ABSTRACT
In recent years, discourse on urban development and planning has shifted its emphasis to smartness. Latest studies might offer ideas about planning objectives regarding territorial cohesion and how to meet the demand for information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure. However, so far there is barely any literature on smart regions as relational and hybrid phenomena looking at urban and rural areas as being spatially interlinked. The article aims to generate a deeper theoretical understanding of smart regions by discussing hybridization and peripheralization processes and applying them to debates on smart regions. By merging these perspectives, these authors advocate a diversification of meaning and scope which underscores the involvement of actors in the social (re-)construction of regions. A new analytical perspective on smart regions will be suggested that distinguishes between the three dimensions of discourse, implementation and regulation and refers to concomitant spatial effects as well as to implications for planning practices and procedures. Therewith, the paper encourages critical reflection on normative concepts of smart regions as well as on the usability of ICT for solving local problems.
1. Smart cities, smart regions? Trends and debates revisited
The twenty-first century has been labelled the urban age (Amin & Thrift, Citation2002; Brenner, Citation2014; Soja & Kanai, Citation2010). Starting in the late 1990s, major cities and metropolitan areas became particularly prominent in discourses about spatial development. So-called global cities were said to concentrate economic power (Sassen, Citation1991) and described as hotspots of creativity (Florida, Citation2002), as well as anchors in a network of global flows (Castells, Citation1996). To this day, various academic debates reiterate the significance of metropolises and cities, e.g. in discussions about their role as drivers of climate change, but also as centres of innovation. Academic debates mostly focus on the ecological challenges caused by increasing resource and energy consumption (Albino, Berardi, & Dangelico, Citation2015; Luque, McFarlane, & Marvin, Citation2017, p. 80; Shearmur, Charron, & Pajevic, Citation2017). Additionally, they often highlight the willingness and capacity of major cities to act on their own accord in times of shifting power relations between nation states and regions (Hodson & Marvin, Citation2017, p. 93).
At the same time, it becomes clear that cities can no longer be pictured as isolated entities (Amin & Thrift, Citation2002). In the context of governance and the reconfiguration of metropolitan areas (Brenner, Citation2014; Soja, Citation2000), cities are seen as ambiguous and difficult to define. They are seen as regionalized (Brenner & Schmid, Citation2015; Soja, Citation2000), as well as heterogeneous forms (Sieverts, Citation2003; Young & Keil, Citation2010). This thinking is also relevant in view of smart cities. However, recent contributions on smart cities largely ignore those insights and narrowly examine urban cores, selected neighbourhoods or the administrative boundaries of cities (Russo, Corrado, & Paola, Citation2016). The body of literature on smartness in the regional context starts growing like in debates regarding smart countries (Wiechmann & Terfrüchte, Citation2017), digital villages (Entwicklungsagentur Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., Citation2018; Fennell et al., Citation2018), smart territories (D’Angelo, Ferretti, & Ghini, Citation2017; Garcia-Ayllon & Miralles, Citation2015; Tedim, Leone, & Xanthopoulos, Citation2016) and smart regions (Greco & Cresta, Citation2017; Morandi, Rolando, & Di Vita, Citation2016; Priano, Armas, & Guerra, Citation2016).
In our paper, we advocate using the term smart region which has already been introduced in debates about digitalization in spatial development, although it is rather fuzzy and lacks a clear definition (Caragliu, Del Bo, & Nijkamp, Citation2011; Giffinger et al., Citation2007; Greco & Cresta, Citation2017).
By introducing a new analytical perspective on smart regions that is based on a relational and constructivist understanding, this paper aims to contribute to a deeper theoretical understanding of the matter. Firstly, the authors do this by reviewing current definitions of smart regions and introducing their own one (section 2). Secondly, the paper then draws on debates regarding hybridization and peripheralization (section 3) and analyses which insights they offer for the aforementioned definition of smart regions. By combining these perspectives (section 4), the paper thereafter advocates a relational and participatory shift vis-à-vis smart regions and a discussion about the respective consequences for planning practices and procedures. The conclusion (section 5) underscores that one cannot grasp smart regions analytically without considering their urban-rural interrelations, as well as the social actors that (re-)construct them. Emphasizing these dimensions in reflections on smart regions constitutes a shift towards a more critical stance on normative concepts of smart regions as well as on the usability of ICT for solving local problems and transforming regions.
2. Towards a deeper understanding of smart regions
What we know about smart regions is largely based upon debates on smart cities. To develop a proper conceptualization of smart regions, the authors first turn their attention to the smart city discourse.
In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature on strategies regarding the promotion of digitalization processes within the political and administrative boundaries of cities (Breuer, Walravens, & Ballon, Citation2014; Caragliu et al., Citation2011; Cocchia, Citation2014; Vanolo, Citation2013). Since the notion of smart cities covers a range of different approaches on how to foster urban efficiency, technological innovation and life quality, it lacks a clear definition of what a smart city actually entails. Almost every smart city strategy deals with ICT and how it can help reorganize the urban metabolism in a more efficient way. Smartness is therefore understood to denote an enhanced urban technological infrastructure through means of digitalization. In the context of urban planning, Giffinger et al. (Citation2007, p. 10) characterize the smart city to mean a ‘certain ability of a city’ to qualify as ‘smart’. In their study on medium-sized European smart cities, they identify six constitutive characteristics of such cities: a smart economy, smart people, smart governance, smart mobility, a smart environment and smart living. The paper points out that a smart city is
well performing in a forward looking way […], built on the “smart” combination of endowments and activities of self–decisive, independent and aware citizens. (Giffinger et al., Citation2007, p. 11)
The concept of smart sustainable cities claims to be an integrated response to rapid urbanization and the integrating of ICT into planning processes of cities (Bibri & Krogstie, Citation2017; Höjer & Wangel, Citation2015). The International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU3) Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities defines a smart sustainable city as
an innovative city that uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects (ITU, Citation2015).
These studies, however, predominantly examine cities. Within the field of urban political ecology, Angelo and Wachsmuth (Citation2014, p. 20) criticize a certain ‘methodological cityism’, stating that ‘the object of analysis in the study of contemporary urbanization must be “urban society” rather than the city per se […].’ Morandi et al. (Citation2016, p. 42) also propose to traverse administrative borders between urban and rural areas when conceptualizing smart regions by also looking at peri-urban and intra-urban areas – a suggestion we will grasp on in our analytical perspective on smart regions.
