Energy Policy 129 (2019) 918–925

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Are smart city projects catalyzing urban energy sustainability? T

a,∗ b,c,∗
Håvard Haarstad , Marikken W. Wathne
a
Department of Geography & Centre for Climate and Energy Transformation, University of Bergen, PO Box 7802, 5020, Bergen, Norway
b
Oslo Metropolitan University, PO Box 4 St., Olavs Plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway
c
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the links between smart cities and urban energy sustainability.
Smart city Because achieving a “smart city” is a wide agenda rather than a specific set of interventions, smartness itself
Urbanism cannot easily be measured or quantifiably assessed. Instead, we understand smart cities to be a broad framework
Sustainability of strategies pursued by urban actors, and ask whether and how smart city projects catalyze urban energy
European Union
sustainability. We use case studies of three cities (Nottingham, Stavanger, and Stockholm) funded by the Horizon
Framing
2020 Smart Cities and Communities program and examine how urban energy sustainability was advanced and
realized through the smart city initiatives. We find first that while sustainability is not always a major objective
of local implementation of smart city projects, the smartness agenda nevertheless increases the ambition to
achieve energy sustainability targets. Second, the sustainability measures in smart cities are rarely driven by
advanced technology, even though the smart city agenda is framed around such innovations. Third, there is
significant sustainability potential in cross-sectoral integration, but there are unresolved challenges of ac-
countability for and measurability of these gains.

1. Introduction competitiveness, and innovation while achieving sustainability goals,

such as reduced emissions, increased energy efficiency, and improved
The idea of the “smart city” is increasingly central to debates on quality of life (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017).
urban energy sustainability and a host of cities are now pursuing However, it is not clear how the smart city agenda contributes to
“smartness” to improve their energy efficiency, transport, and public sustainability. There is an increasing interest in links between smartness
services. Cities have been placed at the forefront of the sustainability and sustainability (Bifulco et al., 2016). But while several studies point
transition and smartness is presented as a solution to urban challenges to the potentials of smart developments for increased efficiency and
in both the global North and South. Urban smartness has become a urban flow (Giffinger et al., 2007; Kramers et al., 2014), as well as the
major policy objective worldwide: e.g., one third of cities in the United discursive connection between smartness and sustainability (Cowley and
Kingdom (UK) with a population of more than 100,000 have smart city Caprotti, 2018; Trindade et al., 2017; Bifulco et al., 2016), few studies
ambitions, two thirds of US cities have invested in smart technology, have actively engaged with the consequences for environmental con-
and European governments and the European Union (EU) are both in- cerns and urban energy sustainability as cities attempt to “go smart”
vesting heavily in smart cities in Europe (Karvonen et al., 2019; (Gabrys, 2014; Martin et al., 2018). A broad bibliometric analysis
Caprotti et al., 2016). The European Commission aims to facilitate one conducted by de Jong et al. (2015) shows that the links between “smart
billion euros of investment in 300 smart cities by 2020 (EIP-SCC, 2018). city” and “sustainable city” in academic literature are relatively weak.
By integrating new technology into the management and operation And a review by Trindade et al. (2017) shows most of the research
of cities, smart cities are seen to offer innovative solutions to the explores indicators, measures and tools for sustainability (i.e. Lazaroiu
challenges of sustainability, equity, and economic growth in cities and and Roscia, 2012; Lee et al., 2014) rather than empirical studies of
urban regions (Alawadhi et al., 2012; Calvillo et al., 2016; Kramers implementation per se. In turn, few studies engage empirically with
et al., 2014; Barresi and Pultrone, 2013; Rocco et al., 2013; actually existing smart city projects (for a notable exception, see
Ramamurthy and Devadas, 2013; Neirotti et al., 2014). In other words, Karvonen et al., 2019). Those that do find little empirical evidence that
the smart city agenda is expected to solve a multiplicity of urban smartness contributes to the sustainability of those cities (Yigitcanlar
challenges – cities can increase rates of economic growth, and Kamruzzaman, 2018). Therefore, we have limited insight into

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Haarstad), [email protected] (M.W. Wathne).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.001
Received 15 November 2018; Received in revised form 28 February 2019; Accepted 1 March 2019
Available online 11 March 2019
0301-4215/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
H. Haarstad and M.W. Wathne Energy Policy 129 (2019) 918–925

