The Role of Smart City Concept in Sustainable Urban Planning from Policy Perspective Case Study of Malmö

Maryam Alavibelmana Robert Fazekas

Main field of study – Leadership and Organisation Degree of Master of Arts (60 credits) with a Major in Leadership and Organisation Master Thesis with a focus on Leadership and Organisation for Sustainability (OL646E), 15 credits Summer 2018 Supervisor: Jonas Lundsten

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our families, who have been always supportive. Also, we would like to thank our supervisor Jonas Lundsten, who has supported our research with great knowledge, support and encouragement. And, finally, we thank all our interviewees, whose input and expertise was invaluable to conducting this research, and appreciative the time and knowledge they have decided to share with us.

Maryam Alavibelmana and Robert Fazekas Copenhagen, August 2018

Abstract

Smart city as a concept or term is the contemporary buzzword which is referred as a means to deliver urban sustainability. In recent years, different smart city initiatives have emerged worldwide, which are advocated increasingly by the private and public sectors. However, there has been a considerable amount of critiques by social and urban scholars who question the current understanding and practice of the smart city, raising doubt if the current smart city is sustainable. The most frequently mentioned critiques indicate that the current smart city which does not have a common definition and theoretical foundation is intensively dominated by technical perspective and the role of private sector. This thesis aims to find out how this current understanding and application of smart city concept affect the urban planning practices and urban policy-making. By taking Malmö as a case study and conducting policy analyses, the research shows that this trend leads to the project-based practices which in the absence of strategic and holistic vision toward the smart city as a concept might not fulfil sustainability criteria, cannot be a beneficiary means for sustainable urban planning, and is a poor concept for social sustainability. It shows that although private sector is an integral part of smart city practices, public sector -municipality -needs to take leadership position in defining smart city based on the real city’s demand and integrate it into the urban planning strategies.

Keywords: Smart city concept, Social sustainability in urban planning, Malmö, Policy analysis, Urban visionary and conception, Integrated urban development, Sustainable urban development

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Need for sustainable cities ...... 1 1.2. Emerge of Sustainability ...... 3 1.3. Different concepts for sustainable cities ...... 4 1.3. Literature Review ...... 7 1.3.1. Challenges and critiques in Smart City concept and projects ...... 7 1.3.2. Sustainable development in smart city discourse and the main disciplines...... 10 1.4. Context information and challenges ...... 12 2. Problem Formulation ...... 14 3. Objective and Research Questions ...... 15 4. Research Design ...... 16 4.1. Method ...... 16 4.2. Case study selection ...... 21 4.3. Ethic Consideration ...... 21 5. Analytical framework ...... 22 5.1. Social sustainability in urban planning ...... 22 5.1.1 The planners’ triangle ...... 25 5.1.2. Planning actors: Stakeholder engagement in planning ...... 28 5.2. Urban utopia, conception, and visionary ...... 29 5.3. Smart city definition and dimensions ...... 31 6. Analysis ...... 36 6.1. Smart city concept and strategies ...... 36 6.1.1. Semantically use of sustainable city and smart city ...... 36 6.1.2. Lack of definition, the clear strategic approach, and framework ...... 36 6.1.3. Thematic integrated strategies ...... 40 6.2. Smart city projects in Malmö ...... 44 6.3. Actors and partnership ...... 50 7. Discussion and Recommendation ...... 54 7.1. The needs for strategic vision and planning, fitting to the city scale...... 54 7.2. The tension between stakeholders’ interest ...... 57 7.2.1. Public interest vs. private interest ...... 57 7.2.2. Demand sector vs. Supply sector ...... 59 7.2.3. National scale vs. City scale ...... 59 7.3. Potential of smart city concept in Malmö ...... 61 8. Conclusion ...... 63

9. Recommendations for further study ...... 64 10. References ...... 65 Appendix ...... 74 Appendix 1: Literature review table ...... 74 Appendix 2: Interview Guides ...... 75 Appendix 3: Extracted quotes from documents...... 76 Appendix 4: The brief Description of projects ...... 77 Appendix 5: Climate Smart Hyllie ...... 79

List of Figures

Figure 1: The majority of publications on Smart City based on subject area...... 10 Figure 2: The main disciplines among which social debates within the smart city have been taken place...... 11 Figure 3: Influential factors of socially sustainable projects ...... 24 Figure 4: Planners’ triangle ...... 26 Figure 5: Lash’s model ...... 29 Figure 6: Smart city dimensions ...... 34 Figure 7: Smart city concept and projects relations where projects are defined based on the smart city concept . 34 Figure 8: Sustainability dimensions in Comprehensive plan of Malmö ...... 41 Figure 9: Prioritised standpoints in Skåne strategy ...... 41 Figure 10: Mans steps for creating attractive city...... 43 Figure 11: Prioritised development areas ...... 47

List of Table

Table 1: The list of documents ...... 18 Table 2: The List of representatives of interviews ...... 20 Table 3: The social dimensions of sustainable development: urban social sustainability...... 23 Table 4: Key definitions of social sustainability ...... 25 Table 5: Different definitions of the smart city with main focuses ...... 32 Table 6: Smart city project actions ...... 35 Table 7: List of Smart City projects in Malmö ...... 44 Table 8: Themes from literate review and their disciplines ...... 74 Table 9: The main goals and actions in smart Hyllie ...... 81

Abbreviations:

SSC – Sustainable Smart City SC- Smart City PPP- Public-Private Partnership EU- European Union UN- United Nations ICT- Information and Communications Technology

1. Introduction

There have been different paradigms and concepts to deal with urban issues and complexity, which were dominated in different eras as the leading ones. The contemporary approach, which is getting more and more popular, is Smart City, the concept which is practised and defined in the neoliberal context and presented in many cases as a utopia (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017) and sustainable development. This concept is being used widely with this promises that it will solve the complexity of urban setting and challenges, promote quality of life, and create sustainable cities (Monfaredzadeh & Berardi, 2015). However, there is no specific definition and framework for this popular concept to define in which areas it should be deployed especially in theoretical discourse within urban planning and social science while several billion Euros have been allocated to that (Vanolo, 2016). On the other hand, the recent literature started to criticise this concept for different reasons and many of them raising doubt if the current smart city approach is sustainable and also some claimed that is not sustainable (Yigitcanlar & Teriman, 2014; Haarstad, 2016; Vanolo, 2016; Beretta, 2018; Cugurullo, 2018; Martin et al., 2018). One of the frequently mentioned challenges are domination of private sector and technical perspective in current smart city which not only neglect other dimensions of sustainability especially social aspects, but deploying this concept as a means of marketing and branding so that the current practices of smart city are not applied for addressing sustainability or challenges but for branding and business competitiveness even with controversial results. This research mainly aims to show how this lack of definition along with the domination of techno- private practices could create misunderstanding between the smart city and the sustainable city and affect sustainable urban development. To discover this, city of Malmö is taken as the case study and the way smart city as concept and initiatives play role in the city development and sustainability objectives is analysed. The following sections provide a background as an introduction. At first, the historical background is introduced about different main approaches and paradigms which influenced urban development worldwide. It shows how various urban concepts which emerged based on urban challenges could affected the municipal and urban development practices, and how sustainability emerged based on those practices. This provides an introduction why Smart City concept as the contemporary buzzword is relevant to be addressed. Then in continues, Smart City relating to sustainability are reviewed among literature, followed by reviewing the context of case study context.

1.1. Need for sustainable cities

Cities have become the primary living space for humans, and since 2007 more than half of the World population lives in urban areas, and studies estimate that this number will increase to 70% by 2050 (World Bank, 2018). This trend projects that people’s lifestyle is facing to transition in relation to economic activities, social structures and their relation to nature due to the fact that primarily people lived and worked in rural areas. Cities are continually facing new challenges in both developed and developing countries. These challenges are complex, therefore a single solution cannot be sufficient to solve these socio-economic and environmental issues. Industrialisation and capitalism stimulated social and economic processes globally which generated inequality in the distribution of wealth. This inequality created different urban areas where residents do not have the same level of accessibility to resources and services (Lipietz, 1995). The increase of the population in cities also causes environmental degradation through the intense usage of individual transportation and land use. This fact turned academia, decision and policy-makers to the need for more sustainable cities, thus various concepts were

developed such as the zero-waste city, compact city, eco-city, just city and among these the concept of smart city became one of the responses to these complex urban challenges (Fainstein, 2000; Chourabi et al., 2012; Albino et al., 2015). Many current urban challenges originated in the industrial city which started to evolve in the middle of the 19th century when mass production led the way to more organised capitalism and later transformed into Fordism (Pacione, 2009). Historically, there has been a general trend of population movement from rural to urban areas with an increasing number of people living in cities and towns which is often driven by the search of work. The priority in the industrial city was accessibility, and as a result, factories concentrated near gateways and consumers (Pacione, 2009). These factories also demanded a large number of workforce thus more, and more labours moved to urbanised areas from the rural parts of the country. The urban structure of the industrial city was primarily characterised by two things: first of all, factories dominated the urban view, while social segregation influenced a division of neighbourhoods (Pacione, 2009). The mass number of labours were mainly lived close to their workplace in crowded and unhealthy districts without basic infrastructure. These living areas were often organised by capitalists and factory owners, therefore the local governments did not have the power or interest to regulate these areas, however this changed when different labour movements widespread and started to protest for labour rights and better living conditions at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries (Mommaas, 2004). Later, expanded voting rights and citizens’ representatives started to improve labour’s neighbourhoods by developing housing and hard infrastructure (e.g., sewage system, concrete road, public lighting and electricity in houses, etc.) in many industrialised countries (Mommaas, 2004; Pacione, 2009). However, the city was highly polluted due to the heating and electricity of residential and non-residential buildings and factories which were based on coal or other polluting resources. This form of the economy created most of today's cities’ urban structures, and these cities were highly unsustainable socially, economically and environmentally, and did not change fundamentally until the Second World War. States and local governments stimulated and encouraged the economic boom after the Second World War which generated an enormous improvement in the infrastructure especially in urban areas, and the new road systems prioritised individual transportation. Thus, people who lived in the crowded and polluted cities were enabled to move in proximity to the city, in the agglomeration due to the widespread of cars. The urban sprawl caused environmental degradation by involving more lands for the built environment at the expense of the natural environment (Nefs, 2006). In order to have a better understanding of this post-war period and the general mindset, we have to see that the general thinking of people was that social and economic processes and the environment were entirely controllable by human action (Lane, 2005). Therefore, this mentality strongly influenced rapid urbanisation and urban restructuring which generated profound problems in society and nature. This era was followed by Post-Fordism which was characterised by specialisation, the flexibility of work and based on the development of communication, mobility and mass market. The ‘old economy’ shifted from industrial production to a service and knowledge-based economy. The process of deindustrialisation affected the industrial areas and harbours of large cities from where most of the productions were outsourced to other countries due to economic reasons (Jessop, 2005). The high number of low skilled labours lost their jobs, so the unemployment rate rapidly increased in urban areas, while the rural areas’ economy was unable to provide jobs due to automation (Jessop, 2005). The oil crisis in 1973 caused an economic recession and accelerated the transformation process. The neoliberal ideology was the response and became dominant in many segments of the economy and urban planning as well from the 1980s. Thus the promotion of market mechanisms and managementalism in the city governments appeared as a solution for urban problems (Harvey, 2005). The so-called neoliberal state became sort of an agent of the market rather than a regulator, and for instance started to privatise public owned properties and to implement neoliberal urban policies, therefore the private sector turned

into the dominant driving force, and private investors started to shape cities (Elwood, 2002; Smith, 2002). Since the state needed additional income due to the recession and did not have the financial resource to maintain and renovate publicly owned properties, these properties were purchased by private investors. The value of certain districts close to the inner-city was increased, where often residents lived from the working-class or various disadvantaged social groups (e.g., unemployed, ethnic minorities etc.), thus these districts were the targets of rehabilitation programmes and attracting investors. This phenomenon is called gentrification that may induce displacement due to higher housing prices which can push out the low-paid or unpaid residents and local businesses over time. The consequence of this phenomena was a transformational process from low-class to middle-class neighbourhood (Atkinson, 2000). Furthermore, liveability became a vital factor in making cities attractive by providing various opportunities to their residents and communities (Florida, 2002). As a consequence, cities have been competing each other nationally and globally for skilled people and investors, therefore competitiveness plays a key role among cities such as among businesses (Florida, 2002). In addition to that from a neoliberal perspective, the value of competitiveness and the measurement of performance as a managerial tool became more widespread and frequently used to compare cities and in the creation of various city rankings. There have been multiple city rankings with a focus on liveability, business attractiveness, innovation or smartness, etc. The normalising power of neoliberalism generates competition among cities through transforming their differences from the norm they assumed in the chosen criteria to be the best practice. This approach, for instance, can influence the allocation of financial resources to improve the city’s position on different rankings, thus city decision-makers can extract resources from more relevant areas and choosing solutions what do not solve the city’s problems (Kornberger & Carter, 2010).

1.2. Emerge of Sustainability

The socio-economic imbalance in cities is the result of social and economic change brought by globalisation and the shift from industrial development to information development (Egger, 2006). Therefore, a strong need emerged for sustainable cities. The well-known Brundtland Report sparked a debate in thinking around its core themes on the environment, development, and governance. The report has led to an academic response since its release in 1987 from examinations of the word ‘sustainability’ to economic and equity issues and institutions, environment and included urban issues as well. The call for sustainable development was a pragmatic response to the challenges of the period while the goals of the report were widely embraced (Sneddon et al., 2002). Thus, the concept of sustainability has been an integral part of development work since the late 1980s. The concept of sustainable cities and its links with sustainable development have been discussed since the early 1990s, although the call for sustainable urban development appeared in the 1976 UN-Habitat (Habitat, 1976). A clear definition was formulated for sustainable cities which should be a foundation for all cities: “sustainable cities should meet their inhabitants’ development needs without imposing unsustainable demands on local or global natural resources and systems (UN, 2013 from Satterthwaite, 1992, p. 3).” This definition shows that both developing and developed countries should take responsibility and contribute in order to achieve this goal. Since 2015, United Nations has 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which are interrelated, although every one of them has their own targets to achieve. One of the goals is Sustainable Cities and Communities sets targets by 2030, and mainly focus on affordable housing, access to sustainable transportation systems, increase the degree of participation and inclusion among residents towards sustainable city planning. Moreover, it highlights the protection of poor and vulnerable residents from

different diseases (e.g., poor water quality) and providing inclusive and quality green public space for people. However, according to the UN report (2013, p. 54) these targets “require functioning city governments able both to ensure that such benefits are realised, and to adopt a sustainable framework that encourages the city’s growth within ecological limits.” In developing countries access to basic public services (e.g., water, sanitation, electricity and health care) remains inadequate. Due to overpopulation and intense migration from rural areas to large cities, challenge the institutional capacities for improving accessibility to infrastructure and public services. Although, upper middle and high-income countries with urban centres that already have access to basic public services face the challenge of increasing efficiency in energy and water usage, reducing the generation of waste and improving their recycling systems. Large and wealthier cities, in particular, may have well-managed resource systems, however they also have larger ecological footprints (UN, 2013). Furthermore, effective urban management is a condition for sustainable cities which requires multilevel cooperation among local, national and global communities and establishing partnerships to mobilise public and private resources. Creating policy framework for the sustainable development of urban areas is one of the cornerstones as well as democratic legitimacy, and stakeholder consultation is vital since policies are the set of ideas or plans that are used as a foundation for decision-making in fields such as politics, planning, business. In the administrative system, the policies’ role is control of change and show a direction or approach for decision-makers (Solesbury, 2013). European Union (EU) studies (Eurostat, 2016; 2017) and UN reports (2013) indicate the phenomenon of urban paradox by underlining that urbanisation provides new jobs and opportunities for millions of people in both developed and developing countries and has contributed to poverty eradication efforts worldwide. At the same time, rapid urbanisation adds pressure to the resource base and increases the demand for various services and resources (UN, 2013). Although cities are often the places of jobs and opportunity with access to quality education, healthcare, a wide range of services and also innovation is concentrating there, many cities are characterised by high poverty, segregation, high crime rate and high air and noise pollution. By comparing urban areas to the rural, the labour market is more dynamic by providing flexibility which makes cities more attractive to businesses and people.

1.3. Different concepts for sustainable cities

Several concepts were developed from architects, planners, environmentalists in order to create sustainable cities, improve the current urban structure and tackle socio-economic challenges. In the 1960s, Jane Jacobs an American-Canadian journalist was one of the first activists who drew attention with her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities on the negative effects of urban renewal policies that destroy urban communities and create isolated urban spaces. Her book influenced both planning professionals and the general public by focusing on the needs of residents and the social aspects of urban planning (New York Times, 2006; Gehl, 2007; 2013). Jacobs’ book and fresh approach created a solid foundation for new urbanism movements such as “just city,” walkable and carless cities which attempt was to design cities for people. The concept of “just city” by Susan Fainstein (2000) argues that urban planners need a normative theory of justice because their motivation to tackle inequality did not produce workable alternatives under pro-growth regimes. Inequality remained in cities mainly due to the imperfection of planning procedures, thus she emphasises the need for involving marginalised social groups by creating democracy, diversity and social justice (Fainstein, 2000; Healey, 2003). Furthermore, Fainstein (2000) highlights the importance that public investments and regulations should support and produce equitable outcomes rather than make the wealthy wealthier.