Current research on smart regions is strongly influenced by an economic perspective with an emphasis on growth, innovation and policy strategies (Calzada, Citation2013; Camagni & Capello, Citation2013; Greco & Cresta, Citation2017; Parada, Citation2017; Priano et al., Citation2016). The main focus is on how technological innovation and digitalization can facilitate and improve service provision in regions. However, behavioural aspects, participatory approaches and urban-rural-relations are only marginally considered.
Another notion attributed to discussions on smart regions is that of smart territories (D’Angelo et al., Citation2017; Garcia-Ayllon, Citation2018; Tedim et al., Citation2016). Relying on a more geographical, techno-centric understanding of smart environments, it makes use of integrated territorial planning concepts by taking a leap from the local to the regional scale.
Methodologically, previous studies on smart territories have deployed quantitative methods, utilizing geographic information system (GIS) data and modelling simulations. For instance, the study by D’Angelo et al. (Citation2017, p. 16) is based on a multi-level simulation of smart services for decentralized territories and indicates these could be inexpensive, adaptive, self-configuring and robust. Tedim et al. (Citation2016) conducted a SWOT analysis to develop strategic planning tools in wildfire risk management. Using an enhanced integrated planning model, the authors champion a new governance model that includes local communities and aims to prevent wildfires through strategic planning policies. Garcia-Ayllon (Citation2018), meanwhile, puts an emphasis on the governance of smart territories by analysing land use and sustainability along the Mediterranean coast. In the context of Latin America, Parada (Citation2017, p. 1) remarks that the creation of smart regions requires a ‘sufficient degree of social and institutional density’, highlighting that certain social and participatory requirements must be fulfilled for the successful economic implementation of ICT in large scale environments. By accentuating the role of actors and institutions, Parada (Citation2017) shifts attention to the socio-spatial framing of digital transformations. Debates on smart territories thus contribute to the development of integrated planning strategies on the regional level, though a techno-centric perspective is predominant. This perspective will be complemented by this paper.
By contrast, Shearmur et al. (Citation2017, p. 25) estimate that the diffusion of digital technologies in regions, meant as rural regions, is less intermediated by local actors and the public sphere than it is monitored and debated in cities, thus indicating imbalances in governance structures. Indeed, Shearmur et al. (Citation2017) stress that smart regions are the result of the dynamics in different economic sectors. According to this view, smart regions are constructed as a black box without taking into consideration participatory issues and matters of social integration. The implementation of ICT systems in regions follows notions towards efficiency and technological positivism. An integrated, holistic view of smart regions is not adopted yet.
We argue that a broad understanding of a region is necessary for a thorough analysis of smart regions since strategic responses to challenges of digital transformations are required in a wide range of different spatial settings. This includes developmental challenges resulting from an intensive and increasing use of resources, energy and land, as well as growing interdependencies and mutual relations but is not limited to those challenges.
Therewith, we pursue a relational understanding of space (Giddens, Citation1997; Löw, Citation2016; Werlen, Citation2017). According to this perspective, ascribing certain qualities to a region depends on respective epistemological interest (Werlen, Citation2017, p. 62). Thus, spaces are created through actors’ social practices which occur in reaction to material and institutional structures and thereby either reproduce or change them (Giddens, Citation1997; Löw, Citation2016). Hence, notions of relational space link structures and agency, thereby conceptualizing regions as social constructs (Christmann, Citation2016; Löw, Citation2016).
Thus, we suggest to define smart regions as
diverse urban-rural areas that are spatially reframed by digital technologies and the respective social practices in a variety of fields (citizenship, governance, economy, environment, mobility, infrastructure) on a discursive, implemental and regulative level. The concept of smart regions follows a relational and social constructivist understanding of spaces and emphasises an integrated approach towards the social (re-)construction of smart regions by actors and their networks.
Therefore, we can speak of smart regions with an analytical focus on (1) discourses and debates, (2) practical implementations and (3) institutionalization and regulation, e.g. its spatial effects. We illustrate this analytical perspective using the example of Helsinki Smart Region (Citation2019). Referring to the discursive level (1), Helsinki Smart Region explicitly uses the term ‘smart region’ to describe the development concept in the Helsinki-Uusimaa region. Considering solely the discursive level, smart regions already seem to be ubiquitous. But smart regions are not solely to be experienced through discourses, but become apparent through certain actions on the level of implementation (2). Thus, in analytically pointing out the process of implementation, it becomes observable whether and how smart regions are created through application processes. Coming back to the Finnish example, the implemental dimension is represented by pilot projects on driverless electric buses, models of on-demand public transport, projects making socially excluded groups digitally active citizens or co-working spaces that are implemented in the wider metropolitan region of Helsinki. All those activities are part of a smart region strategy approved in 2014 by Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council responsible for regional planning and the promotion of regional interests and illustrate the analytical level of implementation (2) within our definition of smart region. The strategy is then closely connected to the Europe 2020 strategy and its policies and financial instruments, as well as to national and regional policies and funding (Helsinki Smart Region, Citation2019). This refers to our third analytical dimension, namely the level of regulation (3), meanwhile, addressing orders, regimes and regulatory systems which enable and restrict the process of creating smart regions. Hence, we speak of smart regions when activities on all three levels of discourse, implementation and regulation are observable on a regional scale.
Therewith, our analytical approach towards smart regions allows for novel ways of rethinking smart regions beyond binary dualisms like the urban vs. the rural. It is for this reason that this paper now turns to hybridization and peripheralization research.
3. Smart regions, hybridization and peripheralization
In the following, the phenomena of hybridization and peripheralization are discussed in separate sections in order to trace central debates surrounding both processes and to elucidate their relevance for an analytical redefinition of smart regions.
3.1.. Hybridization and smart regions
Smart regions not only refer to the territorial level and are not limited to rural regions. The authors thus advocate an understanding of smart regions that includes urban as well as rural territories whose characteristics more and more intertwine (Mölders, Othengrafen, Stock, & Zibell, Citation2016, p. 55). Indeed, this process is known as hybridization in scientific literature. This chapter will examine whether a relational conceptualization of smart regions can benefit from hybridization research and what this would mean for spatial planning.
Given that more and more city dwellers are buying magazines devoted to country life, subscribing to vegetable delivery services and getting involved in urban gardening, Neu (Citation2016) and Redepenning (Citation2011) speak of a burgeoning rurality in urban regions. In contrast, Lefebvre (Citation2003, p. 14) emphasizes the urban influence on the rural. Increasingly, aspects of the ‘urban fabric’ are manifesting themselves in rural areas, finding expression in infrastructures that enhance the accessibility (motorways, bypass roads etc.) and connectivity (ICT) of rural areas, profoundly transforming social interactions.