whether and how smartness is an appropriate agenda for cities and emerging body of thought moving beyond these two to explore diverse
policy makers seeking to become more sustainable. employments of the smart city concept.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the links between smart Building on the categorization by Vanolo (2016), we may point to two
cities and urban energy sustainability. Yet in contrast to the existing main strands within the smart city literature. Broadly, we see the smart city
literature, we see the “smart city” not as a specific set of interventions, literature as divided into an instrumentalist strand, assessing how smart
but rather a loosely defined agenda. The agenda consists of both a technologies can be improved and used to improve cities and a critical
technological aspect as well as a managerial side (Haarstad and strand, fundamentally questioning the objectives of the smart city agenda.
Wathne, 2018; Cowley and Caprotti, 2018; Kitchin, 2014b) and can Most of the research seems to fall into the instrumentalist category.
potentially include an infinite number of policies, innovations, and Such instrumentalist approaches highlight the potential of information
targets. Therefore, the appropriate analytical approach is not to attempt communication technology (ICT) solutions and ICT-enabled solutions to
to measure its effects – it is more appropriate to understand smartness increase urban energy efficiency and improve urban infrastructure, which
as a broad framing encompassing a wide range of interventions that are reduces emissions from cities (Alawadhi et al., 2012; Calvillo et al., 2016;
translated and reinterpreted by cities (Peck and Theodore, 2010; Stone, Kramers et al., 2014; Barresi and Pultrone, 2013; Rocco et al., 2013;
2017). Thus, in this paper, we examine how smart city framing is used Ramamurthy and Devadas, 2013; Neirotti et al., 2014; Beatley and
by local actors in cities, to answer whether and how smart city projects Collins, 2000). By integrating new technology into the management and
catalyze urban energy sustainability. operation of cities, it is widely considered that smart cities can revitalize
Taking this approach, we make significant advances on the current issues of sustainability, equity, and economic growth in urban landscapes.
literature, which, as we elaborate below, tends to fall into two main Theorists claim that the complexity of the sustainability challenge can
camps. One is the instrumental camp, which highlights potentialities for find its match in the complexity of ICT (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017; Kramers
specific technological solutions, but has little to say about the social et al., 2014). Drawing on categories from Mitchell (1999), Kramers et al.
integration of these solutions in cities. The other is the critical camp, (2014) identified five processes through which ICT solutions may reduce
which focuses on the socioeconomic interests and the implications of energy use in cities: Through processes of dematerialization (reducing the
the smartness agenda itself rather than its practical application in need for physical products such as DVDs or banks), demobilization (i.e.,
projects. Instead, we examine the potential of the smart city framing for facilitating meetings online), mass customization (reducing resource use
catalyzing sustainability by examining how it is used in specific cases. through streamlining adaptation, personalization, and demand manage-
Our empirical strategy is to use in-depth case studies of cities that ment), intelligent operation (reducing the resources needed for various
have smart city status. We have conducted qualitative interviews (a total operations) and soft transformation (changes in the physical infrastructure
of 27), site visits and observations in three Lighthouse cities funded under because of technology and ICT advancements). Like many scholars, they
the first generation of the Horizon 2020 Smart Cities and Communities outline potential areas where smart approaches may promote urban en-
(SCC) program: Stockholm, Nottingham, and Stavanger. Our interviewees ergy sustainability, rather than identifying clear linkages between
were the chief project coordinators, planners, and project participants smartness and sustainability.
from the city municipalities, in addition to representatives of other or- In a similar vein, much of the literature describing ongoing trends
ganizations involved in the smart city initiatives. We also participated in points to potentials and proposes frameworks, rather than providing
key smart city events in the three cities. specific assessments of energy sustainability. This literature indicates that
some isolated initiatives can yield positive sustainability effects, and it
2. Competing understandings of the smart city often attempts to identify areas where energy sustainability may be im-
proved by policies to coordinate technological measures under the smart
The “smart” approach to urbanism and city development is debated city approach (Barresi and Pultrone, 2013). For example, sustainability
in a sprawling body of literature and has emerged across the fields of may be improved by promoting a triple-helix perspective (Deakin, 2014),
engineering, innovation, and social science. Much of the research improving smart city energy modelling (Calvillo et al., 2016), identifying
overlaps with related concepts such as intelligent cities, smart growth, hotspots (areas where cities could yield higher environmental returns
information cities, or digitalization, and there is not necessarily a co- from such technological investments) as loci for intervention (Kramers
herent literature on “smart cities” per se. Rather, the “smart city” is an et al., 2014), or “gamifying” smart solutions to increase their uptake
umbrella concept that researchers use to discuss the use of technology among smart city residents (Kazhamiakin et al., 2015; Di Dio et al., 2018).
in urban futures (de Jong et al., 2015). Drawing on Schaffers et al. Others have discussed the role of governments and planners in im-
(2011), we may say that the smartness approach has three key domains plementing a smart city as a sustainability measure (Jepson and Edwards,
of application. First, the idea is applied in relation to an innovation 2010; Viale Pereira et al., 2017), and explored the shifting focus of smart
economy, including interconnected business clusters involving different city initiatives over time (Barresi and Pultrone, 2013; Mundoli et al.,
sectors, incubators, and research environments. Second, it is used in 2017a; Antrobus, 2011) and space (Neirotti et al., 2014). To understand
relation to urban infrastructures and utilities, such as transport, digital the impacts of such developments, many question how such progress
systems, and monitoring. Third, it refers to urban governance: i.e., should be “monitored, understood, analyzed and planned to improve
cross-sectoral collaboration, integrated decision-making, and citizen sustainability” (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017: 185).
participation (for a similar attempt at categorization, see Angelidou, Others have also pointed to the lack of evidence in this literature
2015). linking smartness to sustainability. Bibri and Krogstie (2017) argue that
Several contributions have attempted to map and categorize the despite the vast potential of ICT in improving urban sustainability,
different perspectives that one can find in the literature on smart cities. there is “a lack of connection between smart cities and sustainable ci-
For example, Meijer and Bolívar (2016) distinguish between those fo- ties.” Several authors have argued that the focus on isolated interven-
cusing on technology, human resources and governance aspects of the tions makes it difficult to assess a coherent picture of smart city de-
smart city, showing the technological focus to be most widespread velopments. Berkhout and Hertin (2004) argue that due to the
alongside texts combining elements of the three. Similarly, Vanolo pervasive effect of ICTs on economic activity, “their impacts on the
(2016) distinguishes between three categorizations of the smart city in environment are difficult to trace and measure.” From a modelling
urban studies and social sciences – firstly, a ‘celebratory’ strand engaging perspective, Calvillo et al. (2016) hold that there is a need for a holistic
with the smart city, analyzing and evaluating its potential positive and and comprehensive smart city model, but that it is difficult to integrate
negative outcomes, secondly an ‘always critical’ strand linking the smart all the necessary elements into a single model. In other words, despite a
city to neoliberal agendas and corporate interests and the new forms of significant amount of research as part of what we call the instrumental
power and control enacted through the smart city, and thirdly a newly perspective, it is difficult to reach definite conclusions about the