These new urbanism movements also strived to improve quality of urban life by re-orienting and re- think urban design towards pedestrians and cyclists which ideas were the most popular in European cities, especially in Scandinavian cities such as Copenhagen, and later from the 2000s in New York and some Australian and New-Zealander cities. For instance, by implementing sustainable concepts in urban planning, Copenhagen transformed from a car-dominated city into a pedestrian- and cyclist-oriented city in less than 30 years (Gehl, 2007; 2013). Furthermore, various concepts were inspired by biological systems and using biologist and environmentalist terms to understand urban structures as ecosystems. For instance, the urban metabolism concept represented a holistic approach to urban planning by modelling complex urban systems’ flows such as water, energy, waste and people etc. (Rotmans et al., 2000). During the last decade, European cities have implemented “compact city” strategies in their urban development. These strategies focused on effective urban development policies in relation to renewal within the existing urban fabric. These were various densification policies, intensive land use, including the redevelopment of brownfields and other types of underused lands (Van der Waals, 2000; Nefs, 2006). Professionals argue that with densification and intensive land use cities can slow down and control urban spawn, thus cities do not have to occupy more lands for the built environment from the natural environment. Although densification can slow urban sprawl down, research shows that this type of concentration of people and buildings generate more air and noise pollution (Nefs, 2006). Also, building high rise buildings are consequences of densification which often causes alienation and a weak sense of community among residents, therefore it has a negative social and environmental impact (Gospodini, 2002; Nefs, 2006). The rapid development of technology, particularly information and communications technology (ICT) in the 1990s created a solid foundation for involving new digital solutions and increasing efficiency in tackling urban complexity. Thus monitoring, analysing and optimising complex urban systems and interacting directly with communities and citizens became more accessible than ever before. The concept of “smart city” and other similar terminologies such as digital city, intelligent city, information city and knowledge-based city emerged and started to appear in urban developments and strategies. The concept of the smart city was introduced already in 1994, and after the appearance of smart city projects which were supported by the European Union, the number of publications regarding the topic has considerably increased since 2010 (Dameri & Cocchia, 2013). By nowadays, “smart city” became a buzzword and a part of a new trend of sustainable urban development, while this concept is widely used today, there is still not a clear and consistent understanding of its meaning (Caragliu et al., 2011; Chourabi et al., 2012). Researchers, national planning agencies, municipalities and even private companies often use their own fabricated definitions (Dameri & Cocchia, 2013). According to Cohen (2015), three generations of smart cities are identified. The first generation is driven by large multinational technology companies to adopt their technologies in order to increase efficiency and innovation in cities, therefore it potentially generates economic growth and attracts Richard Florida’s creative class to the city. In this case the public sector does not have sufficient knowledge of the implementable technology, thus basically they implementing the companies’ plans and solutions without questioning them (Cohen, 2015). The second generation is led by forward-thinking mayors and city officials to use smart city solutions as tools to improve quality of life. Several leading cities have recognised the opportunity for implementing technology to increase the quality of public services for their residents and visitors as well. These cities often use the latest technologies in their smart city projects and supporting the growth of smart city industries by facilitating network and hold specific smart city expos in their cities (Cohen, 2015).

And the third generation started to appear in recent years with a strong focus on collaborative planning and co-creation in smart city initiatives. In this type citizens are important partners in developing projects and active public participation plays a key role by encouraging a bottom-up planning process (Cohen, 2015). Several European cities such as Amsterdam, Vienna, Barcelona, Stockholm, Copenhagen and Manchester are considered as leaders and role models for implementing the concept of smart city in their cities. Although the majority of smart city initiatives are implemented and get attention in highly developed countries and regions (e.g. EU, USA, South Korea, Japan etc.), large and developing economies such as China, India, Brazil with rapid urbanisation are also focusing on integrating the concept of smart city in their urban strategies and policies, therefore they have started to become an attractive market for investors (Cohen, 2015). The implemented smart city initiatives have various characteristics by each city or country. Several cities implement smart city projects in one specific district and concentrating on smart city solutions by creating high-quality housing, these are for instance in Hafencity (Hamburg), Nordhavn (Copenhagen), Hackbridge (London), Hammerby Sjöstad (Stockholm), Oulu Arctic City (Oulu, Finland) and also Hyllie in Malmö while the others are promoting e-governance which is the application of ICT for delivering public services and exchange of information between the public sector and citizens. The City of Amsterdam created, for instance, an online platform for public participation and co-creation in order to develop a better city for their residents (Cohen, 2015; Trivellato, 2016). The City of Barcelona established a wide collaboration with private sector and research institutes within the scope of Barcelona’s smart city strategy. Thus, the strength of Barcelona’s smart city strategy relied on its comprehensive approach which based on a clear governance model to support the smart city strategy which also resulted in better and more efficient coordination of the different internal and external stakeholders (Ferrer, 2018). Knowledge-sharing and cooperation are fundamental in smart city projects due to its complexity, therefore the distribution of tasks between different actors and stakeholders is essential. Neither local authorities, urban planners nor private companies able to run smart city projects on their own, so they have to bring new ways of partnership to get complex and multidisciplinary smart city projects workable. Public-private partnership (PPP) is often the framework between them which is, in general, a long-term cooperative arrangement between one or more public and private actors (Klijn & Teisman, 2002). Although public authorities and municipalities have the policy-making powers and access to wide range of data, they do not have the financial resources and knowledge to execute a smart city project, especially when the latest technologies are implemented there, thus experienced private companies with the know- how are involved (Klijn & Teisman, 2002; Anthopoulos et al., 2016). However, this process can question the credibility and independence of the public decision- and policy-makers in general due to the large transnational companies’ financial and influential power (Buck & While, 2017). In addition to this, national and local governments often lack sufficient expertise to bid effectively, let and negotiate contracts, and the legal instruments to enforce the contracts of those projects (Buck & While, 2017). Since the newer technologies for implementing digital solutions in cities are getting more affordable and available, the need for integrating the concept of the smart city in urban strategies and policies became relevant and urgent (Trivellato, 2016). In fact, numerous cities are struggling with the interrelated phenomenon, and urban planners are responsible for dealing with and tackling them. This indicates the key role of urban planning in relation to the smart city concept, especially by considering the recent critiques against the smart city concept that challenge the sustainability of the smart city concept. The representatives of the smart city concept often claim that it is a solution to manage complex environmental and socio-economic challenges, however, many critiques have emerged in need of redefining smart city model and initiatives as it might neglect the complexity of a city, especially the social aspects.

Many of the concepts mentioned above have become integrated parts of urban policies and sustainable urban strategies. The concept of the smart city, such as other concepts, was created recently as a solution to solve urban complexity and improve the quality of urban life, and assisting sustainable urban development. However, the current application and understanding of smart city concept have faced intense criticism from different perspectives, raising this question if this concept is as beneficial as it is advocated by developers or not. These critiques are covered in the literature review section.

1.3. Literature Review

This section aims to give an overview of the recent literature on smart city concept and projects. The literature on the smart city is very fragmented addressing different issues from technical to ethical ones. The main perspective to sample the literature has been generally in line with the context of the thesis which aims to look at the smart city from social and urban science perspective in relation to sustainability. Based on the review of the literature, the section is divided into two main parts. The first part covers the critical perspective which has massively emerged among literature especially from the social and urban point of view, and the second one addresses the main approaches among those literatures that tried to look at the smart city from specifically sustainability point of view.

1.3.1. Challenges and critiques in Smart City concept and projects

There has been a growing body of literature which criticising the smart cities in recent years, especially from urban scholars, suggesting in general that there is taken insufficient account of social and political consideration in envisioning smart cities (Cowley et al., 2018). In fact, although the smart city is expected to lead society towards sustainability and is meant to improve quality of life (Sujata et al., 2016), there are some controversies over its contribution toward sustainable development, communities, and people. The main concerns relate to its possible destructiveness end to the societal aspect which might be overlooked by the current interest of leading cities to implement some certain smart policies and projects. Four main schools of thought among literature in relation to smart cities are recognised by Kummithaa and Crutzen (2017), namely restrictive, reflective rationalistic, or pragmatic, and Critical school of thought. Through this categories, they aimed to show that the critical debates within the literature have attracted attention dramatically since 2014, however, the first type of critiques had started among the second school of thought. At the beginning, the debates were some reflections on smart cities, taken a positive stance and claimed that these technologies would enhance the humane capacities, economic prosperity, and ecological integrity, though they expressed concern about the dominant role of private markets or some speculative “risky and arcane” conditions under which municipalities have to invest massively in private-oriented smart products as infrastructure (Kummithaa & Crutzen, 2017). This is because most of smart cities activities are associated with large private companies like IBM, Cisco, and Siemens, etc. as the main promoters (Vanolo, 2016; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017; Martin et al., 2018) while city is a complex socio-economic phenomenon so there is a concern about overlooking this complexity and taking the city as an implicit phenomenon by private corporates (Greenfield, 2013), especially regarding social challenges. The sensitivity of this issue becomes more considerable if we remember that many urban and social policies developed by planners and public sectors have failed to

solve or anticipate the interrelated problems in some cases, if we, for example, observe the process of gentrification and segregation in urban planning (Batty, 2014). In this sense, there is a concern about taking control by the private sector which seeks mainly profit and competitiveness, not the public concerns in the condition that studies claim the competitiveness and social cohesion cannot be convergent (Monfaredzadeh & Berardi, 2015; Trivellato, 2016). The dichotomy between sustainability and competitiveness or entrepreneurialism has been a highly- mentioned concept in smart city debates in order to show that the former has been sacrificed for the latter. This debate tries to remark that these two dichotomies might not have much in common (Monfaredzadeh & Berardi, 2015; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017) or elaborating that technocratic and entrepreneurial approach to urban development not rooted in the substantial requirements for urban transformation (Haarstad, 2016). Experiences in many cities have shown this scarification. For example, City of Austin has attempted to merge the entrepreneurial agenda with the sustainability agenda, but in practice, it used the latter just as a selling point to facilitate the former (Mihailova, 2017). Since the contribution of literature, which was dominantly technology-oriented, could not justify the benefits of the smart city over its possible negative implication, the discursive tried emphasising on prioritising people over the technology such as engaging people and other stakeholders in planning or focusing on innovation. By doing so, they drew attention to humanistic elements over technology (Eger, 2003 and argued that smart cities would need to focus on people and their capabilities more than just concentrating around ICTs or technology (Kummithaa & Crutzen, 2017). The final and the recent school of thought, by Kummithaa and Crutzen (2017), which was recognised as the Critical school of thought aims to “encapsulates the growing dissatisfaction around the very concept of the smart city and its practice. The critiques go even further to tackle the softer social issues which is difficult to measure such as happiness: if people in this very smart city have necessarily happy life, good relationship, and sense of community? Do they really enjoy and perceive their life as good standard (Hollands, 2015)? In some projects, smart initiatives could positively contribute to improving healthcare service like smart housing for elderly or patients. Yet, even in those projects, the challenges remain such as potential over-reliance on automation, the “medicalization” of the home environment, privacy and security, informed consent, plugging issues, and psychological aspect (Demiris & Hensel, 2009). In these debates, the central concern are toward citizens and their communities who might be the final loser of this game due to the threat of losing social inclusion, their right to the city, and being burdened more with the economic and social implications which will happen by privatisation of urban space (Beretta, 2018). In fact, although the smart city concept and those who advocate it are claiming ‘smart city is for people,’ critics argue that it is not much clear that what exactly people means, to what extent, and in which ways it can help them (Haarstad, 2016). Cowley et al., (2018) by looking at public perception towards smart projects aimed to show that the magnitude of current dystopian speculative to smart city in the literature is not near to reality, but finally they could not deny that there is a dominance of ‘entrepreneurial’ and ‘service user’ modes of smart city than the real social perspective towards citizens. Vanolo (2016) who analysed the role and place of citizens in envisioning the smart city concludes that “all imaginaries in smart city concept speak about the citizens of the smart city and speak in the name of them, but very little is known about citizen’s real desires and aspiration (Vanolo, 2016, P.36).” He mentions that the citizens’ voice is absent in many envisioning smart city and where they are considered as an active citizen they are discounted as an urban sensor. So, he raises concern about the future of citizens, as political subjective with the right to speech or privacy being with responsibilities, in the smart city in which they might be subjected by technologies that will hamper their freedom.

All the given challenges implying the threat for social justice in general (Mihailova, 2017; Beretta, 2018) because the studies showed and argued that for example, digital innovations have potential to disempower and marginalize citizen and the benefits of these innovations will not be distributed evenly (Martin et al., 2018). Generally, critics are calling that there is a need for re-thinking about our life in a “very technologically driven, corporately controlled, heavily marketed, even environmentally sound smart (Hollands, 2015, P.73)”, and ask the smart city about its contribution toward social and political aspect of development (Kummithaa & Crutzen, 2017; Han &Hawken, 2018). The technical perspective in the smart city is also seen in tension with the real demands of society (Angelidou, 2015). The domination of technology in practicing current smart city is mentioned as a force in smart city concept. Smartness is right now identified with innovation hinged on the technology, precisely those technologies that the economic actors involved in the process of providing public goods are able to provide (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). It is projected that the annual spending on the smart city projects will be $16 billion by 2020 (Angelidou, 2015) or by another estimation, the global smart city technology market will worth more than $27.5 billion by 2023 (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). And, with the help of the technology advancement, an increasing number of technology vendors and consultancies are looking for a niche in smart city product market (Angelidou, 2015) and the benefit that they can obtain out of that, based on the given figures, is huge (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). This technology push, which implies continual releasing new products into the market due to the rapid advancement of technology, is based on supply without considering the expressed need of society. Therefore, it is seen in tension with the demand pull, referring to the solutions and products which is developed and commercialised based on the scientific research in response to the demand on the side of society (Angelidou, 2015; Buck & While, 2017). In studies, it is mentioned that there are asymmetries in the supply-and-demand side of the smart city so that the current smart city projects are more supply- driven (Angelidou, 2015; Buck & While, 2017) All these increasing critiques can be related to the insufficient consideration of social dimension which is overlooked on the expense of understanding more technical aspects of smart cities to the benefit of environmental practices (Monfaredzadeh & Krueger, 2015). However, many critics argued that primary objectives of the smart city like economic growth or energy efficiency, which are still defined in a consumerist culture, not only could not promote social equity, also cannot protect the environment alone (Martin et al., 2018). So, among all, one of the most recognisable critiques is about the unsustainability of the smart city. Many scholars are questioning if smart city is sustainable or recall it as unsustainable (Yigitcanlar & Teriman, 2014; Haarstad, 2016; Beretta, 2018; Cugurullo, 2018; Yigitcanlar & Kamruzzaman, 2018) not because of possible breakage of three main pillars of sustainability and lack of social consideration, but even based on sustainability criteria even in environmental goals which is the dominant aspect of current smart city (Yigitcanlar & Teriman, 2014; Cugurullo, 2018). Colding et al., (2018) by an extensive review of Smart City discourses concluded that there is a lack of clear sustainability contribution within the smart city concept. Moreover, some scholars by conducting empirical study proved this claim, showing this is not only based on the theoretical and political analyses e.g. economic growth and neoliberal ideology (Buck, 2017; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017; Martin et al., 2018), citizen right (Vanolo, 2016), urban future (Angelidou, 2015), entrepreneurial competitive urbanism (Buck, 2017), etc. For instance, Yigitcanlar and Teriman, (2014) showed that smart project could not necessarily succeed in CO2 emission, adding that smart city lack sustainability contribution. Cugurullo (2016, 2018) also showed the same shortcoming in eco-city which was disconnected from the natural environment and insensitive to the rest of the built environment in one case (2018) or just was a means of preserving some

specific economic and political targets -seeking economic growth to preserve political institution ruling classes (2016). So, several scholars are recommending further investigation and research on sustainability in smart city or even re-defining the smart city concept and model (Haarstad, 2016; Ahvenniemi et al., 2017; Bibri & Krogstie, 2017; Colding & Barthel, 2017; Ibrahim et al., 2017; Trindade et al., 2017; Macke et al., 2018; Yigitcanlar & Kamruzzaman 2018). It should be mentioned that this critiques towards sustainability of smart city are in the condition that smart city concept and projects are branded as a sustainable city or utopia by its main advocates (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017), became a buzzword even, in some cases, as a replacement for ‘sustainable.’