The burgeoning urbanity within the rural and vice versa increasingly blur the boundaries between both realms, thereby challenging the idea of distinct urban and rural spaces (Davoudi & Stead, Citation2002; Nell, Citation2014; Öğdül, Citation2010; Pahl, Citation1964). New types of relationships are occurring based on multidimensional interactions and interconnections in broad territorial spaces that traverse geographical and administrative boundaries (Ravazzoli, Götsch, & Hoffmann, Citation2018, p. 601). Concepts like that of a ‘rural urban-continuum’ (Dewey, Citation1960), of different ‘Figuren des Ländlichen’ (figures of the rural) (Redepenning, Citation2011), ‘urbane Dörfer’ (urban villages) (Vogelgesang, Kopp, Jacob, & Hahn, Citation2016), ‘Stadtlandschaften’ (urban landscapes) (Hofmeister & Kühne, Citation2016) or ‘rurbane Landschaften’ (rurban landscapes) (Langner, Citation2016) emphasize the intermediate connection of urban and rural spaces in their amalgamation, rupture and synthesis (Nell, Citation2014, pp. 179–180).
In recent years, planning debates have undertaken a scientific and conceptional reinterpretation of urban-rural relations. Supra-regional cooperation has been initiated to avoid applying categories like settlement structures and therewith, borders between the urban and the rural have been redefined. The reason for this is to prevent peripheral rural spaces becoming disadvantaged (BBSR & DV, Citation2018) and to ensure equal living conditions (Beirat für Raumentwicklung, Citation2018, p. 2). The concept of rural and urban partnerships (European Commission, Citation2018; TA, Citation2020, Citation2017), the RURBAN approach (partnership for sustainable urban-rural development) and various ‘supraregional partnerships’ (BBSR & DV, Citation2018) are examples of such new urban-rural relations.
However, most planning processes still treat urban and rural areas as separated entities. This dichotomy contradicts an integrated approach towards regional development, ‘resulting in a lack of awareness of the urban-rural relationships and non-cooperation between urban and rural stakeholders’ (Calabrò & Cassalia, Citation2018, p. 574). Hybrid spatial structures, respectively, are not deemed a common spatial development category. Yet in order to implement adequate planning strategies for smart regions, dichotomous ideas of the urban and the rural should be avoided. Drawing on insights from hybridization research helps question existing spatial typologies, adjust planning concepts and develop new strategies for understanding hybrid spaces. It also means accepting that hybrid spaces constitute a planning framework for which new approaches are needed. This requires adopting a relational understanding of urban-rural spaces, where spatial planners are confronted with a patchwork of settlement structures (Hofmeister & Kühne, Citation2016). Furthermore, physical categories like proximity and distance are less important with given the influence of relational, interconnected, digital and intelligent solutions. Instead of ‘drawing new “inflexible” boundaries and defining clearly demarked city regions (translated by the authors)’ (Mölders et al., Citation2016, p. 56), smart regions are shaped by informal cooperation and governance processes which establish a ‘system of integrated action’ (Garcia-Ayllon & Miralles, Citation2015, p. 4). The combination of different planning instruments and governance modes (e.g. restricting settlement activities, protecting open spaces etc.), and debates over how a region should develop and how this could be achieved, play a major role also (Mölders et al., Citation2016, p. 56). Hybrid spaces are going along with new planning concepts, as well as self-organised and ‘soft’ forms of governance (Allmendinger, Haughton, Knieling, & Othengrafen, Citation2015; Piorr, Ravetz, & Tosics, Citation2011) based on voluntary networks and transsectoral cooperation between various actors from politics, public administration, the economy and civil society to manage rural-urban interactions. Our analysis of hybridization debates reveals that apart from rural-urban interactions, social actors, participatory processes and the emergence of networks are shifting into focus.
Hybridization debates also shed light on the diversity of spatial structures and provide a nuanced perspective on regional diversity which helps improve planning smart regions (Wiechmann & Terfrüchte, Citation2017, p. 7). Consequently, the smart region concept needs to be modified if it is to account for spatial diversity, regional heterogeneity and new forms of urban-rural relations.
3.2. Peripheralization and smart regions
A deeper theoretical understanding of smart regions can be also developed by drawing on debates regarding peripheralization. They focus on patterns of socio-spatial disparities against the backdrop of structural changes, political transformations and unequal spatial dynamics unfolding in Europe (Bernt, Bürk, Kühn, Liebmann, & Sommer, Citation2018; Herrschel, Citation2012; Kühn & Lang, Citation2015).Footnote1
Peripheralization should be ‘viewed as a “multi-dimensional process” of the demotion or downgrading of a socio-spatial area in relation to other socio-spatial areas, one that can be explained with reference to the interaction of economic, social and political dimensions’ (Kühn, Citation2015, p. 374). As a process of social (re-)production, peripheralization results when sub-regions become disconnected from their surroundings through socio-spatial processes of marginalization (Hahne, Citation2018; Kühn & Lang, Citation2015; Neu, Citation2006, p. 13). Although partly normative, peripheralization research, we argue, sheds light on new spatial dynamics in the context of digital transformation processes. It also enables to switch from a techno-centric perspective to a problem-oriented consideration of smart regions and their spatial requirements. Due to mutual interdependencies and different dynamics of digital change, processes of centralization and peripheralization accelerate spatial polarization. While prosperous, growing cities are now considered ideal sites for technological innovation and attract financial investment accordingly (Hollands, Citation2008; Luque-Ayala & Marvin, Citation2015; Söderström et al., Citation2014), peripheralised areas are less desirable. Trends of polarization are reflected in discussions on the digital divide (Haughton, Citation2011) in the context of smart regions, highlighting the role that nation states and other governmental actors could play to ameliorate this issue (Bundesregierung, Citation2018; Land Brandenburg, Citation2018). To avoid growing spatial disparities in terms of access to digital infrastructures, state intervention seems likely. The first step seen by state administrations is championing access to digital infrastructure across the entire country (Beirat für Raumordnung, Citation2016). But we assume that implementing smart regions is not only about the technological conditions, but also about encouraging bottom-up strategies to generate understanding, skills and legitimacy among the inhabitants for new digital approaches and stimulate networking and interaction to provide exchange and learning. This will be highlighted by peripheralization research:
Peripheralization research emphasizes a relational understanding of space and the social construction of peripheries (Kühn, Citation2015). It shifts the focus from regarding peripheries as somehow naturally given spaces to treating them as contingent spatio-temporal phenomena (Herrschel, Citation2012; Kühn & Lang, Citation2015), where spatial concentration and marginalization are intensified through dynamic processes occurring in various dimensions and on different scales. Regional studies and policies benefit from taking this relational perspective into account. It can help explain how digital technologies and new actors change networking patterns and thereby potentially alter spatial dynamics. And it emphasizes the importance of investigating how IT companies and the platform economy impact the productions of space, e.g. by drawing (invisible) borders, using information and algorithms to raise awareness of some places (and not others), and controlling the flow of people and materials (Shaw & Graham, Citation2018).