919
H. Haarstad and M.W. Wathne Energy Policy 129 (2019) 918–925

conditions under which policy interventions should be used to achieve 3. Investigating the local implementation of smart city strategies
urban energy sustainability.
The other category of research is what call critical, which critiques This article takes a different approach. Rather than seeing smartness
the underlying premises of the smart city agenda. In this research, as one or several specific technologies or interventions, we understand
scholars do not focus primarily on the potential of technology or its smartness to be the framing of particular urban interventions. In other
incremental improvements, but on the socioeconomic interests and words, we propose to assess smart cities not for what they are, but for
implications of the agenda itself. One criticism is that the agenda is what they do to urban development strategies in general, and to energy
driven by private and corporate economic interests, particularly the sustainability strategies specifically. This recognizes that being a “smart
large companies that promote smart technologies (Hollands, 2008, city” is not a singular agenda, so instead of attempting to analyze it as
2015; McFarlane and Söderström, 2017; Viitanen and Kingston, 2014), such we focus on the construction and use of the concept by actors that
or universalist and abstract ideas that fail to recognize the local contexts shape policy frameworks in cities.
and nontechnological elements of cities (Viitanen and Kingston, 2014; There is a large literature on framing drawing upon contributions
Gabrys, 2014; Luque-Ayala and Marvin, 2015). Datta (2015) suggests from many branches of the social sciences. A “frame” can be understood
that smartness is the new urban utopianism of the 21st century. These as the context or structure within which we make sense of our actions
authors also highlight the lack of evidence that smart cities offer solu- (see Benford and Snow, 2000: for a review of collective action frames).
tions for urban problems in areas such as social and environmental Among other topics, framing has been used to understand how the
sustainability (Martin et al., 2018; Kramers et al., 2014). On the con- context of information influences people's attitudes towards climate
trary, they suggest that smart agendas often prioritize economic growth change mitigation (Spence and Pidgeon, 2010) as well as sustainability
agendas over environmental sustainability and promote ecological aspects of energy (Van de Velde et al., 2010).
modernization rather than transformation towards sustainability For our purposes, understanding smartness as a framing of action
(Martin et al., 2018, 2019; Mundoli et al., 2017b). entails focusing on how the smart city agenda creates a context for
Some of this criticism is quite radical, with scholars arguing that the urban sustainability interventions. This allows us to assess both the
very approach of driving urban development through technological in- effects of smart city framing on a city's energy sustainability agenda and
novation fails to address the root causes of urban problems (Martin et al., the ways urban-level actors reinterpret and translate the smart city
2018; Deakin, 2014; Hollands, 2008, 2015; Viitanen and Kingston, 2014; agenda to the local context in which they work. The approach also
March, 2016; March and Ribera-Fumaz, 2016). It has even been suggested affects how and where smart cities are studied. We focus on the local
that smart city developments may exacerbate environmental sustainability implementation of the smart city agenda, recognizing that this is its
challenges in cities, as well socioeconomic ones, by reducing urban pro- most specific realization. Such an approach assumes that local actors,
blems to technical and apolitical issues and focusing primarily on issues that contexts, and strategies have greater influence on the results of smart
are solvable through ICT and technological advancements (March, 2016; interventions, so we should strive to understand how these local var-
Martin et al., 2018; Beatley and Collins, 2000). Intentionally or not, smart iations play out as smart city strategies take form.
cities can be “mobilized in ways that serve to depoliticize urban re- This localized approach does not mean that local implementation is
development and environmental management” (March and Ribera-Fumaz, understood in isolation from higher-level policy development. As the
2016: 816). Cities are also seen as using “disciplinary strategies” to impress critical perspectives on smart city development have made clear
a new moral order (Vanolo, 2014). Following such critiques, it has been (Hollands, 2015; Haarstad, 2016; Viitanen and Kingston, 2014), high-
argued that rather than quick technological “fixes,” cities need more deep- level institutions and actors play a significant role in shaping the smart
seated transformations that address the underlying causes of urban un- city agenda. For example, the EU has been instrumental in setting the
sustainability and inequality (March, 2016; Hollands, 2008, 2015; Viitanen terms of the debate over smart city policy in Europe. Through its
and Kingston, 2014). funding of Lighthouse cities, the Horizon 2020 SCC program, which we
While some of this critique is grounded in an ideological debate, and address through the case studies below, has put in place certain defi-
the literature contributions are often theoretical rather than empirical, nitions and standards for what smart cities should achieve. The pro-
they raise some acute questions regarding the link between smartness and gram defines eligible smart projects as those that demonstrate solutions
sustainability. In particular, they clearly articulate the problem that on a district scale integrating smart buildings, grids, and infrastructure
technological solutions may not be sufficient to meet sustainability targets using ICT and renewable energy. The scalability of these solutions must
and indicate that political and governance issues are important for pro- be demonstrated through the testing of innovative business models and
moting urban sustainability (Martin et al., 2018; Viitanen and Kingston, partnerships with various stakeholders within the cities as well as with
2014). Martin et al. (2018) summarize the literature by pointing to some follower cities in other countries (European Commission, 2016).
key tensions, which include reinforcing the growth paradigm, neglecting Thereby, smart cities are defined by the EU as oriented towards
environmental protection, and failing to challenge consumerism. energy sustainability, mobility, new business models and partnerships,
The general message from both these strands of literature, we argue, and the advanced use of big data. In other background documents and
is that the link between urban smartness and sustainability is unclear, white papers, there is a strong emphasis on economic growth and
and conditional upon perspective and point of departure. The in- technological innovation in the framing of the smart city policy dis-
strumentalist strand focuses on isolated solutions and their potential for course. Haarstad (2017) argues that the European Commission's dis-
sustainability but says little about the social integration of these solu- course on smart cities connects it with fostering innovation and com-
tions in cities. Kitchin (2014a) held that most of the existing critical petitiveness in the emerging knowledge-based economy. This is the
research takes more of a bird's-eye view on the sociopolitical implica- overarching framing, at least in Europe, that sets the parameters for
tions of the smartness agenda and overlooks how this agenda shapes smart city development. In other words, we would hold that the EU's
city strategies, and called for more empirical work on smart city im- SCC-program is of high relevance for understanding how the smart city
plementation. And there are literature contributions beginning to ad- agenda unfolds more broadly.
dress this, using empirical case studies to examine how smart city in- For the purposes of this article, the key issue is how this agenda is
itiatives are unfolding on the ground (see for example Karvonen et al., implemented and practiced on the ground and through the actors in-
2019). These show how urban innovations are being negotiated and volved. The local room for maneuver in these projects is greater than
interpreted differently across a range of contexts. Yet even within this smart city critics often assume (see Haarstad and Wathne, 2018). Even
contextual work there has been less focus on implications for sustain- though the framing by Horizon 2020 is quite specific about the criteria
ability. In turn, it is difficult to draw clear lessons on whether and how for a smart city, there will always be opportunities for local actors to
smartness improves sustainability in cities. interpret and convert this framing during implementation. Put

920
H. Haarstad and M.W. Wathne Energy Policy 129 (2019) 918–925

Table 1
Overview of Lighthouse projects in the three case cities.
Stavanger Nottingham Stockholm

H2020 Projects Triangulum REMOURBAN GrowSmarter

Other Lighthouse cities Eindhoven, Manchester (Leipzig, Prague, and Sabadell) Tepebasi, Valladolid (Seraing and Miskolc) Barcelona, Cologne (Graz, Porto, Suceava,
(follower cities) Cork, and Valetta)
Demonstration area(s) Hinna, Stavanger city center Sneinton Slakthus and Årstad
EU contribution EUR 25,420,000 EUR 21,542,000 EUR 24,821,000
Main energy interventions Building a new energy center based on a minimum of Intensive retrofitting in Sneinton to achieve Efficient and smart climate shell
75% renewable energy sources to supply three of a low energy district. refurbishment in Valla, including reducing
Stavanger Municipality's administrative buildings with hot water losses and waste water heat.
energy. Extending existing district heating network Smart building logistics integrating
Testing systems for energy management and innovative with 4700 homes, combined with solar multimodal transport for construction
video solutions in private homes and public buildings. thermal installation. materials.
Fitting photovoltaic systems. Energy management systems integrated
into retrofitted houses, including CO2
signals
Contextual rationale Regional innovation, competitiveness. Advancing existing priorities in Environmental profile, sustainable growth.
transportation and energy innovation.
Dominant smart city vision Economic sustainability fostered by knowledge Socioenvironmental sustainability. Sustainable urban growth.
intensive industries and innovation.