1.3.2. Sustainable development in smart city discourse and the main disciplines

Our literature review showed that as much as the call for re-thinking about the smart city is emerging, there is still no specific and holistic framework and common definition which based on that contribution of the smart city in social sustainability can be mapped. Almost all articles mention to this fact that the smart city does not have a common and agreed definition (Hara et al., 2016; Vanolo, 2016; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017) as well as a strategic vision to design long-term strategies (Hara et al., 2016). In this sense, one point which can unlock why many critics target technical-oriented perspective of the smart city is looking at the ways and fields of theoretical discourse within which smart city is discussed (Mora et al.; 2017). The domain of discourse on the smart city has taken place in other subject areas, mainly computer science, more than social science. Figure 1 by Colding and Barthel (2017) shows how and from which perspectives smart city has been defined and discussed so far.

Figure 1: The majority of publications on Smart City based on subject area (Colding & Barthel, 2017, p.97).

They indicate that the third largest publication falls in the socially based subject. However, our review which was among this social discourse on the smart city revealed that even these socially-based debates had been more developed in engineering and business disciplines than social discipline (Appendix 1,

Figure 2). This showed us still the technical and business disciplines have more interest in smart city literature even they try to address the social aspects.

9 14

social science engeneering business and managemen

Figure 2: The main disciplines among which social debates within the smart city have been taken place.

Based on our literature review three main approaches can be seen in the literature (Appendix 1, Table 8):

 First, the articles that challenge or criticise the smart city from the social point of view. This group has a general critical perspective or analytical arguments based on one social issue such as privacy, equity, neoliberal policies, etc., ending in some recommendations.  Second, the group that evaluated or analysed cases or one smart city project, to explore smart city’s relation to the sustainable development or assess its performance in relation to one criterion of sustainability.  And, the third group, which were quite few, tried to develop a model based on challenges in the smart city that all were a technical solution from engineering disciplines. They tried to develop a model placed with a single aspect like co-design in smart city projects (Mayangsari & Novani, 2015). It is found that if there is a discourse on the contribution of the smart city to social aspects, they are mainly critiques which result in some general recommendation. For example, Monfaredzadeh and Krueger (2015) had a debate with the aim of investigating social factors in the smart city, but still, they limited their contribution to some arguments and critiques. Also, Trivellato (2016) tried to assess Milan smart city’s initiatives based on social sustainability. However, he used and modified a framework from Colantonio and Dixon (2009) that is based on the criteria for measuring urban regeneration in Europe. This study is an assessment based on a theory outside the smart city framework and also based on quantitative criteria which were used for a qualitative assessment. Ahvenniemi et al. (2017) express that “there is a much stronger focus on modern technologies and “smartness” in the smart city frameworks compared to urban sustainability frameworks.” Moreover, it is argued that the smart city is dominated by politics of data-driven, innovation, technology, and

economic entrepreneurial urbanism, rather than the complex socio-cultural and environmental context of urban setting (Haarstad, 2016; Macke et al., 2018) Explanation of Valono (2016) might shed light on this dominant trend by the private sector or technical perspective which mentioned among critiques. He elaborates that the smart city concept did not have a theoretical foundation and defined mainly by companies like IBM and Cisco. He explains that the (valid) process for conceptualising smart city cannot track back as a theoretical concept. In another study by Mora et al. (2017) it is indicated that “the knowledge necessary to understand the process of building the effective smart city in the real world has not yet been produced nor have the tools for supporting the actors involved in this activity (Mora et al., 2017, P.20).” He concludes that there is a lack of intellectual exchange among those conducting research and isolation from each other, the disconnection which can also be seen between communities lives and the knowledge of the smart city. This point is mentioned in another way by Pierce et al. (2017) who believes the smart city is pluralistic and incoherent social organism with blurred boundaries and conflicting logic and extremely complex challenges. In this sense, Mora et al. (2017) believe that this trend can put future development of this new but divided area of research at risk.

1.4. Context information and challenges

Malmö as the third largest city of Sweden has been undergoing a transformation from an industrial city into an eco-city, and consequently, Malmö’s strategy has strived to market Malmö as an environmentally sustainable, entrepreneurial, and knowledge-based city in order to attract businesses, creative class and people to invest and live there (Mihailova, 2017). Referring Malmö to the knowledge or entrepreneurial city implies that Malmö is a city where its economy is based on attracting talented people and organisations (Mihailova, 2017). In the same regard, Malmö has been mentioned as one of the innovative cities and one of eight emerging tech hubs in the world (Business Sweden, 2015). As a city where undergone post-industrial urban regeneration, city policy-makers have focused on environmental sustainability sometimes at the expense of equity in the city. For instance, in urban regeneration, there has been a focus on housing developments with advanced environmental solutions (Holgersen & Baeten, 2017; Mihailova, 2017). Some projects like Bo01 and Augustenborg Eco-city, succeeded to brand Malmö as a sustainable city in environmental solutions in urban planning, although scholars mention to a socio-economic polarisation and segregation which has remained and in some cases reproduced because of those policies and plans (Baeten et al., 2017; Holgersen & Baeten, 2017). Due to this focus, it seems not only policies might neglect other dimensions of sustainability such as the social dimension, but also they resulted in even environmental gentrification (Sandberg, 2014; Mihailova, 2017). However, Comprehensive plan for Malmö (2014) regarding its transformation believes that “The City of Malmö has experienced a successful transformation from an industrial city in crisis to a modern, environmentally aware and forward-looking city. This new comprehensive plan is a strategy for a new era, looking towards Malmö in the 2030s” (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014, p. 2). However, it could not decline that "Malmö is partly characterised by segregation and social disparity where differences in living standard and public health between different city districts are large (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014, p. 4). Most studies endorse the Malmö’s succussed in heavily investing on green and environmental urban development but lags behind the social aspect of that (Anderson, 2014; Nordic City Network, 2014; Sandberg, 2014; Mihailova, 2017). This issue is interesting to notice when we look at the previous

studies which had recommended that ‘knowledge city’ is no longer the objective that Malmö primarily needs to strive towards. Today there is a great need for the city to be more equal, connected and networked (Nordic City Network, 2014) while, still, some recent studies mention to Malmö’s problem of physical segregation and attribute it to those green type of development (Mihailova, 2017). Our early investigation, also, shows that the largest investment in the smart city as part of those green development (e.g., Hyllie) went mainly for environmental and economic purposes. In this regard, there has been trying to start changing this direction toward more social sustainability in recent years. For example, the Malmö city set up a commission to produce a document and plan for social sustainability in which, though, the social challenges of the city are introduced and analysed base on the health issue and perspective (Commission for a Socially Sustainable Malmö, 2013; Malmö Stad, 2017). Moreover, the Municipality in partnership with Malmö University created a research lab to bring social innovation in order to tackle social challenges in the city (Malmö University, 2015). Another issue as contextual information which is related to shaping policy in urban development and the smart project in Malmö is housing policy and trend as the main investment of smart projects went for housing. The recent trends in housing policy, which has been affected by the changing political atmosphere, resulted in a shift from social housing to the neo-liberal and market-driven system (Andersson & Turner, 2014). These changes in policies paved the road for further deregulations and in favour market-based cooperative housing (Andersson & Turner, 2014). One of the examples shows the effect of this trend on the urban practice is Hammarby Sjöstad, a so- called Eco-district from Stockholm which is a good example as a result of neo-liberal housing policy, and it is introduce as a reference for future sustainable urban development in Swedish cities, where the smart solutions were used (Khakee, 2007). The development in Hammerby Sjöstad was the first large- scale urban renewal project in Sweden which strongly implemented the neo-liberal planning elements by favouring private developers and setting high quality of housing in order to attract high income residents (Khakee, 2007; Andersson & Turner, 2014). The project became internationally recognised, and it has been taken as a positive case and role model for sustainable urban development (Khakee, 2007). However, the new district suffers from negative social effects such as lack of social cohesion, social mix, affordable rental apartments and the area is identified with low cultural diversity and segregated with high-income residents (Ignatieva & Berg, 2014; Cele, 2015). Similarly, several studies show (Taşan-Kok, T., & Baeten, 2011; Baeten, 2012; Sandberg, 2014) that the urban planning in Malmö has shifted to a rather neoliberal planning approach in order to assist in the transformation process and to attract high-income and highly skilled residents to the city. Moreover, the same approach and same language in introducing the smart city projects in Malmö such as Hyllie and Western Harbour are see which raise the question about the role of smart city projects in sustainable urban planning in this city. These political changes are considered dramatic since public housing was one of the cornerstones of the Swedish welfare-state. Therefore, this housing trend questions that if public housing companies can continue working as an important actor for social sustainability in these times when they have to adopt to market conditions.

2. Problem Formulation

Taking the previous debate and challenges of the current smart city into consideration, we define the problem based on the current dominant practice of smart city mainly focused on the two main issues. First is related to unsustainable understanding and defining the smart city by the domination of technical perspective and practices (Mora et al., 2017) and lack of integrated discursive (Bibri, 2017) which resulted in the lack of social consideration in the smart city and domination of environmental practices. The second point is related to the branding and marketing practices and the domination of private sector in defining and developing the concept and projects (Angelidou, 2017) which resulted in applying this concept in some developed countries as a means of competitiveness rather than sustainable urban development. These two points which can be seen related are elaborated more in the following paragraphs: The current smart city concept, which is embedded in neoliberal, techno-centric vision advanced in industry-policy discourses especially in Europe and North America, is primarily technical and digital (Vanolo, 2016; Mora et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2018). In this sense, there is also an increasing concern regarding the role of the private corporation in defining and envisioning smart city so that many label the smart city as ‘private city,’ ‘entrepreneurial city’, or ‘corporate smart city’ (Vanolo, 2016; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). On the other hand, in parallel with this fact that Smart City has become a global phenomenon, it has become a fashionable term, being used for branding or marketing purposes with a lack of integrated approach covering sustainability concerns. Thus “the fashionable term ‘smart’ has started to replace ‘sustainable’ in the brand of many projects, for example, China’s Tianjin Eco-City is now also branded as Tianjin Smart City.” (Yigitcanlar & Kamruzzaman, 2018, p.57) As it mentioned, these two identified points can be considered interrelated. Due to the lack of holistic and integrated view and definition on the concept of the smart city, and also the absence of social dimension in theoretical debates, this trend continues the current technical practices with all its shortcomings and cannot shed light on the missing actions for actors (Bibri, 2017). So, in this absence, the current private-sector-domination, and serving smart city as branding can continually create a misunderstanding between sustainable urban development and this current smart city for policymakers and planners, shifting the implementation of smart city in planning from a sustainable to one- dimensional approach in urban development (Parks, 2018) which can benefit mainly private sector rather than the city and citizens. Policy makers and practitioners increasingly look at researchers for answers to complexity and challenges which raise serious dilemmas, and at times, overwhelmingly perplexing questions (Tonts & Thompson, 2008). Since urban concepts and paradigms affect the municipal plans and practices and also can shape cities, therefore, it is vital to shed light on this phenomenon which received many criticisms. This trend becomes more crucial for cities such as Malmö which is in transition and suffering mainly from social problems on the one hand, and is massively trying to apply smart-environmental urban projects on the other hand (e.g., Smart Hyllie where are presenting as a model for the future urban development of Malmö). This focus and investment on climate and environmental approaches are in the condition that the main critiques and challenges about Malmö’s policies in urban development is related to social exclusion, segregation, polarization (Holgersen & Baeten, 2017) and gentrification in urban setting (Beretta, 2018) the same issues that critics relate them to smart city (Anderson, 2014; Sandberg, 2014; Mihailova, 2017). Also, one point is considered to be highlighted: ‘Entrepreneurial and branding’ which is a key characteristic of current Smart City in general (Angelidou, 2017), and, also, has been Malmö’s strategy in specific (Mihailova, 2017). The literature, especially about cities such as Malmö which undergone the post-industrial transition to a knowledge-based approach, showed that being sustainable or precisely socially sustainable and entrepreneurialism has been blurring (Mihailova, 2017).

3. Objective and Research Questions

Based on the problem formulation, the objective of this thesis to see how the current smart city which is techno-private-oriented in definition and practice, without social consideration in theory and practice, affect a city and sustainable urban development, or municipal practices as organization monopolise the city planning. In fact, it is aimed to explore how a concept with the given characteristics and without a common definition can be translated into the strategic plan for city development. Urban planning affects the future of a community with their abilities to understand the history of the community, to respond to the forces for growth, and to anticipate the future of the social, economic, environmental and cultural status of a community. It is not possible to develop a plan for an area before understanding it (Wang & Hofe, 2007). Therefore, without looking at a real case to find out the trends and implications of policies and projects, there is impossible to address gaps within a specific discourse. For this, we take Malmö as a case to address the research question and aims. So, analytical research through which it is possible to understand the past and the present, in order to make recommendations regarding how to predict the future, shapes strategies to direct future is aimed (Wang & Hofe, 2007). Therefore, the research questions are formulated as the following: How current understanding of the smart city concept affect the strategies and practices in sustainable urban planning? And, what is the understanding of the smart city concept lying behind the formulations in policy making? To answer these questions as it mentioned before a case is taken to explore how the concept of the smart city is considered and applied in urban policy-making and strategy plans, and how the policymakers and planners are dealing with that: for managing the complexity and as an approach to develop sustainable city or to deploy it based on techno-environmental perspective which is dominated in private sector practice and values. In fact, it tries to find out what are the assumptions and values of the policy-makers and planners in relation to smart city concept and what is its relation to (socially) sustainable urban development.

4. Research Design

4.1. Method

A qualitative methodology for data collection and analysis is applied to this thesis since this is preferred when the phenomenon is new (Yin, 2014). The internal realism is taken as an ontological perspective which leads to objective epistemology (Perri & Bellamy, 2012). This is due to our objective and the position of researchers against the data. For this, researchers are independent of data and mainly rely on the existing ones since it tries to find out the reality of what has happened according to policies and projects. Therefore, the epistemology of research is realism, and the investigator is capable of studying a phenomenon without influencing it or being influenced by it (Sale et al., 2002). Therefore, the main method is ‘Document Analysis.’ “Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents—both printed and electronic material. Like other analytical methods in qualitative research, document analysis requires that data be examined and interpreted in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge (Bowen, 2009, P. 27).” Documents of all types can help the researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research problem (Merriam, 1988). It can be used both as a complement to other research methods and also as a stand-alone method (Bowen, 2009). Atkinson and Coffey (1997) refer to documents as ‘social facts’ which are produced, shared, and used in socially organised ways (cited in Bowen, 2009, p. 47) Documents contain text (words) and images that have been recorded without a researcher’s intervention and vary in terms of forms, including summaries, organisational or institutional reports, agendas, books and brochures, advertisements, background papers; diaries, journals; event programs, maps and charts, newspapers press releases, program proposals, survey data, various public records, etc. Among them, Non-technical literature, such as reports and internal correspondence, is a potential source of empirical data for case studies in document analysis (Bowen, 2009). In this research, our main documents encompass strategy and political documents of Malmö Municipality about the smart city, urban development, and social sustainability. These documents as main plans and policies describe the main objectives and strategies, prioritising where development will occur when development is expected to occur, and who will be part of or be affected by the future development (Wang & Hofe, 2007). They are in the form of strategy documents and summaries of plans, agendas, brochures reports, and presentation of policies or projects. Our sampling for selecting document is mainly based on ‘where’ and by ‘whom.’ So, the resource to retrieve documents is from Municipality of Malmö and the manager of the relevant department, and also from companies as Municipality of Malmö’s partner and co-planner, e.g., E.on. The time of releasing and publishing of document could not be an issue in sampling as the policy and plan documents in urban development covers a time span as they define the road maps of development for the future. In fact, this criterion becomes effective when the document’s timescale has been finished, being replaced by the new one. However, those previous documents are vital resources to track the history of planning. In fact, the target of documents and the point that they are considered as the current political reference for decision-making are important. This thesis relies on the last version of documents for planning which are mainly plans for 2030 and produced since 2016, 2014 and 2009. Most main strategy and political documents have the English and Swedish versions. In this thesis the English version of documents are the basis at first place, since regarding one of our problem which is the usage of Smart City for branding and marketing, we aim to see also the possible international perspective of the policies and plan. However, the Swedish version of them are considered, and also if

for an important document, the English version has not been provided, the translation of the document is used. Like other methods, document analysis has advantages and limitations. The advantages of this method (Bowen, 2009) for this thesis’s aim are explained in the following paragraphs. One of the important advantages of this research is “Lack of obtrusiveness and reactivity: Documents are ‘unobtrusive’ and ‘non-reactive’ that is, they are unaffected by the research process. Therefore, document analysis counters the concerns related to reflexivity inherent in other qualitative research methods like interviews (Bowen, 2009, p.31)”. This point is very important since we intend to see what is happening in reality so in this way we avoid any possible impressions which policymakers possibly try to make, regarding their contribution, decisions, and plans or try to blur the problems. Also, this point should be mentioned that policy documents are the final instruction which defines frameworks for the future plans and strategies for all segments, actors, and developer and also the public in the long and short term. They are presenting the understanding, aims, and decisions of policy-makers, planners and politicians and are needed without any possible personal control and influence. Availability: availability of a decision and policy would be important not because of the convenience of collecting data, but since we aim to see what is presented in reality and more important from an international perspective to the public and companies. So, how the smart city concept is introduced and framed in political agendas and how the discourse is framing should be taken into account based on those documents which can be seen by others as well. Exactness: the inclusion of exact statements and references makes documents advantageous in the research process (Yin, 1994) which is important for this thesis aims to look for the reality of planning. Bowen (2009) also mentions some limitations for document analysis, namely insufficient details, low retrievability, and biased selectivity. We should consider and analysis them relating to this thesis. In case of retrievability, the pint is that sometimes access to the document is blocked deliberately (Yin,1994) which is not applicable for this thesis since the policy document, including in urban planning, are the public documents. An incomplete collection of documents suggests ‘biased selectivity.’ “In an organisational context, the available documents are likely to be aligned with corporate policies and procedures and with the agenda of the organisation’s principles” (Bowen, 2009, p.32). In this regard, every main relevant data was published publicly by Malmö Municipality were gathered. As it mentioned before, this kind of documents define the decisions for all actors and also the citizens to know about the city’s policies and plan and should be legally available. Therefore, there should not be any specific purpose to publish some special document and not the others. However, even if there is a selective approach to the publishing them, this shows the purpose of the organisation on what and how documents are presented. In case of this thesis aims and problem, to see if the smart city is a means of branding and marketing, this point is positively important. In relation to the insufficient details, Bowen (2009) elaborates that as documents are usually provided with some purposes other than research, so they are not based on the research agenda. In the case of this thesis, we use the documents to analysis them based on their own specific purposes. It means that, for example, the comprehensive plan of Malmö is analysed to see what the policies are and how this document develops them. To complete the data collection, we also conducted interviews as a supplementary method to cover some blurred aspects in documents and if there were a need to gather more data concerning a specific topic, e.g., the way of collaboration in smart city planning and projects. For this, the interviewees are selected

from the main departments and actors involved in urban development and main smart projects in Malmö as representative. The list of documents and interviews are provided in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: The list of documents