Therefore, peripheralization research can enrich spatial studies examining processes of digital divide on the regional level. By focusing on the interdependence of infrastructural investment, economic concentration and the marginalization in social processes and political decision-making, peripheralization research sheds light on the correlation between digital infrastructure and polarized spatial development. According to this literature, analysing smart cities and smart villages separately therefore makes little sense. Peripheralization scholars thus underscore the interplay between digitalization strategies, cohesive as well as sustainable spatial development.
Peripheralization theories stress the relevance of participatory approaches in creating smart regions. Without them, peripheralization processes may be exacerbated by proceeding in a spatially selective way and by overemphasizing the importance of urban qualities. This also means a shift away from focussing exclusively on technological solutions which are implemented by IT companies that strive for profit and new markets (Kitchin, Citation2014; Luque-Ayala & Marvin, Citation2015). Otherwise, technology-based strategies that do not take into account participatory processes will compound marginalization, dependency and stigmatization, since knowledge no longer circulates and locals cannot get involved in political decision-making, e.g. regarding regional development strategies or investment.
Thus, decentralized and bottom-up driven approaches, e.g. to create a circular economy or practice alternative forms of production, sharing, work and consumption, offer opportunities for endogenous development and co-production which can bridge the gap between centre and periphery (Gkartzios & Lowe, Citation2019; Hahne, Citation2018; Lange, Citation2017). Regional studies need to analyse how digital technology and ICT can foster bottom-up development approaches and e.g. help overcome physical distances (for instance by providing platforms for sharing and participation) and encourage actors to network within and between regions. Following this perspective, ICT should not be treated the exclusive factor crucial to regional development but merely as a tool towards this end.
4. Towards a relational and a participatory perspective
Drawing on hybridization and peripheralization research shifts attention to a relational understanding of regions that transcends the dichotomy of the urban and the rural. Furthermore, peripheralization research stresses that one cannot grasp spatial processes without also thinking about the actors involved. Based on the substantial overlap between reflections on smart regions and research concerning hybridization and peripheralization processes, we subscribe to a (1) relational and (2) participatory perspective.
(1) Smart regions ought to be understood as relational phenomena that are neither purely urban nor rural. As a result, a perspective that artificially separates smart cities and smart regions is inadequate as it dismisses the diversity and heterogeneity of smart regions. Urban-rural areas cannot be fully understood without studying their interrelations and mutual dependencies to the surrounding environment (Gkartzios & Lowe, Citation2019). Thus, spatial interrelations in regions grow more diffuse and multidirectional (Soja, Citation2000, p. 242). By paying attention to spatial interrelations, discriminatory effects of smart regions as well as processes of social, political and economic downgrading can be mitigated. Conversely, however, other dependencies and vulnerabilities may arise if smart regions are created (Beirat für Raumentwicklung, Citation2018, p. 7).
This refers to the issue of how defining the spatial boundaries of smart regions. We suggest conceptualizing regions beyond their administrative boundaries, because we look at regions on the basis of spatial developments instead of physical appearances that are congruent with municipal administrative borders (Mölders et al., Citation2016, p. 45). This is especially necessary for smart regions pursuing digitalization strategies. It can be assumed that actors network far beyond their immediate local environment and that this changes spatial interactions, functions and mobility patterns. The borders of smart regions, therefore, are socially constructed and influenced by local and extra local actors. This is why Battarra, Gargiulo, Pappalardo, Boiano, and Oliva (Citation2016, p. 7) stress a ‘need to sustain human networks as the real crucial point of Smart Cities. ICTs certainly help. But they come later’. This fact also underscores the importance of analysing how the diffusion of digital technologies in different regions can impact the discursive level, including imagery (videos, pictures and narratives) (Datta, Citation2015; Rose, Citation2018; Vanolo, Citation2016), planning and development practices (e.g. data analysis) on the implemental level, as well as rules and norms on the regulative level. Furthermore, regional research should strengthen methodological approaches that pay attention to and analyse various paths towards digital transformation that should provide thorough support to regional actors involved in this. Empirical research into the different facets of such processes and their interrelations can enhance transparency by fostering dialogue about digitalization processes and their governance.
We argue that a relational perspective on smart regions affords far greater attention to the influence of different levels of action (scale), global networks and dependencies than most approaches on smart regions. Nevertheless, a relational conceptualization of smart regions should also take into consideration contextual challenges, local knowledge and endogenous development opportunities. This will help avoid widespread one-size-fits-all ICT solutions (Kitchin, Citation2014; Shaw & Graham, Citation2018) and instead promotes alternative paths to create diverse smart regions.
(2) Hybridization and peripheralization studies recommend paying more attention to the role of social actors and social relations when conceptualizing smart regions. The actions of regional stakeholders, their cooperation and network strategies as well as power relations are important for understanding different dynamics of digitalization processes and their particular spatial implications. Unfortunately, most studies on smart regions refer to top-down planning without taking into consideration the everyday life of individuals or other social aspects (Coletta, Heaphy, & Kitchin, Citation2019). Regional actors are reduced to users of digital technologies and most efforts are put into supporting the acceptance of those technologies rather than analysing local needs, abilities and agency. Furthermore, debates on smart regions often ignore decentralized bottom-up, open access, and open data strategies and their potentials (Calzada, Citation2013; Kitchin & Lauriault, Citation2014). Instead, most proposed solutions envision closed networks for reasons of efficiency and control (including security).
According to De Falco, Angelidou, and Addie (Citation2019), Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Vienna are examples where open platforms were used to include urban stakeholders in the co-creation of smart solutions. ‘Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that cyberspace is, by definition, neither completely public, nor accessible to everyone, while the collection of large amounts of data does not automatically guarantee progressive smart-city futures’ (De Falco et al., Citation2019, p. 211). Furthermore, those approaches keep in mind stakeholders whereas a big majority of residents is still excluded. For example, in Vienna, residents are not (yet) directly represented in the smart city urban working groups, but are being informed through public relations and social media (Beirat für Raumentwicklung, Citation2018, p. 31; Giffinger, Citation2016). This also applies to the smart city concept of Dublin where citizens are addressed as potential beneficiaries of the smart city, but did not act as participants, co-creators or decision-makers (Coletta et al., Citation2019). In reality, only few citizens actually participate in defining the goals and concepts of spatial development (Bauriedl, Citation2018; Exner, Cepoiu, & Weinzierl, Citation2018) in smart regions.