differently, the high-level framing of urban smartness is negotiated in LEVEL conference on electric vehicle charging point infrastructure in
the cities that take on these projects. As research in other areas has Nottingham (2017), and a demonstration event at Valla Torg,
emphasized, cities and urban actors act strategically in relation to dis- Stockholm städ (2018). Several demonstrations by informants of the
courses and policy prescriptions from above (Grandin et al., 2018). It smart city initiatives (participant observation), as well as seminars and
should not be assumed that cities are passive receivers of smart city meetings on the smart projects also formed part of our research. In
prescriptions. addition, we analyzed strategic documents of the city projects.
To the contrary, we argue that analysis must accept the possibility
that urban actors actively engage with the smart city framing during
4. Smart cities on the ground: Nottingham, Stockholm, and
implementation and practice. As the literature on policy transfer and
Stavanger
policy mobility make clear, the “localization” of policies from “above”
is never an unmediated process – it involves interpretation and mis-
The EU began launching smart city initiatives in 2012, with the
interpretation, mutation and resistance (Peck and Theodore, 2010;
European Innovation Partnership on SCC. The objectives were to sti-
Stone, 2017). In light of these insights, the Horizon 2020 smart city
mulate knowledge-based economic competitiveness, as well as to im-
concept should not be expected to be adopted by Lighthouse cities, it
prove the quality of life of Europe's urbanizing population (Haarstad,
will rather be reinterpreted and incorporated into local “bricolages” of
2017). The first generation of Horizon 2020 SCC program in 2015 in-
pre-existing policies, discourses, interests and infrastructures. And local
cluded three projects, each containing three Lighthouse cities and
actors are key in this process. They are faced not only with pressures to
several “follower” cities. The duration of the projects was five years,
be smart, they also have to balance a host of overlapping and competing
with approximately 20–25 million euros in funding for each. Not-
concerns, and they actively negotiate between these to shape the
tingham, together with Lighthouse cities Valladolid and Tepebasi,
priorities of their cities (Robinson, 2015).
comprise the project network of REMOURBAN. Stavanger is part of the
Therefore, since local actors have a large room for maneuver during
Triangulum network, together with Eindhoven and Manchester (UK),
implementation and translation, the smart city agenda should be un-
and Stockholm is part of the GrowSmarter network, also encompassing
derstood as a means to achieve urban change, rather than as a goal in
Cologne and Barcelona (see Table 1).
itself. The smart city can be employed locally to promote a variety of
The overarching project profiles appeared to be fairly similar in all
agendas and pursue a variety of goals. To understand the relationship
three smart cities, with minor contextual differences. In line with the
between this framing on the one hand and urban sustainability on the
SCC program, all Lighthouse cities developed solutions in the areas of
other, we need to examine smart cities “on the ground” and to explore
energy, ICT, and mobility. Energy initiatives in the three cities typically
the ways in which the smart city agenda is used to reshape conditions
involved retrofitting buildings and reducing waste from water, stores,
for action at the local level. The potential of the smart city as an agent
and building mass.
for urban sustainability depends on how it enables the specific sus-
For Nottingham's part, the main focus of the energy strand of the
tainability strategies of cities.
project was retrofitting buildings to increase energy efficiency, coupled
with the expansion of a low-temperature district heating network, en-
3.1. Methodology abling Nottingham to “cope with climate change and build resilience to
external energy price pressures” (Remourban, n.d.). Most of the houses
To understand the local application of smart city framing, we con- chosen for this retrofitting were old apartment buildings with poor
ducted case studies of three Lighthouse cities funded under the first building structures, which would have had to be either improved or
generation of the Horizon 2020 SCC program: Stockholm, Nottingham, torn down regardless of the REMOURBAN project and accompanying
and Stavanger. The methodology and fieldwork consisted of in-depth funding. These were houses where marginalized social groups were
interviews, observations, and document analyses. We interviewed a residing. The retrofitting thus both addressed energy consumption and
total of 27 informants across the three cities. The interviewees were energy poverty (environmental and social sustainability).
planners and project participants from the city municipalities, as well as Similarly, Stockholm's energy strand of the project also focused
representatives of other organizations involved in the smart city in- heavily on retrofitting, involving 300 high-rise building apartments in
itiatives. The interviewees in each city included the chief project co- the Årstad area. By installing more energy-efficient solutions for water
ordinators. We also participated in relevant smart city events in the usage, heating, and lighting, the project aimed to reduce emissions and
three cities: the Nordic Edge Expo in Stavanger (2015–2018), the upgrade living standards in public housing apartments. The renovations