Title of the document Type of the document Source Theme/Category Strategic Innovation Agenda for Smart Strategy/national KTH Royal Institute of Smart city/ Sustainable City (2015-2050), (2015) scale Technology (with Partnership several representative in developing including Malmö Municipality) Sustainable City Hyllie – concept, content and Presentation E.on and Siemens Smart city project/ direction, (2011) Partnership

Malmö’s Hyllie Climate Contract, A Public– Presentation Malmö Municipality Smart city project/ Private Partnership for Smart City Solutions, Partnership (2015) Sweden Builds for Sustainability. The winning Brochure Swedish Research Smart city project/ cases from a competition, (2014) Council Formas and Sustainable urban Swedish National planning Board of Housing Smart City Malmö. Past experiences and future Presentation Malmö Municipality Smart city projects/ challenges, (n.d) Partnership Climate-Smart Hyllie – Testing the sustainable Report Malmö Municipality, Smart city solutions of the future, (2014) E.on, VA Syd project/Strategy/ Partnership Climate-Smart Malmö. Making sustainability Report Malmö Municipality Smart city projects/ reality, (2009) Strategy Comprehensive Plan for Malmö (2014-2030), Strategy/ city scale Malmö Municipality Urban planning (2014) strategy Co-operation for Sustainability. Swedish focus Report Malmö Municipality, Smart city projects/ on built environment, (2008) Swedish Research Partnership Council Formas Building Climate-Smart Cities in Malmö, (2013) Brochure/report Cascade, Malmö Smart city project Municipality Smart City Malmö – Sustainable Presentation E.on Smart city project Neighbourhood Hyllie: Concept, Strategy and Innovation, (2013) Environmental Programme for the City of Strategy/ city scale Malmö Municipality Environmental Malmö (2009-2020), (2009) strategy/ Sustainable urban development Climate Adaptation Strategy, The City of Strategy/ city scale Malmö Municipality Environmental Malmö, (2013) strategy and goals/ studies /partners The Open Skåne: Skåne's Regional Strategy/ regional Skåne Region Regional strategies Development Strategy (2014-2030), (2014) scale and goals Smart City projects: The City of Malmö, (2011) Presentation of Malmö Municipality Projects and projects strategies Sustainable urban mobility plan, (2016) Strategy/ city scale Malmö Municipality Projects and strategies UTBYGGNADSSTRATEGI: till Översiktsplan för Strategy/ city scale Malmö Municipality Projects and Malmö- Expansion strategy for comprehensive strategies plan of Malmö, (2016 in Swedish)

Innovationsområdet: Smarta hållbara Städer- Strategy/ national Skåne Region strategies and goals innovation area: Smart Sustainable cities (2016- scale 2020), (2016) Omvärldsanalys Region Skåne- Intelligent Skåne Strategy/ regional Skåne Region Strategies and goals region, (2016) Det Digital Malmö: Program för Malmö stads Strategy/ city scale Malmö Municipality Strategies and goals digitalisering- The Digital Malmö: Programme for Malmö city digitalisation (2017-2022), (2017) Malmö: The Green Digital City, (2009) Presentation of Malmö Municipality Strategies and goals strategies Continuing work for a socially sustainable Strategy/ city scale Malmö Municipality Social sustainability Malmö, (2017) Empowerment Evaluation of Policies Towards a Strategy/ City scale Malmö Municipality Social sustainability Socially Sustainable Malmö, (2013) Commission for a Socially Sustainable Malmö, Strategy/ City scale Malmö Municipality Social sustainability (2013) Western Harbour: a New Sustainable Presentation Malmö Municipality Sustainable urban Citydistrict in Malmö, (2008) planning The creative dialogue’ for Flagghusene, (2011) Report Malmö Municipality Stakeholder engagement Planprogram Sege Park, (2015 in Swedish) Strategy/district scale Malmö Municipality Development of Sege Park Markanvisningsprogram för Sege Park, (2016 in Strategy/district scale Malmö Municipality Development of Swedish) Sege Park Sharing for Affordable and Climate Smart Report Malmö Municipality Development of Living, (2015) Sege Park The ”Eco-City Augustenborg”- A walk along the Report VA-Syd Development of path of storm water, (2011) Augustenborg Websites Municipal website Information and Malmö Municipality Smart city projects (the Cited ones in the analysis text1) resources on plans Sustainable urban on the public sector’s planning platform Hyllie Smart City The main tailored Malmö Municipality the most important website for Hyllie E.ON, VA SYD. smart city project district Smart City Sweden Website Swedish smart city projects Environmental in Sweden Research Institute (IVL) E.on/Vasynd Website Private sectors’ (the Cited ones in the analysis text2) platform

1 - Malmö Stad, 2016a. Sustainable urban development. [Online] Available at: https://malmo.se/Nice-to-know-about-Malmo/Sustainable-Malmo-/Sustainable-Urban-Development.html [Accessed 2018]. Malmö Stad, 2016b. Sustainable Urban Planning in Malmö. [Online] Available at: https://malmo.se/Nice-to-know-about-Malmo/Sustainable-Malmo-/Sustainable-Urban-Development/Sustainable-Urban- Planning.html [Accessed 2018].

2 - E.on. (2011). E.on and Siemens agree on climate cooperation. [Online] Available at: https://www2.eon.se/en/Ovrigt/Presscenter/Press-releases-2008/EON-and-Siemens-agree-on-climate-smart-cooperation--/ [Accessed 2018].

Table 2: The List of representatives of interviews

Representative of Interview Role and Organization Sector Duration Interviewee Expertise Type Sustainable Urban In person Project leader of the Public 60 Kristoffer Widestam Planning and Comprehensive plan of Malmö, Sector minutes Development Malmö Municipality, strategy department, City Planning Office Environmental In person Project manager and EU Public 60 Roland Zinkernagel strategies and smart coordinator/ Environmental Sector minutes city / EU projects Department Smart city Projects In person Commercial Project manager Private 60 Patrik Thuring (specifically in /Sustainable Cities Department, Sector minutes Hyllie/Sega Park) E.On

For analysing the documents, the main and initial criteria include the purpose and scope of the document, the scale of them, if they are national, regional or in urban scale, the political status, if they are a political report as a legal resource for development or a document for reporting the process or project, and the main developers. The documents categorised into two main groups, those which is specifically about the smart city and smart projects, and the other strategy document related to the urban development. At the first step, we read through the whole documents to find the main themes and highlight the relevant and important statement and senescence, coded them in order to cluster the relevant ones together. Among the first group our consideration was to find the definition of the smart city as a concept, the way it is perceived and presented, how and in what areas it is defined in relation to development policies and to the sustainability concept, and how strategies are formulated for that. Also, the type of smart projects and their area of initiatives were mapped. For this part, as our data is from both public and private sectors’ resources, this point was also important to see what kind of data developed by which sector and also what is the differences between them regarding language, quality, and quantity of documents, etc. For the other group of documents- not directly related to the smart city-, at the first step, we tried to find out how and where the smart city concept, strategy or projects are defined or mentioned in the documents and to see what is the relation of the smart city to their strategies. Then, in a separated review, the main themes, goals, strategies, and policies regarding their specific area and scope of the documents extracted. This point was considered to find the relations of strategies and goals among documents from different areas and scales and find how they complete or contradict each other, and also to analyse the context of planning under which projects including the smart city projects happen. So, the main criteria were to find the shared and common theme under which main strategies and goals are defined. Therefore, in analysing these documents which are not related to the smart city, e.g. comprehensive plan for Malmö or Skåne strategy, it was not the main criteria to find out in which way they address social sustainability in the planning. However, in the documents specifically related to the smart city, the concern of social sustainability remains, to analyse how much smart city concept or projects address this issue. In general, in term of finding the main themes, the analysis was deductive, based on the analytical framework. So, the main analysis categorised into the three main themes including 1. strategy and definition to analysis smart city as a concept, strategic planning, and find the integration of strategies, 2. smart projects to find how the smart city concept is translated into the implementable projects, and 3. the partners and actors to find out who are the main developers of smart city concept and projects, how it is defined in terms of collaboration and partnership, etc. However, for the analysing the finding under

the main themes, the inductive approach was taken which based on that, the sub-themes were extracted. After the initial analysis which were resulted in a clustered data and then a draft of analysis, we conducted semi-structured interviews based on an interview guides for each representative (Appendix 2). The main guiding questions aimed to shed light on the obscure aspect of documents –e.g., the main leading planner of smart city projects among involved actors - and also to reject or confirm a finding which was important or raise hesitation for the conclusion. The interviews transcribed to be readable for both reviewers and the important part of dialogs were highlighted to be able to be checked or used as quotes. After completion of the supplementary data and initial analysis, the content for each part of the main themes developed, at first, as a draft by one person then reviewed by the other person to be discussed which base on that the final version of the text can be produced. In order to support the analysis, some selected quotes are mentioned in the text, and some other examples are provided in the appendix to avoid a prolonged text and provide convenience for the reader. So, they are the representatives of the possible quotes as the example.

4.2. Case study selection

Malmö is an interesting and important case study for this research since as it mentioned before, this city is undergoing transition and has invested heavily on environmental aspects and smart city projects to brand itself as an attractive place (Freeman, 2017). Yet, it is suffering from several social and societal problems that some of them are aftereffects of those development policies such as segregation (Mihailova, 2017), polarisation (Holgersen & Baeten, 2017), and eco-gentrification (Sandberg, 2014). For the main purpose of the research, looking at social sustainability in urban development and considering Malmö’s challenges in this regard, the dichotomy of the smart city as a sustainable approach or techno-environmental competitiveness will more appear. It means if smart city is considered as an approach for solve complexity or managing main challenges of the city should address those problems otherwise it is considered in another way.

4.3. Ethic Consideration

Regardless of having consideration towards plagiarism and acknowledging sources of information, as the research dealt with the document as secondary data, the trust has been the vital consideration to take into account. This means: - Avoiding any bias conclusion from the content of documents or manipulating data based on researcher desires, - Shattering any preconception to start reviewing documents, - Avoiding bias selection and presentation of documents based on the authors’ purposes. - Avoiding bias selection and presentation of quotes as a reference in the analysis based on the authors’ purposes. Also, since study deal with empirical data from interviews as well, the ethical consideration towards interview also is taken into account. The participants are given information about the topic and purpose of the study, and their consent to be referred to in the text and also about recording their talk were asked. Two interviewees requested to have the final thesis which will be provided at the time of completion. Moreover, the same level of trust towards analysing and presenting data from interviews is also taken into account.

5. Analytical framework

In this section, several theoretical debates are addressed, in relation to the study’s objective and topic as an analytical framework. At first, sustainable urban planning with the focus on the social sustainability is considered since smart city concept is introduced as sustainable approach and branded as a sustainable city. The focus has been on social sustainability since as it mentioned before, the main challenges and critiques have targeted the lack of social consideration and the overlooking of complexity and challenges of urban setting from the social perspective in the current smart city. Also, through looking at this dimension of sustainability the complexity of city and its planning become clearer, the dimension that, based on the urban planning history, has been more neglected (Trivellato, 2016) and it is claimed that “sustainability is often conflated with environment or ecology, thereby obscuring the social dimension” (Jonas and While, 2007, cited in Mihailova, 2017, p.12). This part has been seen from either the concept point of view or the process of planning which is about the place of stakeholders in sustainable urban planning. Moreover, as the smart city has been introduced as a concept or a conceptual and visionary term, the urban conception and urban vision, and its role in planning is also touched. In relation to the smart city concept as it was mentioned before, there is no any specific theoretical foundation, however there is a need to provide an overview about the most common definitions, dimensions, and the debate around them. So, in the final section, the smart city definition from different perspectives, mainly from researchers and also as a comparison from the private sector perspective is provided. Moreover, the most commonly used dimensions of the smart city are introduced since it provides a simplified overview of where and in which areas the smart city is possible to be applied and can portray its complexity.

5.1. Social sustainability in urban planning

Cities are long-term physical settings for the concentration of human interactions, activities, communication and cultural development, therefore diminishing the importance of social aspects in urban planning possibly creates socio-economic problems (Fainstein, 2000; Polèse & Stren, 2000; Ghahramanpouri et al., 2013). It has been observed that even though cities are developing in general, the gap between wealthy and poor is widening, social inequality and political fragmentation are increasing even in developed countries (Polèse & Stren, 2000). Concerning sustainability, equal significance has been given to social, environmental and economic aspects, but lately, social sustainability has been considered important particularly in urban studies (Ghahramanpouri et al., 2013). According to Polèse and Stren (2000, cited in Ghahramanpouri et al., 2013, 187p) “social sustainability of a city is defined as development (and/or growth) that is compatible with harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conducive to the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups... [and] encouraging social integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the population.” Therefore, their definition focuses on diversity and highlights the importance of increasing the level of social inclusion. Polèse and Stren (2000) also stress that different policies ought to contribute to social sustainability by creating cohesion for society by bringing people together and increasing the accessibility to public services and employment. In addition to this by emphasising urban perspective in defining social sustainability, Yiftachel and Hedgcock (1993, cited in Ghahramanpouri et al., p.187) underline that “urban social sustainability is about the long-term survival of a viable urban social unit.” Social sustainability is emerging in planning practice (Bramley et al., 2006; Dempsey et al., 2011; Kyttä et al., 2016). Nowadays, it is common in planning circles for urban planners to describe efforts to reverse problems of urban sprawl, congestion, and decline as a search for urban sustainability. Although this is

the case, in urban theory no consensus exists as to which human settlements embody sustainability (Basiago, 1999; Kyttä et al., 2016). The vitality of a city is considered as a complex system, the quality of life of its citizens, or the capacity of nature to support the activities of urban sustainability. This concept is often defined narrowly concerning the economic sustainability of a city, its potential to reach qualitatively a new level of socio-economic as well as demographic and technological output which in the long-term reinforces the foundations of the urban system (Basiago, 1999). Particularly environmental activists connect urban sustainability to broader social principles of the future, equity, and participation, especially the involvement of public citizens in the land development process and various urban projects (Basiago, 1999). Based on several researchers (Polése & Stren, 2000; Bramley et al., 2009; Colantonio, 2010; Manzi et al., 2010; Dempsey et al., 2011) the following table (Table 3) illustrates the most common elements of social sustainability in urban planning.

Table 3: The social dimensions of sustainable development: contributory factors.