Participatory processes, we stress, are crucial for imbuing new technological solutions with legitimacy and empowering regional actors. Urban and regional planning builds on methodological and spatial expertise and can help tailor participatory processes to specific regions, thereby enabling democratic and public participation, and ensuring transparency in terms of data production, use and control. Thus, ICT can be a useful tool for fostering a new kind of citizen activism and new forms of community action (Battarra et al., Citation2016, p. 2), which can ‘empower and educate […] citizens so that they can become members of society capable of engaging in a debate about their own environment’ (Allwinkle & Cruickshank, Citation2011, p. 4). This requires a ‘culture of participation’ (Giffinger et al., Citation2007, p. 194) with an informed and self-reliant citizenry. Such smart people (in the sense of Giffinger et al., Citation2007, p. 193) take responsibility and construct space according to their own needs. This highlights the influence of new digital technologies on participatory processes and how this affects democratic engagement or reinforces the digital divide. Insufficient knowledge about new digital technologies, their requirements (e.g. concerning open data) are worth being critically considered. We envisage planners recognizing participatory approaches like that of co-production and more decentralized, heterogeneous, bottom-up governance models to bridge potential spatial disparities within smart regions and avoid new boundaries created by digital technologies. Such a participatory turn requires analysing the interrelations between involved actors and their power relations. Planning studies must develop methodological and theoretical approaches that analyse the relational and participatory dimensions of smart regions and digitalization concepts in order to pave the way for strategies that support diverse regions and foster their digital transformation.
Hence, state programmes should devise digitalization strategies that go far beyond expanding digital infrastructure across the country. For spatial planning this means including approaches that integrate and support the principle of open data, e.g. by supporting public platforms, and encouraging bottom-up strategies in regions that embrace creative formats like future laboratories which cater to the heterogeneity of hybrid spaces.
5. Conclusions
The academic literature on smart regions has lacked an analytical, less normative definition of the concept, thereby limiting its usability in spatial research and practice. Authors often subscribe to dichotomies of regions as either urban or rural areas. By advocating a hybrid, relational approach towards smart regions through the lenses of hybridization and peripheralization, this paper contributes to a much deeper and more nuanced understanding of smart regions.
We define smart regions as diverse urban-rural areas that are spatially reframed by digital technologies and the respective social practices in a variety of fields (citizenship, governance, economy, environment, mobility, infrastructure) on a discursive, implemental and regulative level. The concept of smart regions follows a relational and social constructivist understanding of spaces and emphasizes an integrated approach towards the social (re-)construction of smart regions by actors and their networks.
From an analytical point of view, we can speak of smart regions when a spatial entity including urban-rural relations is perceived as smart and is communicated as such. But smart regions are not solely to be experienced through their discursive effect, but become apparent through certain actions on the implemental level. Those are embedded into the dimension of regulatory systems which enable and restrict smart regions. To analytically define smart regions, activities on all three levels are supposed to be described on a regional scale.
Therewith, we critique a normative, techno-deterministic definition of smart regions and suggest instead a processual understanding. In this way, we add an analytical perspective to the discourse on smart regions that enables extensive empirical investigations of these phenomena and make them distinguishable from other spatial processes of change. This not only allows for comprehensive empirical research but also permits planners to describe, explain, re-frame and adapt to linkages and interactions (Ravazzoli et al., Citation2018) of urban-rural areas as they currently appear in development processes of smart regions.
When referring to concomitant implications for planning practices and procedures of the authors’ analytical notion of smart regions as relational and constructivist phenomena, this can be a starting point for changing planners’ perspectives from becoming to belonging (Neal & Agyeman, Citation2006) smart. Whereas the perspective of becoming smart focuses on the role of technological solutions for attracting investors and tourists, the perspective of belonging includes efforts regarding social recognition, inclusion and diversity and therewith fosters the development of smart solutions in co-creation with the citizens.
In contrast to the top-down view of many approaches on smart regions, hybridization and peripheralization research highlights that smart region concepts should account for actors who co-produce space, and thereby constitute an important role within digital transformation processes. They emphasize the social construction of regions that provide different potentials and barriers in regional development. With an emphasis on participatory approaches self-organised and ‘soft’ forms of participatory governance based on voluntary networks and trans-sectoral cooperation between various actors from politics, public administration, and the economy are shifting into focus. Thus, drawing on hybridization and peripheralization debates contributes to a hybrid, relational and participatory perspective that allows experimentation as well as integrates stakeholder and bottom-up initiatives for sustainable regional development and helps overcome the hegemonic and narrowly techno-centric understanding of smart regions.
Doing so also encourages critical reflection on the usability of ICT for tackling the effects of spatial entanglement. Strengthening the social dimension of smart regions entails empowering involved actors and fostering heterogeneous networks and cooperation. This also means to include three important social dimensions in understanding the role of ICT in smart regions: ICT must allow individuals to act, participate in and reflect on the creation of smart regions. Only then can ICT contribute to a socially inclusive, participatory planning process. Hence, state programmes should devise digitalization strategies that go far beyond expanding digital infrastructure across the country.
For spatial planning this requires to include approaches that embrace and integrate the principle of open data and encouraging regional bottom-up strategies. Those strategies should rely on methodological approaches that can detect and analyse different developmental paths towards digital transformations in order to offer thorough support to regional actors. Thus, planners should take a stake in critically reflect on actors’ interests, constellations and governance arrangements to develop inclusive processes and design platforms for the co-creation of smart regions. Such platforms could stimulate capacity-building, empowerment of citizens and collaborative learning as a precondition for a balanced reconstruction and a strategic development of smart regions. Planning strategies on smart regions require a relational perspective that considers diverse hybrid spaces and recognises social construction processes. Such an analytically based, empirically oriented as well as theoretically enriched concept of smart regions is the necessary precondition to research those phenomena as well as to create integrated planning processes in regions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 The authors favour the peripheralization concept which is mainly discussed in a German and eastern European perspective since it is based on a comprehensive and inclusive understanding of processes creating spatial disparities. It includes theoretical approaches of economic geography, sociology and political sciences to link processes of the production of space to spatial transformations and regional disparities. Nevertheless, we also refer to international research literature to overcome a rather German bias.