921
H. Haarstad and M.W. Wathne Energy Policy 129 (2019) 918–925

also included digital solutions for home energy management and vi- The three city cases share a common framing in the overarching
sualization of energy consumption to alter citizen behavior patterns smart city agenda, emphasizing technological solutions in urban de-
(GrowSmarter, n.d.). velopment, and in the specific parameters set by the Horizon 2020 SCC
In Stavanger, the energy strand of the project looked different from program. Bound by this framework, the case projects have clear simi-
those in the other cities. Without major issues with poor building larities. They all offer solutions that are implemented on a district scale,
structures and energy loss from building mass, the energy strand there integrating buildings, grids, and infrastructure using ICT and renewable
focused on securing renewable energy sources for municipal buildings, energy. They all emphasize scalable solutions and promising potentials
as well as integrating smart solutions into private homes to make for reduction of CO2 emissions. However, seen from a local perspective,
consumers more conscious energy consumers. A major part of the the framing also allows wide room for maneuver. Local actors use the
project involved building a renewable energy plant for three municipal smart city framing to conduct projects that existed well before the smart
buildings, using a minimum of 75% renewable energy sources to pro- city projects were realized and are not necessarily dependent upon
vide municipal office buildings with power (Triangulum, n.d.; advanced technology. The smart city framing provides resources for
Stavanger Municipality, 2017). In private homes, energy usage was preexisting local projects and initiatives. As we explain in the following
connected to a digital wall panel and a smartphone app; therefore, re- section, we find little evidence of blueprint implementation or a tech-
sidents were given the opportunity to make more conscious choices nology-driven agenda.
about their energy use. However, as one informant stated, the initiative
was not expected to yield reductions in energy usage. Electricity in 4.1. Smart urban sustainability in the three cases
Stavanger was fairly cheap and living standards high; therefore, it was
expected that when residents had greater control over their electricity From our case studies in the three Lighthouse cities, we find that
use, residents would choose comfort over cost and increase their elec- smart agendas are to a significant extent adapted to local priorities and
tricity usage. However, it is known that new technology to reduce concerns. Therefore, the relationship between what is smart and what is
ecological impact can often have the opposite effect (Carvalho, 2015). sustainable is largely dependent upon the local context. This section
While the projects may appear relatively similar across the three cities, explores how the smart agenda can promote urban sustainability, and
they vary greatly in motivation, design, and implementation. All the fol- we draw three main conclusions about its potential to do so: (1) While
lowing facets of the projects were greatly influenced by the local context: the potential of the smart city depends on how it is contextualized lo-
Nottingham, with a history as a successful testing ground for in- cally, a high-level agenda can push for sustainability achievements in cities.
novations in the transport and energy sectors, sought to strengthen this (2) Even though the smart city agenda is framed around technology, the
image through the smart city program. Combining these priority areas sustainability-related measures in smart cities are rarely driven by ad-
for urban development with planned revitalization projects for the city, vanced technology. (3) There is significant sustainability potential in
such as the upgrading of poor housing, made it possible to kill two birds cross-sectoral integration, but there are also unresolved challenges of
with one stone. The project has a clear social aspect because it is in- accountability and measurability.
tended to improve living conditions for some of the most disadvantaged
groups in the city through reduced energy loss from housing and re- 4.1.1. Smart sustainability is prescribed locally, yet a high-level agenda
duced energy prices. matters
In Stockholm, the smart city agenda became embedded in a strong As the smart cities visited for this study and their areas of focus and
tradition of climate and environmental policy. As a capital city with main priorities show, the direction a smart city project takes is con-
high socioeconomic standards and a brand as one of Europe's most tingent on preexisting local factors. These factors can be both in-
environmentally friendly cities, Stockholm sought to use the smart city stitutionalized (e.g., preexisting plans, approved budgets, priority
agenda to maintain quality of life and its environmental profile in a areas), and noninstitutionalized (e.g., the people who assume respon-
rapidly growing city. In contrast to the other two cases, the branding of sibilities within the project and their personal attributes, such as af-
Stockholm's smart city project had a clear goal of sustainability. filiations and learned smart ideas). Many of these were plans and
In Stavanger, which is known as Norway's “oil city,” the smart city practices that had developed over long periods of time and had been
agenda was largely seen as filling a void left by the declining oil in- integrated into the smart city framework as part of the cities' applica-
dustry, and they were to ensure that Stavanger had “more than one leg tions to become Lighthouses.
to stand on” in its industrial future. Here the smart city agenda was An example of this incorporation of preexisting plans is seen in the
focused heavily on facilitating the emergence of new technology en- case of retrofitting homes in Nottingham: dealing with these houses in
trepreneurs, many of them branching off from the oil sector. one way or another was the next step planned by Nottingham City
Capitalizing on its Horizon 2020 smart city project, Stavanger sought to Council (according to interviews with planning officials). Integrating
rebrand itself as the leading smart city in the Nordic countries. the retrofitting into the smart city agenda was an easy way to combine
Just like the local contexts in which the smart city projects were the planned project with an investment in smart city development.
embedded, the priorities and outcomes of the projects varied. The smart “[Renovating the houses] was something that we were going to do
city agenda in Nottingham was largely concerned with social sustain- anyway,” said a representative for the Nottingham City Homes, adding
ability. It used various resources from the Horizon 2020 project to that if nothing were done, the houses would ultimately have to be torn
renew public housing, often by surprisingly low-tech means. In at- down. The EU also promoted the integration of already planned and
tempting to prepare for a post-oil future, Stavanger emphasized local budgeted elements into the smart project proposals, thus facilitating
innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic competitiveness. institutionalized local negotiations. Several non-institutionalized fac-
Stockholm's smart city project was led by the environmental section of tors also informed local negotiations of the smart agenda. This was
the municipality and selected interventions consistent with its long- perhaps most evident in the types of departments and people that were
term goal of becoming carbon-neutral. “Sustainable urban growth” given responsibilities in the projects and their connections to ideas and
permeated the branding of the project (Stockholm städ, 2018) and the networks. For example, the site manager of the Lighthouse project in
city aimed to improve urban flow and life whilst simultaneously cutting Stockholm was trained in environmental protection and was primarily
carbon emissions by 60%. This was sought through improvement of concerned with social and ecological issues. In comparison, the two key
waste handling and waste heat recovery in both public and private people involved in the Stavanger smart city were an architect from the
areas. Such initiatives were coupled with attempts to alter citizen be- city planning division and a person who had a background in technical
havior through smart home systems allowing tenants to regulate their college and innovation. It was apparent that these seemingly minor
own energy usage. factors shaped the emphasis of the smart city projects in practice.