Non-physical factors Predominantly physical factors Education and training Urbanity Social justice: inter- and intergenerational Attractive public realm Participation and local democracy Decent housing Health, quality of life and well-being Local environmental quality and amenity Social inclusion Accessibility (e.g., to local services and Social capital facilities/employment/green space) The sense of community and belonging Sustainable urban design Community cohesion Walkable neighbourhoods Active community organisations Safety Mixed tenure Fair distribution of income Social order Social cohesion Social mix Social networks Social interaction Employment Residential stability Cultural traditions Note: The table modified from Dempsey et al. (2011)

Table 3 provides a list of factors discussed by theorists and practitioners as contributing to urban social sustainability and socially sustainable urban settlements. The table illustrates the wide range of related concepts and is suggestive of the close conceptual proximity between factors, described by some as ‘social aspects of sustainable development’ and others as ‘sustainable communities’. There are two key, overarching concepts at the core of the idea of social sustainability. While social equity issues are powerful and crucial political and policy concerns, and centre upon a distributive notion of social justice – that is ‘fairness in the apportionment of resources in society’ – there is a more collective ‘sustainability of community’ dimension which, although seemingly more nebulous, is also essential to the concept (Bramley et al., 2006, p.5.). This second dimension is fundamentally concerned with the continued viability, health, and functioning of ‘society’ itself as a collective entity, generally under the heading of ‘community’ (Bramley et al., 2006, p.5). This is not to suggest that these two dimensions are completely independent of one another, merely, that this is a useful conceptual distinction (Bramley et al., 2006, p.5.).

Undoubtedly, to meet the requirements of equity in urban development, it is important that these provide proper opportunities in terms of accessible jobs and affordable housing. These aspects tend to receive the most attention in strategic planning. However, there are other complementary aspects of equity which also deserve attention (Bramley et al., 2006, p.5). Some key elements of access to local services are identified as important for equity between and within local communities (Bramley et al., 2006). A project is said to be socially sustainable when it creates a harmonious living environment, reduces social inequality and cleavages, and improves quality of life in general (Chan & Lee, 2008). The Figure 3 summaries the significant components highlighted in the literature that can affect the social sustainability of urban development projects (Chan & Lee, 2008).

Figure 3: Influential factors of socially sustainable projects (Chan & Lee, 2008)

The concept of urban social sustainability is also associated with the pursuit and realisation of social equity, social inclusion and social capital (Bramley & Power, 2009). While there is relatively limited literature that focuses specifically on social sustainability, there is, however, a broader literature on the overlapping concepts of social capital, social cohesion, and social exclusion. The box (Table 4) below illustrates the parallels between these concepts. Other terms such as ‘quality of life’ are also used (Bramley et al., 2006).

Table 4: Key definitions of social sustainability (Bramley et al., 2006, p.4)

Social Capital Social capital refers to features of social organisation such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination, and cooperation for mutual benefit. (Putnam, 1993, p.35) Suggested elements: Empowerment Participation Associational activity Common purpose Supporting networks Reciprocity Collective norms and values Trust Safety Belonging (Forrest and Kearns, 2001)

Social Cohesion Social cohesion can emphasis the need for a shared sense of morality and common purpose; aspects of social control and social order; the threat to social solidarity of income and wealth inequalities between people, groups and places; the level of social interaction within communities or families; and a sense of belonging to place. (Forrest and Kearns, 2001, p.2128) Suggested elements: Common values and civic culture Social order and social control Social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities Social networks and social capital Territorial belonging (Kearns and Forrest, 2000)

Social Exclusion Social exclusion is a process that deprives individuals and families, groups and neighbours of the resources required for participation in the social, economic and political activity of society as a whole. This process is primarily a consequence of poverty and low income, but other factors such as discrimination, low educational attainment and depleted living environments also underpin it. Through this process people are cut off for a significant period in their lives from institutions and services, social networks and development opportunities that the great majority of a society enjoys. (Pierson, 2009, p.7) Suggested elements: Poverty and low income Lack of access to jobs Lack of social support and networks Effect of the local area Exclusion from services (Pierson, 2009)

5.1.1 The planners’ triangle

Planners have been facing difficult and challenging decisions to position themselves in protecting the green city, promoting economically growing city or advocating social justice. The conflicts among these goals are not simply based on personal preferences, nor are they based on ecological, economic and political logic from a conceptual perspective, nor originated from temporary problems, so rather these conflicts came from the historic core of planning. Thus sustainable development has the potential to offer a holistic way of resolving these conflicts (Campbell, 1996). Scott Campbell (1996) uses a simple triangular model to understand the conflicting priorities of planning. He argues that the different languages of environmental, economic, and political ideas caused misunderstandings, however translating across disciplines alone is not sufficient to abolish these genuine clashes of interest (Campbell, 1996). However, sustainability can be developed into a powerful and useful organising foundation for planning if it is redefined and incorporated into a broader understanding

of political conflicts in industrial society (Campbell, 1996). Campbell (1996) also highlights that the more it generates a sort of conflict and sharpens the debate among different perspectives, the more effective the idea of sustainability will be in long-term. Not only the conflicts are illustrated by the triangle, but also the potential complementarity of interests (Figure 4). This approach requires a special role from the planners to act as mediators, which role needs creativity in order to build coalitions between various interest groups such as labour and environmentalists, or community groups and businesses (Campbell, 1996). Campbell (1996) suggests that planners need to combine both their procedural and their substantive skills which lead them to become key and influential players in the fights over economic growth, the environment and social justice. Several scholars in planning (Harvey, 1985; Fainstein, 2000; Healey, 2003) expect from planners to be the protector of disadvantaged groups and socio-economic equality. The planners’ effort and contribution in urban rehabilitation and redevelopment, highway planning, public-private partnership, zoning has been strongly contradicting with the image of equity planning. Thus, planners have been taken an ambivalent distance between the goals of economic growth and economic justice (Campbell, 1996). Furthermore, Campbell (1996) argues that the planner must reconcile at least three conflicting interests in order to generate economic growth, distribute this growth fairly, and in this process not undermine the ecosystem.

Figure 4: Planners’ triangle (own design, inspired by Campbell, 1996)

Ideally, planners would strive to achieve a balance of all three goals, however the case is different in practice due to professional and financial constraints that significantly limit most planners’ space of manoeuvring (Campbell, 1996). The reality of practice often restricts planners to serving the narrower interests of their clients, authorities, and bureaucracies, however the ideal would be serving the broader public interest.

The Edges of the Triangle: The Economy, the Environment, and Equity Planners usually represent and define themselves by one specific goal while neglecting the other two perspectives. On the figure the edges show the current fragmentation of professional practice and the centre of the triangle illustrates the sustainable development planning. (Campbell, 1996). However, it is important to stress that this ideal centre cannot be reached directly, but only approximately and indirectly by series of confrontations and resolving the triangle's conflicts (Campbell, 1996). According to the triangle of conflicting goals for planning there are three types of planner in the urban context. The economic development planner considers the city as a place where the production, consumption, distribution, and innovation are located. Moreover, competition plays a vital role with other cities for attracting labours, investors and new industries. In this type of planner space has economic reasons by planning highways, market areas, and commuter zones (Campbell, 1996). The environmental planner sees the city as a system which consume different resources and produce waste, while there is an intensive competition with the nature for unique resources and land. The urban sprawl is considered as a high treat to the nature and it occurs to the expanse of the nature. Space here is the ecological space of different green areas, water and ecological functions (Campbell, 1996). The equity planner however sees the city as a location of conflict over the distribution of resources and wealth, of services, and of opportunities. There is a distinction from the economic development planner due to the fact that in this type of planner the competition is within the city among different social groups. Space is considered as a social space of communities, organizations, where accessibility and segregation are important issues (Campbell, 1996). Although there are further essential perspectives of the city for instance the architectural, transportation or psychological, thus it is even more complex, but this triangle is useful for its conceptual simplicity (Campbell, 1996). In the following section the focus is going to be on the three edges of the triangle which represent clashing interests that lead to three fundamental conflicts. The foundation of the first one, namely the property conflict is the competing claims on and use of property which is basically due to the conflict between the economic growth and equity. For instance, this conflict can occur among management and labour, landlord and tenants or gentrifying professionals and long-time residents (Campbell, 1996). It makes this conflict more complex and contradictory the tendency of the democratic and capitalist society to define property (e.g. housing and land) as private product, while it also relies on public intervention (e.g. zoning, public housing etc.) to ensure the social benefits of the property. The conflict is fed by the private sector due to their continuous resist against the need for social intervention as well as highlighting the negative effect of intervening and influencing the free market. Thus the conflict expresses that the boundary lies between private interest and the public good (Campbell, 1996). The resource conflict is based on the different interests between economic utility in the industrial society and ecological utility in the natural environment. In order to economic flow there is a priority to involve and exploit nature resources, thus businesses resist the regulation of their exploitation of the nature, while there is a need for regulation both from public and private sector to conserve those resources for present and future demands (Campbell, 1996). The economic and ecological conflict shows similarities to the growth-equity conflict where the labours are also considered as resources from the profit-oriented businesses which is tend to be exploited as the nature while the environmental values can be considered as public good that is conflicting with the private interest (Campbell, 1996). The development conflict is the most elusive and challenging one which is lying between the social equity and environmental protection. In order to achieve sustainable development social equity has to be increased and the environment has to be protected at the same time in a growing and stable economy. Thus, it is difficult to find better economic opportunities to those who are at the bottom of the society while environmental protection requires the deceleration of economic growth. Furthermore, the development conflict at the local level creates resource-dependent communities which commonly are at

the bottom of the economy's hierarchy of labour (Campbell, 1996). In addition to that poor urban communities are often vulnerable and forced to make the no-win choice between economic survival and environmental quality. Environmental protection usually considered as a luxury of the wealthy which is the core of the development conflict where environmental segregation is the consequence of economic segregation (Campbell, 1996). By seeking sustainable development within the triangle of planning conflicts, Campbell (1996) suggests that the role of planners is therefore to engage the current challenge of sustainable development with a dual, interactive strategy. Firstly, to manage and resolve conflict and to promote creative technical, architectural, and institutional solutions. Moreover, planners must both negotiate the procedures of the conflict and promote a substantive vision of sustainable development (Campbell, 1996).

5.1.2. Planning actors: Stakeholder engagement in planning

The practice of urban planning has a strong need for immediate implementation of policies in order to tackle urban issues and handle urban complexity, thus legitimate policy decisions are prerequisite for this. Plan-making involves complicated process of considering economic, social and environmental aspects in relation to spatial configuration in urban areas. The introduction of communicative processes to urban planning strengthens the strain between making a decision and engaging broadly on the formulation of that decision. The theory of deliberative democracy has emerged from political science and sociology which emphasises the importance of inclusive and open engagement (Legacy, 2010). In theory, the formal process of stakeholder deliberation is valuable and advantageous due to the fact that it stimulates inclusive dialogue and exchange of ideas among stakeholders during the process of planning (Legacy, 2010). However, once stakeholder deliberation is involved in the planning process, it often occurs as an empty ritual of participation and has no direct effect to the planning process (Arnstein, 1969; Lane, 2005; Legacy, 2010). Stakeholder deliberation events (e.g. conferences, workshops, surveys, etc.) are very common, although this engagement is fairly tokenistic and often has no significant impact. These events ought to generate knowledge within these various micro-events which reflects the knowledge between stakeholders (Legacy, 2010). Due to stakeholders’ diverse approach – based on their values - towards social, environmental, and economic dimensions of the city, this deliberative and inclusive engagement make further planning more complicated and complex. In order to increase the level of inclusivity and include various types of knowledge into the process, these formal stakeholder deliberation events are added to the planning process at certain stages (Legacy, 2010). Lash’s tripartite model is used to offer a normative illustration of the relationship between the planner, the public, and the politicians, and in planning (Figure 5). This model highlights the importance that the included three key stakeholder groupings have different procedural and substantive contributions to the planning process (Albrechts, 2006; Legacy, 2010). Among of these stakeholders the public is a vital one since they are the one who are intensive users of the city which means that the public are directly affected by the implementation of the policies. The public is a valuable element of the process due to its local knowledge, therefore the planning process benefit from their inclusion. Thus, there is a higher chance that different policies can fit to the local context (Legacy, 2010). This sort of knowledge is tacit and the inclusion of the public create a “lived experience” of the individual (Legacy, 2010). Therefore, it shows that it has a legitimate place within the planning process.

Figure 5: Lash’s model (Legacy, 2010, p.2710)

Planners possess the key resources and skills to implement and realise policies in cities which makes their involvement important in contrast to the participation of the public. In addition to that, the planners are empowered to maintain and sustain their expert position through encouraging the application of their technical knowledge, thus to determine the quality and feasibility of the decisions (Legacy, 2010). Finally, in order to implement policies political power is necessary for that, therefore the politicians are the one who hold this formal and legislative power as well as they are able to offer the leadership in order to ensure that policies are implemented (Legacy, 2010). To conclude, each of these three stakeholder groups has a crucial role in the development and implementation of plans and policies, because if one pillar is missing or eroding then the triangle figuratively collapses and undermining the legitimacy of the plan during or end of the process (Legacy, 2010). This inclusive stakeholder engagement in the planning process enables and potentially empowers numerous stakeholders who are external elements of the formal structure of decision-making. The professional planners, the politicians, and the public have special roles to generate and exchange knowledge among each other and also to manage this knowledge within urban planning. Therefore, these three key stakeholder groups are interconnected and the way of their engagement facilitates this common articulation between the formal process of stakeholder engagement and the process of planning (Legacy, 2010).

5.2. Urban utopia, conception, and visionary

Theoretical level: The history of urban planning has shown us many efforts to create revolutionary concepts- in some cases as a utopia- in various decades (Friedmann, 2000) which through its imaginary capacity, scholars and planner can envision future of the city, guide human action and aspirations (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). We opened upon this issue in the introduction where it is shown that various concepts and paradigms have been formed with different perspectives over time, brought some opportunities and limitations from their specific visionaries. Here, we touch this again within some theoretical debate to indicate that these conceptions are aimed to represent visions of what cities might look like in the future (Angelidou, 2015) and in this way would affect the urban planning practise. Looking at this point is relevant and important. It is relevant since the smart city, in the recent decade, is associated with utopia to be defined (Angelidou, 2015; Vanolo, 2016; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). And also, the way of representing projects or concept by its advocates, namely public and private actors (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017) shows this trend and intention to offer smart city directly and implicitly as

utopia or future city. For example, some labeling can show this trend such as “welcome to the city of Utopia…in Florence, city of the digital Renaissance” (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017, p.80), “Bo01: the city of tomorrow” (Malmö Stad, 2001), and some indirect quotes which show the notion of being utopia like “the future begins in smart Hyllie” (Stenzenberger, 2016), and another one which was mentioned by Grossi and Pianezzi (2017): “The major point of contact with the idea of smart cities is however in the New Atlantis of Bacon […] In this city, science is sovereign”. In this regard, Vanolo (2016) describes the picture of European Commission’s agenda for the smart city as the cover of the old-style science- fiction book since its way of envisioning smart city is a stereotype image of future by digital flow, tall building, and absence of people. Adding to that, also, utopia and dystopia thinking to develop a debate around the smart city has recently emerged among researchers (Angelidou, 2015; Vanolo, 2016; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). This point is also important not because it is relevant or as is currently used in smart city conceptualising by actors. Since there might be more critical perspectives towards utopia thinking in the contemporary urban literature (Ganjavie, 2012) and we also do not aim to take utopia thinking as a theoretical foundation which formulates debates around the smart city. This is here important for its underlying aspects which can entail. One of these aspects is about the capacity to imagine the future with a constructive vision which creates concrete imagination to propose steps that would bring us closer to a world we would consider (Friedmann, 2000). It means that this has a potential role to “trigger transformative force for society (Vanolo, 2016)”. This capacity in urban planning is connected to spatial imaginaries (Vanolo, 2016) and has been translated into practical development so that every conception, e.g. Garden City of Tomorrow by Howard (1850s) influenced planning practices for many years thereafter (Angelidou, 2015). This trend has been the same for the other conceptions to a greater or lesser degree (Friedmann, 2000), but the main point here is that the most famous ones like Garden City which could affect city for a long time, “were not utopia in the pejorative sense which implies unrealizable and impossible vision, but they were defined as coherent programmes of action, resulting from a deep reflection that sought to transcend the immediate situation – programme that (if implemented) would break the structure of an established society (Ganjavie, 2012, p.12).” This coherent programme of action can be seen as a holistic concept or by another word urban conceptions. For example, the conception of Compact City conveys an opposite concept and image of urban sprawl (Neuman, 2005). This concept by envisioning specific future and spatial imaginaries will develop, consequently, some specific practices and principles such as intensification, mixed-use planning, high density, the public transport system (Lee et al., 2014). These principles are in line with the concept’s aim, and its bigger picture which is, for example, energy efficiency (Neuman, 2005). Also, around this conception which affects (spatial) urban form, other implications can be imagined such as more livability, accessibility (Lee et al., 2014), more community-oriented social patterns (Neuman, 2005), etc. So, clearly within this specific envisioning, planner tries to develop strategies and plans around this framework, avoiding the others which might contrast the holistic vision of this concept. Another aspect inherent in utopia, which can bring critiques for many, is about its dialectic with ideology (Morgan, 2015; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). “Ideologies have a practical impact on daily life, but they produce a collective imaginary that reinforces existing systems of social domination while preventing the production of alternative imaginaries. […] This is related to its illusory self-understanding which help the dominant class to sustain and reproduce its power and control (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017, p.80)”. That might why utopia is sometimes defined as a code word synonymous with totalitarianism (Ganjavie, 2012).