References
- Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R.-M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
- Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G., Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2015). Soft spaces, planning and emerging practices of territorial governance. In P. Allmendinger, G. Haughton, J. Knieling, & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Soft spaces in Europe. Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders (pp. 3–22). London: Routledge.
- Allwinkle, S., & Cruickshank, P. (2011). Creating smarter cities: An overview. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2011.601103
- Amin, A., & Thrift, N.-J. (2002). Cities: Reimagining the urban. Cambridge: polity press.
- Angelo, H., & Wachsmuth, D. (2014). Urbanizing urban political ecology: A critique of methodological cityism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1), 16–27. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12105
- Battarra, R., Gargiulo, C., Pappalardo, G., Boiano, A., & Oliva, J. (2016). Planning in the era of information and communication technologies. Discussing the “label: Smart” in South-European cities with environmental and socio-economic challenges. Cities, 59, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.007
- Bauriedl, S. (2018). Smart City Experimente [smart city experiments] – Normierungseffekte in Reallaboren. In S. Bauriedl, & A. Stüver (Eds.), Smart City – kritische Perspektiven auf die Digitalisierung in Städten (pp. 75–86). Bielefeld: transcript.
- BBSR and DV, Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, and German Association for Housing, Urban Development and Spatial Planning (Eds.). (2018, May 28) Partnership for sustainable rural-urban development: Existing evidences. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu–/regional_policy/…/urban_rural/…/rurban_study_long.doc
- Beirat für Raumentwicklung. (2018, August 6). Smart Cities und Smart Regions für eine nachhaltige Raumentwicklung [Smart cities and smart regions for sustainable spatial development]. Retrieved from https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/veroeffentlichungen/themen/heimat/raumordnung/smart–cities–regions–nachhaltige–raumentwicklung.pdf?_blob=ublicationFileandv=2
- Beirat für Raumordnung. (2016). Empfehlung des Beirats für Raumentwicklung Raumentwicklung und Digitale Infrastruktur [spatial development and digital infrastructures]. Retrieved from https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/veroeffentlichungen/themen/heimat-ntegration/raumordnung/raumentwicklung-und-digitale-infrastruktur.pdf;jsessionid=7A2C2132B298F1F26F0BF6209FDED8E6.1_cid364?__blob=publicationFile&v=3
- Bernt, M., Bürk, T., Kühn, M., Liebmann, H., & Sommer, H. (2018, May 22). Stadtkarrieren in peripherisierten Räumen [City careers in peripheralized spaces]. (Working Paper). Erkner. Retrieved from https://leibniz–irs.de/fileadmin/user_upload/IRS_Working_Paper/wp_stadtkarrieren.pdf
- Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smartsustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31(1), 183–212. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016
- Brenner, N. (2014). Urban theory without the outside. In N. Brenner (Ed.), Implosions/explosions: Towards a study of planetary urbanization (pp. 14–35). Berlin: Jovis.
- Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a new epistemology of the urban? City, 19(2–3), 151–182. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2015.1014712
- Breuer, J., Walravens, N., & Ballon, P. (2014). Beyond defining the smart city: Meeting top-down and bottom-up approaches in the middle [Special issue]. Journal of Land use, Mobility and Environment, 7, 153–164. doi: 10.6092/1970-9870/2475
- Bundesregierung. (2018, August 2). Koalitionsvertrag [Coalition agreement]: Ein neuer Aufbruch für Europa, Eine neue Dynamik für Deutschland, Ein neuer Zusammenhalt für unser Land. Retrieved from https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/2018/03/2018–03–14–koalitionsvertrag.html
- Calabrò, F., & Cassalia, G. (2018). Territorial cohesion: Evaluating the urban-rural linkage through the lens of public investments. In A. Bisello, D. Vettorato, P. Laconte, & S. Costa (Eds.), Smart and sustainable planning for cities and regions. Results of SSPCR 2017 (pp. 573–587). Cham: Springer.
- Calzada, I. (2013). Critical social innovation in the smart city era for a city-regional European horizon 2020. P3 T Journal of Public Policies and Territories, 6, 1–20.
- Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: Toward smart innovation policies. Growth and Change, 44, 355–389. doi: 10.1111/grow.12012
- Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart Cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2011.601117
- Castells, M. (1996). The information age economy, society and culture: Vol. I. The rise of the network society. Cambridge, UK, Oxford: Blackwell.
- Christmann, G. (2016). Zur kommunikativen Konstruktion von Räumen [Communicative construction of spaces]: Theoretische Konzepte und empirische Analysen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
- Cocchia, A. (2014). Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In R. Dameri, & C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (Eds.), Smart city. How to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space (pp. 13–43). Cham: Springer.
- Coletta, C., Heaphy, L., & Kitchin, R. (2019). From the accidental to articulated smart city: The creation and work of ‘Smart Dublin’. European Urban and Regional Studies, 26, 349–364. doi: 10.1177/0969776418785214
- D’Angelo, G., Ferretti, S., & Ghini, V. (2017). Multi-level simulation of Internet of things on smart territories. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 73, 3–21. doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2016.10.008
- Datta, A. (2015). Smartness Inc. In J. Stollmann, K. Wolf, A. Brück, S. Frank, A. Million, P. Misselwitz, J. Schlaack, & C. Schröder (Eds.), Be aware of smart people! Redefining the smart city paradigm towards inclusive urbanism (pp. 79–83). Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.
- Davoudi, S., & Stead, D. (2002). Urban-rural-relationships: An introduction and a brief history. Built Environment, 28(1), 269–277.
- De Falco, S., Angelidou, M., & Addie, J. P. (2019). From the “smart city” to the “smart metropolis”? Building resilience in the urban periphery. European Urban and Regional Studies, 26, 205–223. doi: 10.1177/0969776418783813
- Dewey, R. (1960). The rural-urban-continuum: Real but relatively unimportant. American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 60–66. doi: 10.1086/222824
- Entwicklungsagentur Rheinland–Pfalz e.V. (2018, July 27). #Landleben [Rural life]: Unsere Zukunft im digitalen Dorf, Bremen, Druckhaus Humburg GmbH and Co. KG. Retrieved from www.landleben–digital.de
- European Commission. (2018, May 29). ESDP – European spatial development perspective. Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/sum_en.pdf
- Exner, A., Cepoiu, L., & Weinzierl, C. (2018). Smart city policies in Wien, Berlin und Barcelona. In S. Bauriedl, & A. Stüver (Eds.), Smart City – kritische Perspektiven auf die Digitalisierung in Städten (pp. 333–344). Bielefeld: transcript.