922
H. Haarstad and M.W. Wathne Energy Policy 129 (2019) 918–925

Even when projects were prescribed locally, we see that when such behavioral innovation.
negotiated smart cities were formulated according to broader ideas of In general, then, when examined “on the ground,” smart projects
sustainability, the cities were able to access funding and other resources are not necessarily highly technological or radically innovative
that heightened the ambitions of the smart agenda. Stockholm included (Fernandez-Anez et al. (2018) make a similar point with regard to
the retrofitting of 400 high-rise building apartments as part of the en- Vienna). Rather, they draw on existing and often quite basic technology
ergy strand of the smart agenda of the city. EU funding added to the city or organizational innovations to create apparently minor changes. We
council's budget allowed more ambitious retrofitting than the initial can simultaneously rule out the potential outcome of such changes in
plans. Having calculated that a 50% reduction of energy consumption catalyzing wider changes in urban systems, although these are difficult
from the apartments would be an economically viable goal, the addi- to measure, which is our final point.
tional funding received through the EU enabled an increase of this goal
to a 70% energy reduction. As the local site manager said:
4.1.3. There is significant sustainability potential in cross-sectoral
In terms of cost, a halving of energy consumption had been profitable integration, but unresolved challenges of accountability and measurability
without any contribution. […] We are now talking about 70% reduction The sustainability effects of smart approaches are not always easily
… So, the last 20% gets very expensive. identifiable and measurable, as seen from the literature seeking a link
between the two. However, based on our case studies, we conclude that
The smart agenda of Stockholm, resonating with wider ideas of
this difficulty may stem from processes intrinsic to the very nature of
sustainability and innovation in the EU program, triggered additional
smart city initiatives. More explicitly, the integrated nature of the smart
funding from the EU, allowing the aspirations for the project to be
city approach to urban planning might make it difficult to single out
raised.
and measure certain elements and objectives of a smart city.
Similarly, in Nottingham, additional EU funding made it possible to
The organizational side of the smart city agenda is to promote an
expand the local district heating scheme to include the demonstration
integrated approach towards urban planning, breaking down silos,
area of Sneinton. Nottingham has the oldest and one of the largest
crossing barriers, and working dynamically and reflexively to address
district heating schemes in the UK, but this had mostly been employed
various urban challenges. Such integration is seen as essential for the
in the west of Nottingham. It was relatively easily expandable by con-
successful adaptation of a smart city in the literature (Bibri and
necting it to gas tanks near the pipeline, and the REMOURBAN took this
Krogstie, 2017), in the framing of the EU SCC program, and by many of
opportunity in the Sneinton district. Thus, the project built on local
the informants in the three case cities. In Nottingham, a city council
preconditions and plans, and used EU funding to draw on these to ob-
representative stated her belief that:
tain the development considered most suitable by local stakeholders.
If we had not been a part of this project, [urban developments] would
have been very separate, very segregated. The transport team would be
4.1.2. Smart sustainability interventions are not necessarily high tech
doing their thing, the energy team would be doing their thing, housing
Smartness is typically associated with advanced technological in-
would be doing their thing, and you wouldn't be getting the coordinated
novation. However, in our case cities, we found that these solutions
overview over what difference it makes to do all of this together.
were rarely driven by cutting-edge technologies or advanced techno-
logical innovation per se. Innovation was certainly important. An informant from the Stockholm energy company Stokab also
However, requirements for high levels of innovation can be overcome highlighted the integral role of coordination in smart projects. In
by quite incremental advances, as Stavanger found in its project. To Stockholm, all fiber-based solutions were integrated into one common
gain Horizon 2020 funding for smart investments in the city, the fiber network managed by a daughter company of Stokab called ST Erik
Lighthouse cities were required to demonstrate innovative first-of-a- to avoid duplication of services and data collection. Taking over ser-
kind solutions. Thus, if a smart initiative did not have an element of vices commonly managed by external companies prior to the smart
innovativeness, it would not comply with the project requirements. initiative, the common fiber network now incorporated Internet cables
When they included the roll-out of electric buses, as part of their smart and wires for lighting and ventilation in addition to city functions such
city agenda, Stavanger municipality employees were concerned about as public cameras, locks, and the operation of bridges and traffic sig-
failing to meet EU requirements for innovation, as electric buses in nals. The smart agenda was the motivation for joining these services.
themselves are no longer particularly innovative. However, as the buses “Rather than laying cables next to each other, you share them,” the
needed double-glazed windows owing to the Nordic climate, the EV Stokab informant explained, arguing that this would simplify the col-
buses had an innovative edge, and were accepted as innovative by the lection and common use of big data in addition to reducing the number
EU requirements (interview). of duplicate datasets produced by different actors as all data commu-
Other smart initiatives also demonstrated the relative simplicity of nication was via the same network.
the smart innovations. As mentioned above, all of the Lighthouse pro- Thus, the interconnection of services, management and organization
jects included the retrofitting of buildings. This was mostly mere is a vital aspect of the smart city agenda. However, this interconnection
building adjustments to existing buildings, with the addition of incre- may also create difficulties in identifying and measuring the outcomes
mental innovations in the process. In Stavanger, the retrofitting in- of specific smart interventions or the goals achieved in specific target
cluded the integration of smart wall panels with the ability to display areas. Qualities such as sustainability are rendered hard to observe and
various forms of information that could help improve urban flows, in- measure in isolation because there is no longer one strand of a project,
crease livability, and promote sustainable lifestyles. One goal was to but rather projects implemented across many smart initiatives. This
integrate real-time data on weather and transport into such panels; may be the reason for the smart city agenda in Stockholm being de-
thus, citizens could make informed choices on the routes and modes of scribed as hard to label a success or a failure, as the program manager
transportation they used for their daily commutes and leisure trips. wrote in a blog post:
Such innovations are not necessarily radical, nor do they in themselves When we look at the first set of evaluation data collected, we can see
reduce emissions greatly. However, the projects assume that even in- promising results, no results at all and negative results at the same time. In
cremental innovations can potentially affect behavior and social prac- many cases, we simply do not have enough data to give an accurate answer.
tice. For example, during demonstrations of the Stockholm project, the Also in many cases the systems have not been fully optimized and/or are
panels showing electricity consumption were projected to make con- running on partial capacity, so it is too early to determine whether they are
sumers more aware of their consumption levels and thereby likely to working well (Hakosalo, 2018).
reduce consumption through nudging. They do not primarily constitute Across the cases, interviewees say that they seek clearer measure-
a radical technological innovation, but rather an incremental socio- ments and data to evaluate the achievements of the projects. Despite