Backing specifically to the concept of the smart city, Vanolo (2016) explains that looking at the evolution of smart city narratives reveals that it is not an academic concept that has progressively informed urban policies and subsequently raised the interest of economic actors, the process that has happened for the other conceptions like ‘creative cities’, introduced and developed by scholars and then implemented at a global scale. He continues that “in the case of the smart city, the discourse has been firstly and mostly developed by a small number of multinational companies such as Cisco and IBM” as it is frequently mentioned in critiques (p.27). Practical level Looking at these issues from practical level, a concept and coherent visionary - even as a utopia by a coherent programmes of action- can be translated into integrated plan, policy, or urban development which is seen crucial for sustainable development3 and Its significance is partly underlined due to the complexity and magnitude of urban challenges (Bentivegna et al., 2002; Deutscher-staedtetag, 2011; European Union, 2014; Yigitcanlar & Teriman, 2014; Eisenbeiß, 2016; European Investment Bank, 2018; JESSICA, n.d.). “An integrated plan for sustainable urban development comprises a system of interlinked actions which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental conditions of a city or an area within the city. The key to the process is “integration”, meaning that all policies, projects, and proposals are considered in relation to one another. In this regard, the synergies between the elements of the plan should be such that the plan as a whole adds up to more than would the sum of the individual parts if implemented in isolation (European Investment Bank, 2018)4”. Bentivegna et al. (2002) by considering sustainable urban development as a process, point out the importance of integration from strategic planning on one hand to utilization of the resulting built environment at the other, seeing this integration either in content or scale of plans, assessment, development and management processes (Yigitcanlar & Teriman, 2014). Also, development of integrated models is considered critical for more efficient management and avoiding any resource deficiency (Alberti & Waddell, 2000). A Study by Yigitcanlar and Teriman (2014) shows that “adopting such holistic planning and development process generate a potential to further support the progress towards achieving sustainability agendas of our cities.”

5.3. Smart city definition and dimensions

Definition: The current phenomena require cities to find ways to tackle new challenges. Cities worldwide have started to look for solutions which enable transportation linkages, mixed land uses, and high-quality urban services with long-term positive effects on the economy. For instance, high-quality and more efficient public transport that responds to economic needs and connects labour with employment is considered a key element for city growth. Many of the new approaches related to urban services have been based on harnessing technologies, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), assisting to create what some call ‘smart cities’ (Albino et al., 2015). The concept of the smart city is far from being limited to the application of technologies to cities. In fact, the use of the term is rapidly increasing in many sectors without agreeing upon common definitions.

3- “Integrated urban planning is well aligned with system approach thinking originated from the Systems Theory” (Yigitcanlar & Teriman, 2014). 4 - http://www.eib.org/products/blending/jessica/faq/what-is-an-integrated-plan-for-sustainable-urban-development.htm

This has led to confusion among urban policymakers, hoping to institute policies that will make their cities ‘smart’ (Albino et al., 2015). Numerous definitions of smart cities exist and constructed by private companies, municipalities and even researchers from various fields. A range of conceptual variants is often obtained by replacing “smart” with alternative adjectives, for example, “intelligent” or “digital.” The label “smart city” is a fuzzy concept and is used in ways that are not always consistent. There is neither a single template of framing a smart city, nor a one-size-fits-all definition of it (Albino et al., 2015). For corporations such as IBM, Cisco, and Siemens, the technological component is the key component to their conceptions of smart cities, and many cases their definitions represent their current business interests (Albino et al., 2015).

Table 5: Different definitions of the smart city with main focuses

Definition Main Focuses Source Smart Cities’ initiatives try to improve urban performance by using Technology Marsal-Llacuna & data, information and information technologies (IT) to provide more Public services López- efficient services to citizens, to monitor and optimize existing Collaboration Ibáñez(2014) infrastructure, to increase collaboration among different economic Innovation actors, and to encourage innovative business models in both the private and public sectors. Smart community – a community which makes a conscious decision Technology Eger (2009) to aggressively deploy technology as a catalyst to solving its social and Economic development business needs – will undoubtedly focus on building its high-speed Job growth broadband infrastructures, but the real opportunity is in rebuilding Increased quality of life and renewing a sense of place, and in the process a sense of civic pride. […] Smart communities are not, at their core, exercises in the deployment and use of technology, but in the promotion of economic development, job growth, and an increased quality of life. In other words, technological propagation of smart communities isn’t an end in itself, but only a means to reinventing cities for a new economy and society with clear and compelling community benefit. A smart city infuses information into its physical infrastructure to Economic socio-political Nam & Pardo improve conveniences, facilitate mobility, add efficiencies, conserve issues of the city (2011) energy, improve the quality of air and water, identify problems and fix Economic-technical-social them quickly, recover rapidly from disasters, collect data to make issues of the Environment better decisions, deploy resources effectively, and share data to Interconnection enable collaboration across entities and domains. Instrumentation Integration Applications Innovations A city is smart when investments in human and social capital and Management and Caragliu et al. traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication organizations (2011) infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of Technology life, with a wise management of natural resources, through Governance participatory governance. Policy context People and communities Economy Built infrastructure Natural environment

Several large and transnational private companies have their own approach and focus on the concept of smart city. Deloitte that provides various professional services claims that there are three goals can create foundation for a smart city initiative, these are quality of life, economic competitiveness and sustainability, and the company also created a smart city framework (Eggers & Skowron, 2018). While there are companies such as IBM, Cisco, and Ericsson which have a strong focus on technology, thus their approach and services provide smart city solutions from a very technical perspective by developing

and constructing smart infrastructure for mainly the public sector (Ericsson, 2017; Cisco, 2018; IBM, 2018). Dirks and Keeling (2009) stress the importance of the organic integration of a city’s various systems (transportation, energy, education, healthcare, buildings, physical infrastructure, food, water, and public safety) in creating a smart city. Researchers who support this integrated view of a smart city often underline that in a dense and complex environment, no system operates in isolation. To conclude this section, based on previous findings the following points are the most common characteristics of smart cities:

 a city’s networked infrastructure that enables political efficiency and social and cultural development  an emphasis on business-led urban development and creative activities for the promotion of urban growth  social inclusion of various urban residents and social capital in urban development  the natural environment as a strategic component for the future

Smart city dimensions

As the smart city definition, no defined criteria regarding smart city initiatives exists, however, there are groups of clustered-dimension which are used as the most common ones in some studies, reports, organizational websites, etc. for different purpose like as a means of measurement and mainly for ranking cities and evaluating cities’ smartness (Monfaredzadeh & Berardi, 2015). For example, European Smart Cities which developed four versions of smartness assessment base on this dimensions created a benchmark for European medium-sized cities ranking to show competing areas of smartness between them (Giffinger et al., 2015). These dimensions (Figure 6) encompass six components of ‘Smart Economy,’ ‘Smart Mobility,’ ‘Smart Governance,’ ‘Smart Environment,’ ‘Smart living,’ and ‘Smart People’ (ASIMER, 2017). In the following a short definition of every dimension is presented (Monfaredzadeh & Berardi, 2015; ASIMER, 2017, p.5): Smart people or human capital: linked to the level of qualification of human and social capital, flexibility, creativity, tolerance, cosmopolitanism, and participation in public life. The existence of citizens able to participate wisely in smart urban life and to adapt to new solutions providing creative solutions, innovation and diversity to their communities is needed. Smart mobility: Smart Mobility pursues to offer the most efficient, clean and equitable transport network for people, goods, and data, referring to local and supra-local accessibility, availability of ICT, modern, sustainable, and safe transport systems. Smart economy: an aspect linked to a spirit of innovation, entrepreneurialism, the flexibility of the labour market, integration in the international market, and the ability to transform. Smart governance: relates to participation in decision-making processes, transparency of governance systems, availability of public services and quality of political strategies. Smart environment: understood in terms of attractiveness of natural conditions, lack of pollution, and sustainable management of resources. Smart Environment: uses data collection from utility networks, users, and air, water, and other city resources in order to establish main areas of action in urban planning and city infrastructure planning as well as to inform urban services managers to achieve a more efficient and sustainable urban environment while improving the citizens’ quality of life.

Smart living: involves quality of life, imagined and measured in terms of availability of cultural and educational services, tourist attractions, social cohesion, and personal safety. The wise management of facilities, public spaces, and services using ICT technologies to put the focus on improving accessibility, on the flexibility of uses, and on getting closer to the citizens ́ needs.

Figure 6: Smart city dimensions (own design, inspired by ASCIMER, 2017)

The more elaborated version of this clusters, in which it is tries to define the main relevant actions, is produced in a report by ASCIMER (Assessing Smart City Initiatives for the Mediterranean Region) in 2017. Although it is not a scientific paper, it provides the clearest details of every dimension through with it is possible to see the potential areas and panel of possibilities in which smart city projects should happen. This reports considers itself as a general tool, being applicable to any project in any city as means for evaluating and prioritising projects facing them to the real challenges of cities, however, believes that choosing the right project is not enough for achieving its success since smart city projects development is a long process in which ‘governance issues’ become the key for achieving the objectives and understanding the role of stakeholders in each of the phases is key (ASCIMER, 2017). Moreover, it is more in line with the smart city projects rather smart city concept (Figure 7). The projects actions based on the given dimensions are defined in the tables 6:

Smart City

Smart

projects

Figure 7: Smart city concept and projects relations where projects are defined based on the smart city concept (ASCIMER,2017)

Table 6: Smart city project actions

Smart People: Digital education Creativity ICT - Enabled working Community building and urban life management Inclusive society Smart Mobility: Traffic management Public Transport ICT Infrastructure Logistics Accessibility Clean, non-motorised options Multimodality Smart Living: Tourism Culture and leisure Healthcare Security Technology accessibility Welfare & Social inclusion Public spaces management Smart Governance: Participation Transparency and information accessibility Public and Social Services Multi-level governance Smart Environment: Network and environmental monitoring Energy efficiency Urban planning /urban refurbishment Smart buildings and building renovation Resources management Environmental protection Smart Economy: Innovation Entrepreneurship Local and global interconnectedness Productivity Flexibility of labour market

6. Analysis

The analysis part is carried out by firstly looking at approach and strategies towards the concept of the smart city in Malmö, secondly, the smart city projects as the executive tool to deliver the visionary of the concept, and thirdly the main actors and partners in developing this concept and projects. This category is in line with the analytical framework in terms of urban conception and visionary, integrated urban planning, and main actors (stakeholders) in planning. The main perspective here is to see how the smart city concept is envisioned and defined, how it is related to urban development strategies and urban context of Malmö, and then how it is translated into smart initiatives. Through this, we can find if it is seen as a strategic approach specifically in relation to contextual issues such as the social aspect of sustainability, and how policies and strategies are formulated within and around it. In the first section which is related to the broader part of definitions, strategies, and goals plus their relations, findings are analysed around the sub-themes under which the main trend and approaches can be organised.

6.1. Smart city concept and strategies

6.1.1. Semantically use of sustainable city and smart city

Based on the reviews of documents, and searching for “Smart City” concept and projects, different terms came across to introduce smart city projects. In the documents and descriptions of Malmö Municipality, Smart (City) mainly comes with sustainable city or sustainable urban development, “Climate Smart City,” “Green IT city” or “green digital city,” and “smart energy efficiency.” In fact, there is a strong articulation of interrelatedness between the smart city and sustainable city, therefore they are meant to convey the same meaning. In many cases, smart city projects are used as sustainable urban development or sustainable living. In a document about presenting experiences of the smart city in Malmö, it is indicated that “for Malmö, sustainable city is a Smart City (Smart City Malmö. Past experiences and future challenges, n.d.).” This mixture and various interpretations which are seen in the title of documents, at first place mislead the readers if the document is about sustainable development or smart city, and secondly, shows that these two concepts are being presented and aimed to be perceived in the same way. This is frequently seen where sustainable urban development projects are introduced by almost only mentioning those projects that are considered as smart city projects. Among all projects and sub-sections of sustainable urban development, only one projects are not introduced and considered as a smart project.

6.1.2. Lack of definition, the clear strategic approach, and framework

Looking for how smart city is located and defined in Malmö Municipality, it is seen that smart city is not defined as a strategic approach or specific concept and is located within the main physical urban development areas as smart practices which are defined under the Environmental Department subdivisions. In general, it cannot be seen any specific and organised visionary or strategy, or model towards the smart city concept in smart city documents or even among the other strategy documents.

This absence of holistic view was also seen in interviews, appeared in the form of different definitions or a complete absence of involvement. In fact, every main representative which are involved in smart city projects had different perception and expectation from the smart city so they revealed the smart city concept and understanding based on their perspective within their specific field. And, this is bolder when it comes to city planning department where there is no any practical involvement regarding smart city concept. This point can be associated with another level which is about disconnection of the smart city to the rest of development strategies and plans. Other main strategy documents show a meaningful linkage to each other such as the comprehensive plan as a political document so that in this documents, even other related reports are mentioned and visualised in the text as a reference to show the chronology of policies and strategies and their conceptual relations. This connection is seen among the visions and visionary of urban development so that the intention for following the holistic approach and bigger picture is clear. For example, the visionary of the comprehensive plan for Malmö is compact city according to which one reason for developing Hyllie as the largest developmental plan is to fill the gap had excluded this part from the city (Widestam, personal communication, 2018). This continuum and chain are obvious among other main visions and ambitions. For example, the vision for attractiveness, or regional connection are clearly seen in every document, showing the meaningful understanding of a holistic approach towards a common goal. If this chain is tracked back in terms of scale, the existing linkage to upper scale documents, e.g., to the Skåne strategy document, shows that smaller scale documents are in accordance with the largest scale as well. However, when it comes to smart city projects, it is seen that this chain is relatively broken, not showing any connection to the urban development strategies or strong connection to the rest of main strategy documents in sense of conception and holistic perspective and also strategies. This is the same for the projects though the way of representing them is linked to climate adaptation aims. It was continually tried to find a framework, model, or strategies within which smart projects and concept might be perceived and defined. It was found that in urban scale and in case of smart projects, the same trend which is seen between ‘sustainable city’ and ‘smart city’ terms, also exist within strategies which are applied to define smart city projects in Malmö Municipality. In this case, four main strategies of the Environmental Programme, are used in different sections of Malmö Municipality and for presenting different projects or concepts. In fact, environmental actions and sustainable urban development also considered in parallel, implying that they are applied and meant in the same way at least until a specific time, presenting the same reflection of the smart city, sustainable city, and environmental policies. Four main strategies developed in Environmental Programme (2009), which are, nearly, frequently mentioned in documents and Malmö Municipality description in different sections and topics include:

 Sweden’s most climate-friendly city  Malmö – the city of the future  Sustainable use of natural resources  It’s easy to do the right thing in Malmö It seems other topics in different domains are defined based on these strategies such as smart city, Climate Hyllie, green digital city, and even sustainable urban planning. In explaining the main approaches in sustainable urban planning in Malmö Municipality (Malmö Stad, 2016b), these strategies are mentioned, and they are also used for digital city report by adding the word “smart city,” in the following way:

 Malmö is Sweden’s most climate smart city  The urban environment of the future is in Malmö  Natural resources are managed sustainably in Malmö