- Fennell, S., Kaur, P., Jhunjhunwala, A., Narayanan, D., Loyola, C., Bedi, J., & Singh, Y. (2018). Examining linkages between smart villages and smart cities: Learning from rural youth accessing the internet in India. Telecommunications Policy, 42(10), 810–823. doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2018.06.002
- Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Garcia-Ayllon, S. (2018). Retro-diagnosis methodology for land consumption analysis. Towards sustainable future scenarios: Application to a Mediterranean coastal area. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1408–1421. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.160
- Garcia-Ayllon, S., & Miralles, J. L. (2015). New strategies to improve governance in territorial management: Evolving from ‘smart cities’ to ‘smart territories’. Procedia Engineering, 118, 3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.396
- Giddens, A. (1997). Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft [The constitution of society]. Frankfurt/M., New York, NY: Campus.
- Giffinger, R. (2016). Smart City – ein Konzept für sozial nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung? In: Hammer, K. (Ed.) Wien wächst – Smart City, [Vienna is growing – smart city]. Stadtpunkte, 22, 24–33. Retrieved from https://emedien.arbeiterkammer.at/viewer/rest/pdf/mets/AC13412038.xml/AC13412038.pdf?watermarkText=AK+Bibliothek+Wien
- Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanovic, N., & Meijers, E. (2007). Smart Cities: Ranking of European medium–sized cities. Vienna: University of Technology.
- Gkartzios, M., & Lowe, P. (2019). Revisiting neo-endogenous rural development. In M. Scott, N. Gallent, & M. Gkartzios (Eds.), The Routledge companion to rural planning (pp. 159–169). New York: Routledge.
- Greco, I., & Cresta, A. (2017). From SMART cities to SMART city-regions: Reflections and proposals. In O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, G. Borruso, C. Torre, A. Rocha, … A. Cuzzocrea (Eds.), Computational science and its applications – ICCSA 2017; 17th international conference, Trieste, Italy, Proceedings, Part III (pp. 282–295). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- Greenfield, A. (2013). Against the smart city: The city is here for you to use. New York: Do Projects.
- Hahne, U. (2018, June 23). Raum des Wandels [Spaces of transformation]: die Region in der Postwachstumsdebatte. Kritischer Agrarbericht 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kritischer–agrarbericht.de/fileadmin/Daten–KAB/KAB–2016/KAB2016_Kap5_ 188_192_Hahne.pdf
- Haughton, M. (2011). Time machines and virtual portals -The spatialities of the digital divide. Progress in Development Studies, 11(3), 211–227. doi: 10.1177/146499341001100303
- Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council (2015). Smart specialisation in the Helsinki-Uusimaa Region – Research and innovation strategy for regional development 2014-2020. Helsinki: Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council.
- Herrschel, T. (2012). Regionalization and marginalization: Bridging old and new divisions in regional governance. In M. Danson, & P. De Souza (Eds.), Regional development in Northern Europe, peripheriality, marginality and border issues (pp. 30–48). London: Routledge.
- Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2017). Securitization of urban environments: Sustainable urbanism or premium ecological enclaves? In M. Hodson, & S. Marvin (Eds.), After sustainable cities (pp. 91–103). Oxon, NY: Routledge.
- Hofmeister, S., & Kühne, O. (2016). StadtLandschaften [Urban landscapes]: Die neue Hybridität von Stadt und Land. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
- Hollands, R. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12(1), 303–320. doi: 10.1080/13604810802479126
- Höjer, M., & Wangel, S. (2015). Smart sustainable cities: Definition and challenges. In L. Hilty, & B. Aebischer (Eds.), ICT innovations for sustainability (pp. 333–349). Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer International Publishing.
- Hutter, M., Knoblauch, H., Rammert, W., & Windeler, A. (2018). Innovation society today. In W. Rammert, A. Windeler, H. Knoblauch, & M. Hutter (Eds.), Innovation society today. Perspectives, fields, and cases (pp. 13–31). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
- ITU International Telecommunication Union's Focus Group an Smart Sustainable Cities (2015). Master plan for smart sustainable cities. Focus Group technical report. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ssc/Pages/default.aspx
- Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time City? Big data and smart urbanism. Geojournal, 79(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
- Kitchin, R., & Lauriault, T. (2014). Towards critical data studies: Charting and unpacking data assemblages and their work. The programmable city working paper 2; pre-print version of chapter to be published. In J. Eckert, A. Shears, & J. Thatcher (Eds.), Geoweb and big data. XX: University of Nebraska Press. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2474112
- Kühn, M. (2015). Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio–spatial inequalities. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 367–378. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.862518
- Kühn, M., & Lang, T. (2015). Metropolisierung und Peripherisierung in Europa (metropolization and peripheralization in Europe]: Eine Einführung. Europa Regional, 23, 2–14.
- Landesregierung Brandenburg (2017). Brandenburg digital: Wo wir stehen – was wir wollen. Potsdam: Arnold Group. Retrieved from https://www.brandenburg.de/media_fast/bb1.a.3830.de/kurzbericht_brandenburg–digital_A5_web.pdf
- Lange, B. (2017). Offene Werkstätten und Postwachstumsökonomien [Open workshops and post-growth ecomonies]: kollaborative Orte als Wegbereiter transformativer Wirtschaftsentwicklungen? Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 61(1), 38–55. doi: 10.1515/zfw-2016-0029
- Langner, S. (2016). Rurbane Landschaften [Rurban landscapes]: Landschaftsentwürfe als Projektionen produktiver Stadt-Land-Verschränkungen. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 66, 41–46.
- Lefebvre, H. (2003). Die Revolution der Städte [Urban revolution]. Dresden: Postplatz.
- Löw, M. (2016). The sociology of space: Materiality, social structures, and action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Luque, A., McFarlane, C., & Marvin, S. (2017). Smart urbanism: Cities, grids and alternatives? In M. Hodson, & S. Marvin (Eds.), After sustainable cities (pp. 74–90). Oxon, NY: Routledge.