923
H. Haarstad and M.W. Wathne Energy Policy 129 (2019) 918–925

smart cities being described as abundant with data, it is problematic to specific cases. The article has provided an empirical examination of
identify parameters for sustainability per se. At the same time, the three Lighthouse cities funded by the Horizon 2020 SCC program. In
sustainability achievement of smartness may lie within the more com- each of the cases we considered how urban energy sustainability was
plex processes of integration, connectivity and synergies that are hard promoted through the smart city projects.
to measure. The overarching conclusions we draw from our study are threefold.
For example, one of the smart initiatives in Stavanger was “Blink,” First, while sustainability is not always a major objective of local im-
an electronic health service by which residents could communicate plementation of smart city, the smartness agenda nevertheless increases
with medical personnel through an application connected to their tel- levels of ambition in energy sustainability targets. Second, the sus-
evision. Although it was not implemented as a sustainability measure tainability-related measures in smart cities are rarely driven by ad-
per se, the implementation promoted more sustainable lifestyles by vanced technology, even though the smart city agenda is framed around
reducing the need for urban transport required for trips to the doctor. such innovations. Third, there is significant sustainability potential in
This was highlighted by the Stavanger municipality when they de- cross-sectoral integration, but there are unresolved challenges of ac-
scribed the smart video and video-enabled solutions that formed part of countability for and measurability of these gains. As the third conclu-
their smart agenda: sion underlines, the sustainability effects of a smart city are difficult to
Reducing demand for travel to meetings or medical consultations can isolate and measure, because of processes intrinsic to the smart city
make a difference. In addition, increased telecommuting may reduce carbon- itself. When a smart city project aims to integrate solutions, processes
emitting mobility, and the energy and time consumed during transport. Thus, and actors and counter inefficiencies associated with silo-oriented or-
the impact of innovative video would also fall within the realm of energy and ganization, it becomes nearly impossible to measure energy sustain-
transportation (Stavanger Municipality, 2017). ability as a discrete target. In smart city initiatives, sustainability be-
In organizational terms, smart reorganization serves to weave sus- comes interwoven into a set of other goals and agendas, all interfering
tainability interventions into other sectors. While the state-mandated with and influencing each other, creating possible feedback loops and
Climate and Energy Action Plans were assigned to one low-resourced unpredictable outcomes. The level to which sustainability is evident in
department, a smart city office was established directly under the this smart city fabric seems to be influenced not only by in-
Mayor. The job of its “Smart City Czar” is to coordinate smart action stitutionalized factors such as preexisting plans and budgets as well as
across the city departments (interview with the head of Stavanger smart requirements in the Horizon 2020 SCC program, but also by non-
city section). He described his job as to identify synergies and improve institutionalized factors, with perhaps most noteworthy factor being the
the usability of big data both outside and inside the municipality. unpredictability of the people and departments that eventually assume
However, he argued that the integration could also facilitate “pushes” leadership in the smart projects. Arguably, the sustainability outcomes
towards more sustainable projects and processes. This can be seen as a also depend on citizens' uptake of the smart agendas, and may involve
way of mainstreaming urban smartness and its sustainability potential, continuance and worsening of existing habits.
but it may serve equally well to diffuse responsibilities for climate ac- Whereas the effects of traditional climate planning were more easily
tion. measurable by traditional means (output from transportation and en-
In turn, smartness embeds sustainability in cross-sectorial policies, ergy use of buildings), the sustainability effects of smart cities are more
which makes them difficult to account for and measure. It has been ambiguous. The way we understand and measure energy sustainability
pointed out by others that measuring sustainability involves complex in a smart city needs reconsideration. We have suggested that sustain-
epistemological challenges (Miller, 2005; Boyko et al., 2012). In smart ability profiles are influenced largely by preexisting plans, budgets, and
cities as well, numbers properly capturing the sustainability achieve- EU requirements, as well by as the people and departments who assume
ments may be evasive. Cross-sectorial integration may lead to sig- responsibility for the smart agendas in the cities. At the urban level, the
nificant sustainability achievements across sectors. At the same time, smart city agenda is still at an early stage. Rapid technological devel-
such integration may also cause sustainability concerns to fall between opment, uptake and upscaling is likely to shape further developments
the cracks in existing governance structures. With no climate division or and the embeddedness of smart city sustainability. One may expect the
city council employees designated to work on these issues, im- integration of services and the development of big data to lead to sus-
plementation of policies may have modest impact. From this, we argue tainable solutions of yet unknown scope. Simultaneously, such city
that interweaving sustainability into the smart agenda is potent, but it developments may obscure sustainability issues and disguise smart
has potential pitfalls. It may lead to cross-sectorial integration of sus- measures to promote economic growth and innovation as energy sus-
tainability into all fields of urban development, but it also has the po- tainability measures. By and large, these outcomes are highly con-
tential to obscure sustainability efforts as they are blended in to a wider tingent, and to a significant extent determined by the implementation
agenda driven by other local concerns. This interweaving of climate of the smart city agenda by policy makers on the ground.
goals into wider urban development requires new approaches by re-
searchers exploring the sustainability of smart measures. Funding

5. Conclusions and policy implications This work was supported by the Bergen Research Foundation (grant
number BFS2016REK04).
In this paper we advance understanding of the links between smart
city initiatives on the one hand and sustainability on the other: Do References
smart city projects catalyze urban energy sustainability? We argue that
we need to analyze smartness as a frame for action that is employed and Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., et al., 2017. What are the differences be-
negotiated locally by actors seeking to promote sustainability alongside tween sustainable and smart cities? Cities 60, 234–245.
Alawadhi, S., Aldama-Nalda, A., Chourabi, H., et al., 2012. Building understanding of
other policy objectives. This contributes significantly to the existing smart city initiatives. In: Scholl, H.J., Janssen, M., Wimmer, M.A. (Eds.), Electronic
literature related to smart cities and sustainability, which tends to fall Government: 11th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2012, Kristiansand,
into two main categories. The instrumental literature has little to say Norway, September 3-6, 2012. Proceedings. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 40–53.
about the social integration of smart solutions into cities, while the Angelidou, M., 2015. Smart cities: a conjuncture of four forces. Cities 47, 95–106.
critical literature addresses socioeconomic interests and implications of Antrobus, D., 2011. Smart green cities: from modernization to resilience? Urban Res.
the smartness agenda rather than how it is applied in actual projects. Pract. 4, 207–214.
Barresi, A., Pultrone, G., 2013. European strategies for smarter cities. TeMA J. Land Use 6,
Our empirical contribution is to shed light on the sustainability po- 61–72.
tential for smart city solutions by examining their implementation in