 In Malmö, it is easy to do right In addition, Climate Smart Malmö, regardless its focus on environmental action does not provide any clear definition or strategies for the smart city except for mentioning some actions and intentions for energy saving. The mixture of using smart city, sustainable city, and climate action also is seen here. Interestingly, the only place where the using sensor, which can be related to the main tool of smart projects in general, is mentioned in traffic, is ambiguously considered only as the advantage of the climate-friendly alternatives: “Sensors speed things up: A small gadget on some of Malmö’s traffic lights detects approaching bicycles and buses and controls the traffic flow to the advantage of the climate-friendly alternatives” (Climate-Smart Malmö, 2009, p.7). In line with the previous point, it was also found that the way of documenting and developing reports for smart city projects and concept in the city is not consistent with the rests and in the same level. In fact, most of them cannot be considered as a political and strategic document and they almost developed by private partners, being found mainly in the form of presentation, not a formal document. However, where the smart city is mentioned and considered in a strategic document, it lies on a regional or national scale to the relation of a broader perspective of innovation. For example, we can mention ‘Strategic Agenda for SSC’ (2015) and ‘Smarta hållbara städer’ (2016). The first document which does not seem to be a legal one5, does not provide any framework, model in general or strategies in relation to development. In this documents, it is indicated that “establishing sustainable urban development goals relevant to smart sustainable cities cannot be undertaken in the scope of this agenda. Rather, this agenda establishes the following visionary objectives stemming from the threefold vision: 1- Sweden is a leader in sustainable urban development by designing, testing, and implementing integrated ICT enabled solutions, 2- Sweden has strong growth in sectors developing smart solutions for urban sustainability, and 3- Sweden has an open innovation climate that facilitates new solutions and accelerate the market uptake of SSC (Smart Sustainable City) R&D solutions” (Strategic Agenda for SSC, 2015, p.15). In fact, this document “recommends actions to develop an innovative environment that will enable Sweden to a) become role models for smart sustainable cities, b) undertake world-leading research and innovation on smart sustainable cities, c) become a leading nation in attracting investments from the emerging multi-billion-dollar market of SSC-products and services, and d) boost Swedish competitiveness in SSC-technology-markets (Strategic Agenda for SSC, 2015, p.3)” The second documents, on a regional scale, also targets sustainable smart city based on a broad innovation perspective, being limited to some “directions of the work on Smart Sustainable Cities Innovation.” Here, still the aim is to “become ‘Europe's most innovative region 2020’” (Smarta hållbara städer, 2016, p.2), so it seems the concept of the smart city is considered as a means to fulfil this aim. This document has been developed because smart sustainable city is one the three detected priorities of Skåne strategy Agenda in line with smart specialization6. However, it does not provide a specific framework, model or agenda for itself smart city, but gives some direction why and how innovation should be considered around this issue. Therefore, it does not portrait how smart city concept should look like or how it should be defined in relation to urban development in the context of Skåne though one might ask if this is in the scope of a regional strategy document. Furthermore, again in this document the sustainable development is more frequently mentioned, but it is not clear that why and how smart city is considered as sustainable urban development. In general, this is a document to show vision for Skåne to be “internationally leading by 2020 in create, test and

5 - which can force actors to act upon that. 6 - Smart specialization as one the EU policy for Strengthening innovation in Europe “is a place-based approach characterised by the identification of strategic areas for intervention based both on the analysis of the strengths and potential of the economy and on an Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (European Commission, 2017).” Smart here means “Identifying the region’s own strengths and comparative assets,” specialization means “Prioritising research and innovation investment in the competitive area” (European Commission, 2017).

implement innovations for smart sustainable cities” (Smarta hållbara städer, 2016, p.7) which is strongly correlates with the previous national document. It aims to envision that “Skåne will be a natural choice when companies and individuals around the world want to invest, research and develop products in the Smart Sustainable Cities innovation area” (Smarta hållbara städer, 2016, p.7). Yet, it is not clear and defined that how and through which way this ambition happens and can be achieved. Another point which could reveal the difference between smart city projects and the other political and strategic documents is about the process of approving. For example, comprehensive plan document should be sent to the different department of Malmö Municipality or even to the external non-municipal organisation (e.g., checking against fire safety criteria), to be checked against their standards and agenda (Zinkernagel, personal communication, 2018) which again shows the importance and understanding of integration. However, this process is not clear in the case of smart city projects assumingly because they are a project-based initiative in small scale not a strategic approach in an urban scale. However, the process through which smart Hyllie7 was legitimised and implemented shows a strong partnership, collaboration, and dialog-based approach between Malmö Municipality and private sector, but this collaboration does not seem to be about defining smart city initiatives but about finding synergy for the process of implementation. These smart city projects such as Hyllie are, in fact, initiatives of the private sector which have been granted by Malmö Municipality since as long as solutions meet sustainability, especially environmental dimension, and innovation goals, there is an open atmosphere to be accepted. For instance, when we asked about the influence of the urban planning department on smart projects, it was found that the idea of projects is developed from the private sector in relation to the bored sustainability goals: “As a city planning office we are providing possibilities, our goal is that this town be very sustainable and then it is up to the private companies if they want to build and solve the problem. So let’s say we do not really provide the answers to those questions (Widestam, personal communication, 2018)”. “The city has its ambitious, agenda of being sustainable so in 2020 they will be renewable within the organisation and in 2030 they want the city 100% renewable. And E.on has its own ambitious targets as well so we find a joint platform to able to help each other out (Zinkernagel, personal communication, 2018).” This open atmosphere can have a number of reasons. For example, Malmö Municipality does not have power when the private sectors are the owner of the land and projects (Widestam; Zinkernagel, personal communication, 2018), so convincing them to follow sustainability goals is challenging and require efforts (Widestam, personal communication, 2018) therefore if they follow certain sustainability criteria, it is voluntarily. This is also about the time of returning capital and profit for the private sector which can contrast with the long-term sustainability goals (Zinkernagel, personal communication, 2018), creating another tension in these urban developments. Therefore, it is clear why, for example, Hyllie Climate Smart Contract8 which has been set out after several dialogues between private and public sector and could attract private sector to invest and built apartments, is seen as a positive, successful and referable achievement by both Malmö Municipality and private partners, even if the project does not show considerations toward social sustainability9. Furthermore, it can be clear why in most places where smart city projects are presented, the language of branding outweigh the other aspects, the ambition which was found beneficial for both sectors. This also shows consistency with the regional objective of being internationally attractive for innovation or investment. The last given points about branding and

7 - As the main current smart project, which its analysis and information is given in the following sections, Smart city projects and actors. 8 - This is a voluntary contract, and Malmö Municipality cannot force companies to follow (Zinkernagel, personal communication, 2018), and has been elaborated in the smart city actors section. 9 - more information in the smart city projects.

attractiveness are elaborated in the following sections where the common goals underline the strategies of plans are analysed.

6.1.3. Thematic integrated strategies

In relation to formulating policies and strategies some key points are seen in all strategy documents which can be considerable to notice. They are considered important to the aim of this thesis since they portrait the whole visionary and ambition for the future development and show the context of integrated policies so needed to grasp a more precise conclusion. This could enable us to analyse the relational and links between policies, and see how the smart city concept and projects are possibly affected by them. The main important points, as the bolder approaches or visionary, are as the following which are elaborated in continue:

 Environmental perspective and ambition,  Ambition for being an international model,  Emphasis on attractiveness,  Emphasis on cross-border connection,  Physical planning as means for achieving main goals.

Environmental ambition and perspective: Smart city and rather sustainable urban development are defined under Malmö’s Environmental Programme umbrella which emphasis on environmental and climate actions. Even, comprehensive plan of Malmö as a strategic document which provides directional targets for municipal decisions on all level (Comprehensives plan for Malmö, 2014), is mentioned as one of the most important steps or approach to achieve the overall objective of climate action programme, and environmental policies such as adaptation actions should be part of a comprehensive plan (Environmental Programme, 2009). As it mentioned before, its main strategies were deployed in other documents and specifically in case smart projects. Environmental perspective has been the dominant approach so that the absence of social consideration made politicians set up a commission with the mission of working on social sustainability of Malmö. The point here is that the integration of policies, e.g. between comprehensive plan, environmental programme, and climate action, in general, ecological dimension, are more obvious than this document. However, it was found that according to (Zinkernagel, personal communication, 2018) the main perspective of the environmental department is health, the angle which is also the main perspective of social sustainability document, to address social issues such as unemployment, segregation, etc. from a health perspective as the foundation. Attractiveness: It is interesting to see that there is a strong emphasis on attractiveness and ambition to make Malmö an attractive place, consequently formulating actions and policies around this goal. This is a clear prominence so that in many places especially in the comprehensive plan and Skåne development strategy attractiveness comes before and along with sustainability. Or it is integrated mission for sustainable mobility when it comes to smart city concept in that documents (Sustainable Urban Mobility plan, 2016). In the elaborating of the main and opening visionary of comprehensive plans for Malmö, the critical statements are addressing attractiveness integrated with sustainability goals (Appendix 3-1). This emphasis is seen in a schematic model of comprehensive plan approaches toward sustainability where the core of triple sustainability is defined by attractiveness (Figure 8)

Figure 8: Sustainability dimensions in Comprehensive plan of Malmö (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014, p.3).

In this document, where they mention the priorities, a regional generator is one of the main priorities under which development for the attractive city is a continual approach (Appendix 3-1). We can continue by extracting different quotes from different sections where the attractiveness is repeatedly mentioned for defining the main policies and sub-strategies, almost in the first place, as a goal or for achieving the main goals. Some of them are mentioned in the Appendix 3-3 from the comprehensive plan for Malmö (2014) In addition to this, this prominence strongly is aimed at Skåne regional development strategy plan, showing a regional ambition and also reasoning why the comprehensive plan as a subordinate, regarding scale, follows this goal. In this strategy documents, working for attractiveness is one the five prioritised standpoints which is seen from a global perspective, not for regional-scale inhabitants (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Prioritised standpoints in Skåne strategy (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014, p.6)

The same as the comprehensive plan, this words can be seen frequently in the different parts of document, among the main and subdivision strategies and visionaries. For example, it is indicated that “The open Skåne shall be developed as an internationally attractive place to visit, live and work for people and companies alike (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014, p. 41).” This attractiveness can be seen interlinked with the ambition of competitiveness and also the economic attraction. In some parts, it is defined as economic sustainability, and in most cases, it is seen as an ambition to attract business, private companies, and knowledge people to invest and stay (Appendix 3- 4).

International role model: Another strong visionary in defining main approaches is an ambition for being recognisable as a model regionally and internationally. This is the clearest ones through which smart city projects and even sustainable development are represented. We can see this point is outweighing other aspects of development even the sustainability, or implying that sustainable development is aimed to be addressed in such a way that results in a considerable and recognisable achievement globally. In Malmö Municipality, sustainable urban development is explained as “a series of pioneering residential construction projects has attracted international attention and put Malmö on the map as one of the world’s top cities for sustainable city development (Malmö Stad, 2016a).” The main opening statement of Environmental Programme states: “We Take on the Challenge: Malmö will be the Best City in the World for Sustainable Urban Development by 2020” (Environmental Programme, 2009, p.2) and this is presented in the Climate Adaptation Strategy, where the Environmental Programme’s strategies are mentioned, in this way: “The aim of the programme is for Malmö to become a global leader on sustainable urban development by 2020 (Climate Adaptation Strategy, 2011, p.8)”. It is interesting to mention this visionary, in this programme, is defined based on serious challenges discovered and various criteria measured as to which show the importance of developing environmental and adaptation plans. Similarly, it is also a clear way of defining and formulating smart city projects (it is elaborated more in the section of smart projects) but much stronger in Skåne regional development strategy which also shows the aim of competing with the world (Appendix 4): “We shall put Skåne on the international map […] Skåne shall strengthen its international competitiveness […] We shall attract expertise from the entire world. As such, Skåne needs to strengthen its appeal and international image to face the competition of tomorrow (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014, p. 41). Accordingly, this ambition for being internationally recognisable is inherently defined in comprehensive plan by trying Malmö attractive place for investors. The base step to achieve this goal is seen as working on physical planning as functioning the society (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014, p. 42) so it is not surprising that comprehensive plan has been affected by this visionary, emphasising on “structural investment as a good way of physical structure which is seen vital for economic competitiveness (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014, p. 4).”

Physical planning as means for achieving main goals: This strategy as it mentioned, is a foundation of achieving goals and ambitions in the main strategy documents even in regional scale like in Skåne strategy (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014) in which this is defined as the first step for being attractive (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Mans steps for creating attractive city (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014, p.42).

It can be seen that this approach is considered as a central strategy for a long-term functioning for Malmö Municipality: “As an organisation, the City of Malmö is an important player with its investments, operations, and services, and in order for these to be financed long-term through taxes and other fees it is important that they must be coordinated with spatial planning. Infrastructure investment is a good example of a physical structure that is vital for economic competitiveness. (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014, p. 4)” And even in defining approach and strategy for the regional cooperation, physical investment is seen as a critical requirement: “The Copenhagen-Malmö Region should be Scandinavia’s business centre, with the best climate for international companies. This will require a number of physical investments and strategies: (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014, p. 11)” such as transport infrastructure, land infrastructure for future business and entrepreneurship, cooperation between Malmö and Lund for infrastructure investment (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014).

Regional and cross-border strategy The other important approach through which the main strategies are defined is the regional connection, especially with Copenhagen. Skåne (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014) considers this regional connection as a polycentric urban structure which can be taken as a competitive advantage for development and be attractive (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014). Therefore, one of the reasons why there is a specific focus on Hyllie even among Smart city projects’ areas become more clear however this is not the only reason behind this specific focus since as it mentioned interviews brought other reason such as creating cohesive urban fabric.

6.2. Smart city projects in Malmö

Besides looking for how smart city concept and its policies and strategies are defined, various smart city projects were mapped to see what sort of projects are defined and what their focuses are and how they cover the smart city dimensions. 22 smart city projects and initiatives were identified in Malmö from research on Malmö Municipality’s websites and mainly on Smart City Sweden’s platform (https://smartcitysweden.com/) which is a national export and investment platform for smart and sustainable city solutions, and is managed by IVL, Swedish Environmental Research Institute (https://smartcitysweden.com/about/, n.d). This platform was founded by the Swedish government and the Swedish business sector, now owned and managed by IVL. However, the point here is that many identified projects are not considered as smart city project from the Malmö Municipality or not mentioned in the documents. Table 7 shows the projects which are considered as smart city projects with their focus areas- based on the platforms’ descriptions. Also, based on the project descriptions, each smart city project and initiative was analysed with smart city dimensions to have a clear overview of the projects’ focus.

Table 7: List of Smart City projects in Malmö

Platform/recourse List of SC Initiatives Focus Area (based on the developer’s description) Smart City Dimensions

Smart City Sweden’s Sege Park The City of Malmö has the aim to make the Sege Park Smart Living platform and Malmö area a frontrunner in sustainable urban development Smart Municipality and several goals have been set up. Sharing for Environment Affordable and Climate Smart Living is an open Smart People competition to develop innovative solutions for the area.

Recycling Park The Kristianstad recycling park is one of the best Smart examples of the Swedish system of waste management. Environment The material and energy recycling rate is currently 97% and the goal is to reach 100% in the near future. Through extensive cooperation arrangements with the region’s heat and power plants the recycling park delivers household waste to Beleverket in Hässleholm and SYSAV in Malmö.

The Eco-City In 1996 the decision was taken to create an eco-city. This Smart Augustenborg provides an excellent example of a successful Environment sustainable makeover of an urban district. The make- Smart Living over focused on efficient water systems, green roofs, Smart People and solar energy. The Augustenborg project was the cooperation with the tenants in the area around the goals and management of the project.

Bo01, “The City of This “city within a city” has its own systems for managing Smart Living Tomorrow” in the its energy supply and waste treatment. Car traffic in the Smart Western Harbour area has been minimized as an environmentally friendly Environment approach to urban planning and mobility.

Comprehensive In Malmö with its 300,000 inhabitants’ household waste Smart waste is collected by the waste management company VA Syd. Environment management In the residential area of Augustenborg all fractions of waste are sorted in waste management houses close to residential buildings.

Climate-smart Hyllie Hyllie, Malmö´s largest development area, will lead the Smart Environm way towards Malmö becoming a sustainable city. By as Smart Living early as 2020, Hyllie will be 100-percent sustained by Smart Mobility renewable or recycled energy.

Smart Cities The project integrates the development of sustainable Smart Environm Accelerator solutions and data between energy systems with regard Smart Economy to citizens' welfare, laws and learning to facilitate more and more sustainable solutions in the municipalities.

Sustainable Climate-SMART food centre - The knowledge of kitchen Smart Rosengård staff, educators and children about food's origin and its Environment significance for climate change, environment, health Smart and learning will be approved. Governance

Smart City Sweden’s CLIRE – Climate The CLIRE project consists of four sub-projects, each Smart Living platform Friendly Health and focusing on a particular aspect of health care Smart Care management with substantial potential for Governance improvement in terms of sustainability and the use of clean technologies and practices.

Hydrogen fuelling Region Skåne and the city of Malmö opened Sweden’s Smart Mobility station first mobile fuelling station for hydrogen in Sege Park in Smart Malmö. The hydrogen is produced from pure water, Environment using renewable electricity, and water is also the only emission when driving.

Improving energy As a part of the FP7 project A2PBEER the technical Smart efficiency of public museum in Malmö was retrofitted with new and Environment buildings innovative technologies increasing the energy efficiency.

Improving waste Swedavia is an international role model today for Smart management in developing airports with the least possible impact on the Environment Malmö Airport climate. Malmö Airport was the first airport in Sweden Smart Living to install a solar heating facility featuring vacuum tubes. The airport facility consists of a solar heating unit and boiler system that provide 100% of total heating requirements.

Sjölunda Sjölunda Wastewater Treatment Plant, Malmö at the Smart Wastewater Sjölunda plant in Malmö wastewater from 550,000 Environment Treatment Plant inhabitants is treated. The plant was built in 1963. Recently expansion of biological treatment has reduced the use of precipitation chemicals to meet the Swedish requirements and the plant has at the same time reached emission requirements of organic compounds, phosphorous, and nitrogen

Malmöinitiativet Malmöinitiativet is an online platform for residents of Smart Malmö to suggest and share ideas which potentially can Governance be realised and implemented by the City of Malmö Smart People

Skanska – Zero Implementing smart solutions in apartment buildings in Smart Living Energy Buildings in relation to energy consumption. The project living Smart Limhamns Sjöstad energy is built in cooperation with E.ON Environment

HSB - Hilda building Comprehensive renovation in 760 apartments with 2500 Smart tenants (e.g. energy efficient ventilation, renewal of Environment radiators, facades renovation etc.). Information system (monitors and webpage) to change behaviour.

