4.4 Article

Urban sharing in smart cities: the cases of Berlin and London

期刊

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 628-645

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2018.1463978

关键词

Urban governance; urban sharing; sharing economy; smart cities; sustainability

资金

  1. Riksbankens Jubileumsfond and Urban Reconomy - Swedish Research Council FORMAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Addressing urban sustainability challenges requires changes in the way systems of provision and services are designed, organised and delivered. In this context, two promising phenomena have gained interest from the academia, the public sector and the media: smart cities and urban sharing. Smart cities rely on the extensive use of information and communications technology (ICT) to increase efficiencies in urban areas, while urban sharing builds on the collaborative use of idling resources enabled by ICT in densely populated cities. The concepts have many similar features and share common goals, yet cities with smart city agendas often fail to take a stance on urban sharing. Thus, its potentials are going largely unnoticed by local governments. This article addresses this issue by exploring cases of London and Berlin - two ICT-dense cities with clearly articulated smart city agendas and an abundance of sharing platforms. Drawing on urban governance literature, we develop a conceptual framework that specifies the roles that cities assume when governing urban sharing: city as regulator, city as provider, city as enabler and city as consumer. We find that both cities indirectly support urban sharing through smart agenda programmes, which aim to facilitate ICT-enabled technical innovation and emergence of start-ups. However, programmes, strategies, support schemes and regulations aimed directly at urban sharing initiatives are few. We also find that Berlin is sceptical towards urban sharing organisations, while London took more of a collaborative approach. Implications for policy-makers are discussed in the end.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据