924
H. Haarstad and M.W. Wathne Energy Policy 129 (2019) 918–925

Beatley, T., Collins, R., 2000. Smart growth and beyond: transitioning to a sustainable J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 8, 131–136.
society.(managing growth in the twenty-first century: philosophies, strategies, in- Kitchin, R., 2014b. The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. Geojournal 79, 1–14.
stitutions.). Va. Environ. Law J. 19, 287–322. Kramers, A., Höjer, M., Lövehagen, N., et al., 2014. Smart sustainable cities – exploring
Benford, R.D., Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview ICT solutions for reduced energy use in cities. Environ. Model. Softw. 56, 52–62.
and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611–639. Lazaroiu, G.C., Roscia, M., 2012. Definition methodology for the smart cities model.
Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., 2004. De-materialising and re-materialising: digital technologies Energy 47, 326–332.
and the environment. Futures 36, 903–920. Lee, J.H., Hancock, M.G., Hu, M.-C., 2014. Towards an effective framework for building
Bibri, S.E., Krogstie, J., 2017. Smart sustainable cities of the future: an extensive inter- smart cities: lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 89,
disciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 31, 183–212. 80–99.
Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., Amitrano, C.C., et al., 2016. ICT and sustainability in smart cities Luque-Ayala, A., Marvin, S., 2015. Developing a critical understanding of smart ur-
management. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 29, 132–147. banism? Urban Stud. 52, 2105–2116.
Boyko, C.T., Gaterell, M.R., Barber, A.R.G., et al., 2012. Benchmarking sustainability in March, H., 2016. The smart city and other ICT-led techno-imaginaries: any room for
cities: the role of indicators and future scenarios. Glob. Environ. Chang. 22. dialogue with degrowth? J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1694–1703.
Calvillo, C.F., Sánchez-Miralles, A., Villar, J., 2016. Energy management and planning in March, H., Ribera-Fumaz, R., 2016. Smart contradictions: the politics of making
smart cities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 273–287. Barcelona a Self-sufficient city. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 23, 816–830.
Caprotti, F., Cowley, R., Flynn, A., et al., 2016. Smart-eco Cities in the UK: Trends and Martin, C., Evans, J., Karvonen, A., et al., 2019. Smart-sustainability: a new urban fix?
City Profiles 2016. Exeter: University of Exeter (SMART-ECO Project). Sustain. Cities Soc. 45, 640–648.
Carvalho, L., 2015. Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Camb. J. Martin, C.J., Evans, J., Karvonen, A., 2018. Smart and sustainable?: five tensions in the
Reg. Econ. Soc. 8, 43–60. visions and practices of the smart-sustainable city in Europe and North America.
Cowley, R., Caprotti, F., 2018. Smart City as Anti-planning in the UK. Environment and Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 133, 269–278.
Planning D: Society and Space. McFarlane, C., Söderström, O., 2017. On Alternative Smart Cities: from a Technology-
Datta, A., 2015. New urban utopias of postcolonial India:‘Entrepreneurial urbanization’ in Intensive to a Knowledge-Intensive Smart Urbanism. City. pp. 1–17.
Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues Human Geogr. 5, 3–22. Meijer, A., Bolívar, M.P.R., 2016. Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on
de Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., et al., 2015. Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbo- smart urban governance. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 82, 392–408.
n–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sus- Miller, C., 2005. New civic epistemologies of quantification: making sense of indicators of
tainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 109, 25–38. local and global sustainability. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 30, 403–432.
Deakin, M., 2014. Smart cities: the state-of-the-art and governance challenge. J. Univ. Mitchell, W.J., 1999. e-topia: Urban Life, Jim–But Not As We Know It. Mit Press, United
Ind. Gov. Innov. Entrep. 1, 1–16. States.
Di Dio, S., La Gennusa, M., Peri, G., et al., 2018. Involving people in the building up of Mundoli, S., Unnikrishnan, H., Nagendra, H., 2017a. The “Sustainable” in smart cities:
smart and sustainable cities: how to influence commuters' behaviors through a mobile ignoring the importance of urban ecosystems. Decision 44, 103–120.
app game. Sustain. Cities Soc. 42, 325–336. Mundoli, S., Unnikrishnan, H., Nagendra, H., 2017b. The “Sustainable” in smart cities:
EIP-SCC, 2018. General Assembly 2018 Summary Report. European Innovation ignoring the importance of urban ecosystems. Offic. J. Indian Inst. Manag. Calcutta
Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, Sofia, Bulgaria. 44, 103–120.
European Commission, 2016. Horizon 2020 - Work Programme 2016 - 2017. European Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A.C., et al., 2014. Current trends in Smart City in-
Commission European Commission Decision C (2016) 4614 of 25 July 2016. itiatives: some stylised facts. Cities 38, 25–36.
[Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/ Peck, J., Theodore, N., 2010. Mobilizing policy: models, methods, and mutations.
h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-focus_en.pdf, Accessed date: 8 Geoforum 41, 169–174.
September 2017. Ramamurthy, A., Devadas, M., 2013. Smart Sustainable Cities: an Integrated Planning
Fernandez-Anez, V., Fernández-Güell, J.M., Giffinger, R., 2018. Smart City implementa- Approach towards Sustainable. Urban Energy Systems, India.
tion and discourses: an integrated conceptual model. The case of Vienna. Cities 78, Remourban. (n.d.) Low Temperature District Heating (LTDH).
4–16. Robinson, J., 2015. ‘Arriving at’ urban policies: the topological spaces of urban policy
Gabrys, J., 2014. Programming environments: environmentality and citizen sensing in the mobility. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 39, 831–834.
smart city. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 32, 30–48. Rocco, P., Carmela, G., Adriana, G., 2013. Towards an urban planners' perspective on
Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., et al., 2007. City-ranking of European Medium- Smart City. TeMA J. Land Use 6, 5–17.
Sized Cities. Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., et al., 2011. Smart Cities and the Future Internet:
Grandin, J., Haarstad, H., Kjærås, K., et al., 2018. The politics of rapid urban transfor- towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
mation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 31, 16–22. Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 431–446.
GrowSmarter. (n.d.) Lighthouse City: Stockholm. Spence, A., Pidgeon, N., 2010. Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of
Haarstad, H., 2016. Where are urban energy transitions governed? Conceptualizing the distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 20, 656–667.
complex governance arrangements for low-carbon mobility in Europe. Cities 54, Stavanger Municipality, 2017. Triangulum. Available at: https://www.stavanger.
4–10. kommune.no/samfunnsutvikling/prosjekter/triangulum/.
Haarstad, H., 2017. Constructing the sustainable city: examining the role of sustainability Stockholm städ, 2018. GrowSmarter – Smarta Urbana Lösningar.
in the ‘smart city’ discourse. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 19, 423–437. Stone, D., 2017. Understanding the transfer of policy failure: bricolage, experimentalism
Haarstad, H., Wathne, M.W., 2018. Smart cities as strategic actors: insights from EU and translation. Pol. Polit. 45, 55–70.
Lighthouse projects in Stavanger, Stockholm, and Nottingham. In: Karvonen, A., Triangulum. (n.d.) City of Stavanger, Norway.
Cugurullo, F., Caprotti, F. (Eds.), Inside Smart Cities: Place, Politics and Urban Trindade, E.P., Hinnig, M.P.F., da Costa, E.M., et al., 2017. Sustainable development of
Innovation. Routledge. smart cities: a systematic review of the literature. J. Open Innov. Technol. Market
Hakosalo, M., 2018. Stockholm Blog #9: looking at first evaluation results. In: Complex. 3, 11.
GrowSmarter. GrowSmarter [Internet] Available from: http://www.grow-smarter. Van de Velde, L., Verbeke, W., Popp, M., et al., 2010. The importance of message framing
eu/inform/blog-updates/blog-archive/?c=search&keyword=stockholm_blog, for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy.
Accessed date: August 2018. Energy Policy 38, 5541–5549.
Hollands, R.G., 2008. Will the real smart city please stand up?: intelligent, progressive or Vanolo, A., 2014. Smartmentality: the smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Stud. 51,
entrepreneurial? City 12, 303–320. 883–898.
Hollands, R.G., 2015. Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Camb. J. Reg. Vanolo, A., 2016. Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow's
Econ. Soc. 8, 61–77. smart cities. Futures 82, 26.
Jepson, E.J., Edwards, M.M., 2010. How possible is sustainable urban development? An Viale Pereira, G., Cunha, M.A., Lampoltshammer, T.J., et al., 2017. Increasing colla-
analysis of planners' perceptions about new urbanism, smart growth and the ecolo- boration and participation in smart city governance: a cross-case analysis of smart
gical city. Plann. Pract. Res. 25, 417–437. city initiatives. Inf. Technol. Dev. 23, 526–553.
Karvonen, A., Cugurullo, F., Caprotti, F., 2019. Inside Smart Cities: Place, Politics and Viitanen, J., Kingston, R., 2014. Smart cities and green growth: outsourcing democratic
Urban Innovation. Routledge, London. and environmental resilience to the global technology sector. Environ. Plan. A 46,
Kazhamiakin, R., Marconi, A., Perillo, M., et al., 2015. Using Gamification to Incentivize 803–819.
Sustainable Urban Mobility. Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., 2018. Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of
Kitchin, R., 2014a. Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings. Camb. cities? Land Use Pol. 73, 49–58.

925