII
- S30345995S0201708325020081-1
- DOI
- 10.7868/S3034599525020081
- Publication type
- Article
- Status
- Published
- Authors
- Volume/ Edition
- Volume / Issue number 2 (130)
- Pages
- 92-104
- Abstract
- The modern realities of urban development dictate the need to search for new effective tools to solve emerging problems and leverage promising opportunities. Municipal digital platforms can become one such tool. Using the examples of two European capitals – Amsterdam and Berlin – thе article demonstrates how platforms facilitate the interaction of key stakeholders to improve the quality of urban life. It is identified that in Amsterdam, “Amsterdam Smart City” (ASC) plays a key role in the city's sustainable development. ASC brings together local authorities, research institutions, companies, and residents to address urban issues such as reducing CO2 emissions and improving mobility. The platform is based on a collective approach, innovation, knowledge dissemination, and economic viability. ASC provides educational opportunities and supports projects related to energy transition, mobility, and quality of life improvement. The development of Berlin as a smart city includes the integration of various sources of information, efficient resource utilisation, and active involvement of citizens and investors. The “CityLAB Berlin” program represents an open innovation laboratory where government agencies, companies, and residents develop and implement digital solutions for sustainable development. The program's key principles include a collective approach, innovation, knowledge dissemination, and economic viability. Unlike other platforms, in Berlin, companies are the main partners, contributing to the launch of innovative projects. Projects such as open data and energy sustainability demonstrate success in achieving sustainable development. The platform actively engages in social development, supporting the participation of various population groups and conducting educational programs for municipal employees. The research allows identifying the most successful elements of practice in creating smart cities using municipal digital platforms and demonstrates to what extent these initiatives can be implemented in the development of other cities.
- Keywords
- цифровая платформа муниципальная цифровая платформа уберизация устойчивое развитие стратегия развития города городская экономика Амстердам Берлин
- Date of publication
- 01.02.2025
- Year of publication
- 2025
- Number of purchasers
- 0
- Views
- 7
References
- 1. Растворцева С.Н., Панина Е.В., Кочешков М.А. (2023) Налоговые инструменты стимулирования инноваций в странах ЕС. Мировая экономика и международные отношения. Т. 67. № 3. С. 20–32. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2023-67-3-20-32
- 2. Ahvenniemi H., Huovila A., Pinto-Seppä I., Airaksinen M. (2017) What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities. No. 60. P. 234–245. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.009
- 3. Anttiroiko A.V. (2016) City-as-a-platform: The rise of participatory innovation platforms in Finnish cities. Sustainability. No. 8(9). DOI: 10.3390/su8090922
- 4. Anttiroiko A.V., Valkama P., Bailey S.J. (2014) Smart cities in the new service economy: building platforms for smart services. AI & Soc. No. 29. P. 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-013-0464-0
- 5. Bashir M., Yousaf A., Verma R. (2016) Disruptive business model innovation: How a tech firm is changing the traditional taxi service industry. Indian Journal of Marketing. No. 46. P. 49–59.
- 6. Bellone C., Naselli F., Andreassi F. (2021) New Governance Path through Digital Platforms and the Old Urban Planning Process in Italy. Sustainability. No. 13(12). P. 6911. DOI: 10.3390/su13126911
- 7. Cohen B. (2006) Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technology in society. No. 28(1–2). P. 63–80.
- 8. Derksen G., Michura P., Ruecker S. (2015) Stories and Conversations in the Smart City. Smart Cities as Democratic Ecologies. Ed. by D. Araya. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. P. 64–86.
- 9. Eckhoff D., Wagner I. (2018) Privacy in the Smart City–Applications, Technologies, Challenges, and Solutions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. No. 20. P. 489–516. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2748998
- 10. Edelman B.G., Luca M. (2014) Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb.com. Harvard Business School Working Paper. No. 14-054. 21 p. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2377353
- 11. Han W., Wang X., Ahsen M., Wattal S. (2022) The Societal Impact of Sharing Economy Platform Self-Regulations – An Empirical Investigation. Information Systems Research. No. 33(4). P. 1303–1323. DOI: 10.1287/isre.2021.1044
- 12. Haveri A. (2006) Complexity in local government change: Limits to rational reforming. Public Management Review. No. 8(1). P. 31–46.
- 13. Janowski T., Estevez E., Baguma R. (2018) Platform governance for sustainable development: Reshaping citizenadministration relationships in the digital age. Government Information Quarterly. No. 35(4). P. 1–16.
- 14. Johnston J. (2015) Public Administration: Organizational Aspects. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Ed. by J.D. Wright. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. P. 521‒525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.73057-1
- 15. Kleinhans R., Falco E., Babelon I. (2022) Conditions for networked co-production through digital participatory platforms in urban planning. European Planning Studies. No. 30(4). P. 769– 788. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2021.1998387
- 16. Mohammadi N., Taylor J.E. (2017) Smart city digital twins. 2017 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI). P. 1–5. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI.2017.8285439
- 17. Mora L., Bolici R. (2017) How to become a smart city: Learning from Amsterdam. Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions: Results of SSPCR. Ed. by A. Bisello, D. Vettorato, R. Stephens, P. Elisei. Springer, Berlin, Germany. P. 251–266.
- 18. Niaros V. (2016) Introducing a taxonomy of the “smart city”: Towards a commons-oriented approach? tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society. No. 14(1). P. 51–61.
- 19. Sengers F., Berkhout F., Wieczorek A.J., Raven R. (2016) Experimenting in the city: Unpacking notions of experimentation for sustainability. The experimental city. Ed. by J. Evans, A. Karvonen, R. Raven. Routledge, London, UK. P. 15–31.
- 20. Shin M., Shin J., Ghili S., Kim J. (2023) The Impact of the Gig Economy on Product Quality Through the Labor Market: Evidence from Ridesharing and Restaurant Quality. Management Science. No. 69(5). P. 1–19. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4481
- 21. Spil T.A., Effing R., Kwast J. (2017) Smart city participation: Dream or Reality? A comparison of participatory strategies from Hamburg, Berlin & Enschede. Digital Nations – Smart Cities, Innovation, and Sustainability. 16th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, I3E 2017, Delhi, India, November 21–23, 2017, Proceedings. Ed. by A.K. Kar A.K., P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan, M.P. Gupta, Y.K. Dwivedi, M. Mäntymäki, M. Janssen, A. Simintiras, S. Al-Sharhan. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. P. 122–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68557-1_12
- 22. Vallas S., Schor J. (2020) What Do Platforms Do? Understanding the Gig Economy. Annual Review of Sociology. No. 46. P. 273–294. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
- 23. Viitanen J., Kingston R. (2014) Smart Cities and Green Growth: Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental Resilience to the Global Technology Sector. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Vol 46. Issue 4. P. 803–819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a46242
- 24. Woods O., Bunnell T., Kong L. (2024) Island platforms and the hyper-terrestrialisation of Singapore’s smart city-state. Territory, Politics, Governance. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2024.2317211