- Luque-Ayala, A., & Marvin, S. (2015). Developing a critical understanding of Smart Urbanism? Urban Studies, 52(12), 2105–2116. doi: 10.1177/0042098015577319
- Morandi, C., Rolando, A., & Di Vita, S. (2016). From smart city to smart region: Digital services for an internet of places. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
- Mölders, T., Othengrafen, F., Stock, K., & Zibell, B. (2016). Zwischen Stadt und Land [Between city and country]: Hybride Räume verstehen und gestalten. In S. Hofmeister, & O. Kühne (Eds.), StadtLandschaften. Die neue Hybridität von Stadt und Land (pp. 37–61). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
- Neal, S., & Agyeman, J. (2006). Remaking English ruralities: Processes of belonging and becoming, continuity and change in racialised spaces. In S. Neal, & J. Agyeman (Eds.), The new countryside? Ethnicity, nation and exclusion in contemporary rural Britain (pp. 99–125). Bristol: The Policy Press.
- Nell, W. (2014). Die Stadt als Dorf [The city as a village]: Über die Generalisierung von Nahräumen und ihre Grenzen. In W. Nell, & M. Weiland (Eds.), Imaginäre Dörfer. Zur Wiederkehr des Dörflichen in Literatur, Film und Lebenswelt (pp. 175–194). Bielefeld: transcript.
- Neu, C. (2006). Territoriale Ungleichheit [Territorial inequality]: eine Erkundung. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 37, 8–15.
- Neu, C. (2016). Neue Ländlichkeit [New rurality]: Eine kritische Betrachtung. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 66, 4–9.
- Öğdül, H.-G. (2010). Urban and rural definitions in regional context: A case study on Turkey. European Planning Studies, 18(9), 1519–1541. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2010.492589
- Pahl, R.-E. (1964). Urbs in rure: The metropolitan fringe in Hertfordshire. London: London School of Economics.
- Parada, J. (2017). Social Innovation for ‘smart’ territories: Fiction or reality? Problemas del Desarollo, 48(190), 1–11.
- Piorr, A., Ravetz, J., & Tosics, I. (Eds.). (2011). Peri-urbanisation in Europe. Towards European policies to sustain urban-rural futures. (Synthesis Report PLUREL project). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen/Academic Books Life Sciences.
- Priano, F.-H., Armas, R.-L., & Guerra, C.-F. (2016). A model for the smart development of island territories. Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on digital government research. New York: ACM.
- Ravazzoli, E., Götsch, H., & Hoffmann, C. (2018). Smart territorial relationships: A conceptual framework to cope with the rural-urban divide in mountainous regions. In A. Bisello, D. Vettorato, P. Laconte, & S. Costa (Eds.), Smart and sustainable planning for cities and regions. Results of SSPCR 2017 (pp. 601–613). Cham: Springer.
- Redepenning, M. (2011). Reading the urban through the rural: Comments on the significance of space–related distinctions and semantics. In D. Hassenpflug, N. Giersig, & B. Stratmann (Eds.), Reading the city: Developing urban hermeneutics (pp. 85–101). Weimar: Bauhaus Universität.
- Rose, G. (2018). Look Inside Unternehmensvisionen der Smart City. In S. Bauriedl, & A. Strüver (Eds.), Smart City Kritische Perspektiven auf die Digitalisierung (pp. 43–62). Bielefeld: transcript.
- Russo, F., Corrado, R., & Paola, P. (2016). European plans for the smart city: From theories and rules to logistics test case. European Planning Studies, 24(9), 1709–1726. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1182120
- Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City. New York. London, Tokyo. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Sassen, S. (2012). Städtische Begabungen [Urban capabilities]. In Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) (Ed.), Städtische Energien, Konferenzdokumentation (pp. 14–15). Berlin: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development.
- Sennett, R. (2012). The stupefying smart city. In R. Burdett, & P. Rode (Eds.), Urban age conference ‘Electric City’ (pp. 16–17). London: LSE Cities.
- Shaw, J., & Graham, M. (2018). Ein informationelles Recht auf Stadt? [An informational right to the city?] Codes, Content, Kontrolle und die Urbanisierung von Informationen. In S. Bauriedl, & A. Stüver (Eds.), Smart city – kritische Perspektiven auf die Digitalisierung in Städten (pp. 177–204). Bielefeld: transcript.
- Shearmur, R., Charron, M., & Pajevic, F. (2017). La ‘région rurale intelligente’ à l’aune de la ‘ville intelligente’: Définition, critique et enjeux, Working paper prepared for the Centre de Recherche de Développement Territorial (CRDT).
- Sieverts, T. (2003). Cities without cities: An interpretation of the zwischenstadt. London: Routledge.
- Soja, E. (2000). Postmetropolis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Soja, E., & Kanai, M. (2010). The urbanization of the world. In R. Burdett, & D. Sudjic (Eds.), The endless city (pp. 54–69). London: Phaidon Press.
- Söderström, O. (2016). From a technology intensive to a knowledge intensive smart urbanism. In J. Stollmann, K. Wolf, A. Brück, S. Frank, P. Misselwitz, J. Schlaack, & C. Schröder (Eds.), Beware of smart people! Symposium proceedings (pp. 63–70). Berlin: Universitätsverlag TU Berlin.
- Söderström, O., Paasche, T., & Klauser, F. (2014). Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City, 18, 307–320. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2014.906716
- TA 2020. (2017, May 4). Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. Towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.nweurope.eu/media/1216/territorial_agenda_2020.pdf
- Tedim, F., Leone, V., & Xanthopoulos, G. (2016). A wildfire risk management concept based on a social-ecological approach in the European Union: Fire Smart Territory. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 18, 138–153. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.06.005
- Vanolo, A. (2013). Smartmentality. The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies, 51(5), 883–898. doi: 10.1177/0042098013494427
- Vanolo, A. (2016). Is there anybody out there? Some hypothesis on the role and position of people in smart cities. In J. Stollmann, K. Wolf, A. Brück, S. Frank, A. Million, P. Misselwitz, ... Schröder, C (Eds.), Be aware of smart people! redefining the smart city paradigm towards inclusive urbanism (pp. 25–31). Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.
- 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, 46, 803–819. doi: 10.1068/a46242
- Vogelgesang, W., Kopp, J., Jacob, R., & Hahn, A. (2016). Urbane Dörfer [Urban villages]. Städtische Lebensformen im dörflichen Kontext. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 66, 35–40.
- Werlen, B. (2017). Globalisierung, Region und Regionalisierung [Globalisation, region and regionalisation]: Sozialgeographie alltäglicher Regionalisierungen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
- Wiechmann, T., & Terfrüchte, T. (2017). Smart country regional gedacht [Smart country in a regional perspective]: Teilräumliche Analysen für digitale Strategien in Deutschland. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
- Young, D., & Keil, R. (2010). Reconnecting the disconnected: The politics of infrastructure in the in-between city. Cities, 27(2), 87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2009.10.002