Integrated Energy Implementing smart solutions in apartment buildings in Smart System in relation to energy consumption. Environment Lindängen

Integrated Energy Implementing smart solutions in apartment buildings in Smart System in relation to energy consumption. Environment Lorensborg

Smart Home in Implementing smart solutions in apartment buildings in Smart Living Hållbarheten from relation to energy consumption. Smart E.on Environment

Lighting Metropolis To strengthen the significant role lighting can play in Smart supporting safety, accessibility, identity, health, and Environment education for people in cities.

Malmö by Bike Malmö by Bike is a project for bike rental in Malmö in Smart Mobility cooperation between the City of Malmö and ClearChannel. It was opened in 2016 with an online platform to register, make transactions and track available bikes in the city.

Observation Skånetrafiken In Skånetrafikens application the passenger can search Smart Mobility Informatics System for a trip and buy single tickets for bus and train within Skåne and to Denmark as well. The ticket applies to any time for the selected distance. The passengers able to pay with bank card. Note: the descriptions of projects are extracted from smartcitysweden.com, Malmö Municipality’s website, and skanetrafiken.se.

The identified Malmö’s smart city dimensions correlate with the previous findings, showing that the projects are mainly focusing on certain elements of smart environmental dimension such as energy efficiency, smart buildings, waste management, and building renovation. Smart people here is referred to the educating tenants about waste management and the ways to recycle as well as how to save energy with smart solutions. Therefore, at the first glance, the smart city projects and initiatives seem lacking in the social dimensions such as smart people and smart governance. There are some smart projects can show contribution to other dimensions but they are not considered as smart projects in the documents or public sector’s platform. For example, the Municipality of Malmö financed a public service with smart solutions to improve the quality of services and quality of exchange information between the municipality and the citizens. Malmöinitiativet is not considered as smart city project at the Municipality, but it is an example to involve locals to decision-making by using an online platform where citizens can interact with each other and city officials as well in order to improve their closer or wider neighbourhoods. Although by visiting the website it is visible that the Malmöinitiativet’s online platform does not keep up to nowadays standards, therefore its effectiveness and functionality are questionable. Another example is Skånetrafiken Informatics System neither considered officially as a smart city project, but it strongly relates to smart mobility since it provides an integrated real-time traffic information to passengers and the opportunity to pay online on a mobile device as well, thus it assists in the promotion of public transportation. The list of smart projects includes projects and initiatives from a different range of scale, thus the impact of each project is different. The most important projects which are presented in documents and Malmö municipality’s platform and are considered as the most prioritised area of urban development in Malmö are Western Harbour (Västra Hamnen) and Hyllie (Figure 11). The City of Malmö has been planning to develop these areas for a long time, however, involving smart city solutions is originated from the private

sector. Following them, the Sage Park is mentioned as the recent smart city project, but it is not in the same scale or priority in urban planning as the two previous ones. In Appendix 4 brief history of its planning is given, but here the main concluding parts from analysing the data is presented.

Figure 11: Prioritised development areas (Comprehensive Plan for Malmö, 2014, p.5)

The most vital link between those projects is that they are followed-up experiments therefore after experimenting different innovative solutions in Western Harbour, the new form of smart solutions attempted to be tested in Hyllie and in Sage Park recently. Bo01, the “City of Tomorrow in Western Harbour is a “city within a city” which has its own systems for managing its energy supply and waste treatment. In order to achieve these goals several smart city solutions were implementing in the newly developed area to monitor, track and optimise those processes. The aim of the new waste management system was to reduce, recycle and renew (e.g. making biogas) waste. Moreover, the goal also was to only use renewable energy in the buildings with high energy efficiency (Western Harbour, 2008). This illustrates that the main focus was on energy and waste management which are under the smart environment dimension. Numerous smart solutions were introduced first time in the Bo01 project and functioned as testbeds to test new technologies and solutions. This is supported by Patrik Thurning from E.on (Thurning, personal communication, 2018) who emphasised that it was a learning process for the company and some of the smart solutions worked in their buildings and some of did not meet with their expectations due to complexity or early introduction to the market etc. However, after evaluation and improvement several smart solutions were implemented in the next large-scale urban development in Hyllie. Bo01 stimulated the further developments and expansion in Western Harbour with Bo02 (Flagghusen), Bo03 (Fullriggaren), however developers and the municipality claim that these projects aimed to lift the quality by using improved solutions and new approaches such as the ‘creative dialogue’ to engage stakeholders in order to realising sustainable and affordable housing. In the ‘creative dialogue’ it is mentioned that the stakeholders strived to shift the focus and include social and economic sustainability aspects in the developments and each projects by increasing the proportion of rental housing, decreasing the rental prices and flexible design of housing (The creative dialogue’ for Flagghusene, 2011). However, the main focuses and the smart environment dimension remained as dominant focus of the expansion

Since the Bo01 was considered as successful experience from municipality and its developers, Climate- Smart Hyllie has become a further step to use the previous experiences and test new ways of implementing smart city solutions. By 2020 the energy supply in Hyllie is planned to be entirely provided by renewable or recycled energy, and a large-scale smart grid is being implemented, that does not only provide solutions for electricity, but also for heating and cooling. The aim is to develop a smart integrated infrastructure system focusing on interaction between central and local production, a so-called smart grid. This development than the previous one also stresses the importance of energy efficiency to exploit the capabilities of the overall smart systems as well as to supply energy needs through locally produced renewable energy, such as solar and wind energy (Climate-Smart Hyllie et al., 2013). These focuses strongly relate to the smart environmental dimension which includes network monitoring, energy efficiency, smart buildings and resource management. In addition to this tenants are involved where the future energy systems are tested enabling people via smart devices to actively calculate, control and influence their own energy consumption, and also be able to produce energy themselves. The goal is defined as to stimulate a climate-smart lifestyle by providing user friendly and accessible platforms which concept relates to technology accessibility that is one of the elements of the smart living dimension (Sustainable City Hyllie, 2011; Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013). A new experience in this project is conducting a contract, Climate Contract, between Malmö Municipality and the main partners from private sectors E.on and VA-SYD. This contract is considered as one the success factors of this project since created a new form of partnership and collaboration. The contract created a foundation for the development and set goals and sustainability criteria in implementing project with the main focus on energy and waste management (Climate-Smart Malmö, 2009). Following these experiences and types of smart solutions, recently another projects has started in Sege Park. The main difference in its approach is that there is tried to test and experiment those smart solutions in existing and not in a new developmental area. The aim from E.on is that the project is implementing affordable housing by 2025, as a shift to affordability and social aspects from both public and private sector in the planning (Planprogram Sege Park, 2015; Markanvisningsprogram för Sege Park, 2016). However, it is also mentioned that the idea is to test how those previous smart solutions can be implemented in the existing buildings which implies the intention to expand the tested solutions to the other possible parts of city (Sharing for Affordable and Climate Smart Living, 2015). The development shows similarities to the ‘eco-district’ project in Augustenborg, Malmö where it is also implemented climate-friendly solutions by improving blue-green infrastructure in a low-income neighbourhood with existing buildings (The Eco-city Augustenborg, 2011). In these project the emphasis is still on improving the existing physical environment by renovation, energy efficiency, green infrastructure and development of drainage system (blue infrastructure), thus the focus is still on the smart environmental dimension. The development in Hyllie is taken as a good example and the attempt is to develop this model in Sege Park as well in order to potentially become the new model for sustainable urban development. The development is financed by the European Union and partly by Malmö Innovationsarena (Planprogram Sege Park, 2015). Another different approach for experiment in Sege Park is the idea of sharing economy. After the development the energy, the waste system, mobility and water solution will be shared among the tenants, and besides the food production, sustainable pro curement and the community building will be shared as well (Planprogram Sege Park, 2015; Sharing for Affordable and Climate Smart Living, 2015; Markanvisningsprogram för Sege Park, 2016).

Furthermore, in relation to these projects, another important point is about the way they are presented in document and in both public and private sector’s platforms. The most documented ones are Western Harbour and Hyllie. Both are tried to be branded so that even for Western Harbour it is tried to attract tourists and organise tours for professionals to visit the project area (Widestam; Thurning, personal communication, 2018). The intention of branding is seen beneficiary by both sectors. Moreover, both projects are introduced as the models for sustainable development. Climate-Smart Hyllie is introduced by its developers as one of the most important sustainable urban development in the city and as “Future of Malmö” or “the most climate-smart city” in the Öresund region. It is also one of three large test beds in Sweden for smart grids and frequently referred as “the largest expansion area in Malmö” (Climate- Smart Hyllie, 2013). In appendix 5, Hyllie is taken as an example and tried to elaborate on the given points by also mentioning some quotes. There are smart city projects which are initiated from private companies in the energy and construction sector or housing associations, namely from E. ON, Skanska and HSB. The two leading private companies’ main focus is to create high-quality housing with smart solutions in order to increase energy efficiency and use renewable energy, while the housing association, HSB prioritise the improvement of its existing building by the comprehensive renovation. For the large private companies, these projects are considered as pilot and reference projects for future smart city projects in Sweden and internationally. Our interviewees described Hyllie as “the 2.0 of Western Harbour” (Widestam; Thurning, personal communication, 2018) which implicates that the focus on energy and waste management are remained similarly as in the Bo01 development, while this strong environmental focus foreshadowed the lack of the social aspects and socially related smart city dimensions such as smart governance with participation, public and social services, smart people with community building and urban life management and inclusive society, and finally smart living with welfare and social inclusion. The flagship urban developments in the prioritised areas and in Sege Park have been experimental projects and having a project-based approach, therefore they function as test-beds where new solutions and technologies are tested and implemented. The differences between the development of Hyllie and Western Harbour and Sege Park that the latter is realised in an existing area where the newest smart solutions and experiences will be implemented. To conclude, most of the smart solutions in the smart city project in Western Harbour and Hyllie are basically making people’s lives more convenient (smart living dimension) and fulfilling environmental standards (smart environment dimension). In Malmö the majority of the smart city projects’ objectives, especially the large-scale developments with significant impact are attempt to achieve environmental goals. Although in general planning is considered to shift from an environmental to a social focus which process is claimed by the interviewees both from public and private sector. However, the social aspect is completely missing from the smart city projects, especially specific segments of smart people, smart living and smart governance in relation to the six dimensions. The current practices in specific areas of smart city projects, so far, lack the other dimensions of smart city and cannot define smart city even based on the currently used six-dimensional definition. Moreover, the difference which exists in considering and presenting smart city projects between the public sector- Municipality-, as the main planner of the city, and private sector platform is notable to mention.

6.3. Actors and partnership

This section focuses on the key actors and the nature of partnership in smart city projects in Malmö by analysing documents and the findings from the interviews both from the public and the private sector. The municipality of Malmö has the policy-making powers, and use it as a foundation for decision- making in their specific departments. The Environmental (Miljöförvaltningen) and City Planning (Stadsbyggnadskontoret) Departments are responsible for urban developments, therefore, they are the one who creates visions, strategies and setting the direction for urban planning in Malmö. Kristoffer Widestam (personal communication, 2018), the leader of City Planning highlighted that when it comes to smart city projects the City Planning office provides possibilities and an open atmosphere for archiving their goal, a sustainable city, however, it strongly depends on private companies what they want to build and how they want to solve a problem in the area. Furthermore, the Municipality of Malmö as a public entity has great access to national and European Union funds thus an additional financial source is often involved in smart city-related projects. The other key actors consist of various private companies. There are several large private companies such as E.on, Siemens, Sweco, NCC and Fujitsu which have been involved in smart city and sustainable urban projects in Malmö. The majority of them has a transnational profile, being operated globally. Particularly E.on is well-established in Malmö due to its special monopoly position in the energy sector by owning the energy infrastructure and electricity grid in the city and has the ability to develop and test new technologies and solutions in this areas. The two construction companies Sweco and NCC also dominant in their fields and influential in real-estate development as well as having a strong focus on sustainability. From Skåne region several small and medium-sized enterprises such as RP Malmö, Tyréns AB, Innoventum AB, Hulteberg Chemistry and Engineering AB and AquaP AB are represented and involved in smart city projects with a focus on waste management, water and sewage technology and consultancy. Our interviewees both from the public and private sector underline the importance of close collaboration between the Municipality and private companies in smart city projects and sustainable urban developments in Malmö. Patrik Thurning (personal communication, 2018) from E.on described it as a prerequisite of being successful in sustainable urban development. Due to E.on’s profound relationship with the Municipality and special position in the energy sector, the company has been introduced early in the implementing process, especially in the new development areas such as the Western Harbour, Hyllie, and also in Sege Park, therefore it contributes E.on to plan better energy solution for the area (Thurning, personal communication 2018). Previously the Municipality mainly interacted only with the real-estate owners and constructors in the early stages. This is supported by Kristoffer Widestam (personal communication 2018), according to him the Swedish housing market strongly relies on private constructors and companies, therefore also Malmö had to establish a close collaboration with the private sector to mitigate the shortage of housing in the city. This close collaboration is also essential due to the intensive involvement of various external funds in smart city projects, therefore the well-functioning and close collaboration are the interests of both the public and private sector. There is a document in national scale which functions as a sort of innovation policy document or directive in smart city concept. Strategic Innovation Agenda for Smart Sustainable Cities for Sweden (2015) was conceived and written by representatives from a number of stakeholders within the innovation area of smart sustainable cities in Sweden, including municipalities, research institutes, large private companies and NGOs. As it mentioned before, it does not provide strategies and policies in the city scale and also in relation to defining smart city in an urban setting. Rather, it aims to show the importance of working in the smart city for Sweden “as the potential for Swedish innovation and targeted growth, providing goals, ambitions, and recommendations” (Strategic Agenda for SSC, 2015, p.4).

Patrik Thurning (personal communication, 2018) from E.on described the partnership in smart city projects in Malmö as a triple helix collaboration where the Municipality, the academia, and the private sector form an alliance in order to improve decision-making and the implementation of projects. This approach strongly resonates with this Agenda (2015) where the three key group of stakeholders also considered as important actors in relation to the smart sustainable cities (SSC), however in the national scale. The Municipality of Malmö was one of the cooperated organisations of making this Agenda (2015), therefore it should represent the City of Malmö’s opinion and approach to smart city projects. The numerous organisations which were involved in making the Agenda (2015) are also actively participating in various smart city projects in Malmö such as Siemens, NCC, Sweco, Skåne Regional Council and Lund University. The following quote shows that the Agenda (2015) starts with a strong statement about the need for a collaborative approach and call for actions by placing citizens in the centre of the smart sustainable cities and emphases the importance of citizen engagement and social cohesion in these initiatives. “This agenda represents the shared vision of a multi-stakeholder consortium and a strategy for Sweden to become a leader in the smart sustainable city research and innovation and the realization of the smart sustainable cities. Citizens are core contributors to the smart sustainable city. Therefore, this agenda recommends actions that will enable socially cohesive communities with empowered and engaged citizens and cities that enable environmentally sound choices.” (p.3) “Co-creation refers to a creation process where new solutions are designed with people, not for people. It is closely related to notions of ‘participatory design,’ ‘co-design,’ ‘design attitude’ and ‘design thinking’: approaches that in recent years have been emphasised as central to innovation and will be an integral part of the activities suggested in this agenda.” (p.7) The Agenda (2015) highlights the importance of co-creation approach, however it is different in reality for smart city concept or at least limited in Malmö’s smart city projects. Although, there is an active partnership and cooperation between the City of Malmö and private companies in terms of implementing projects, the existing or future residents’ point of view and demand is limited, and cannot be truly presented due to the fact that the smart-climate project in Hyllie was built from scratch and Western Harbour used to have an industrial function. Therefore, these areas did not have a significant population to involve before the development has started there. More importantly, this collaboration in the level of planning the concept and projects- types of initiatives- is blurred. In fact, in the level of a project in private sector, based on the Thurning (Personal Communication, 2018), this partnership might exist in implementing projects, but when it comes to the smart city as a concept and strategic planning, this fact and process are not clearly visible. Specifically, in term of people, in the documents, it is seen that the role of people is mainly considered as the followers and users of the projects and that is why the strategy “in Malmö, it is easy to do the right thing,” is one of the principles. Mentioning the importance of people is also seen in providing the higher quality of life and a more convenient lifestyle, while they are provided ‘with the environmentally sound choices’ (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013). Furthermore, the Agenda (2015) clearly states its contribution to the maintenance of Sweden’s leading position in business rankings and attracting international investments. Also, one of the purposes of this strategy is to straighten further the area of ICT, urban sustainability, and innovation as well as the Swedish economy and job market in overall. The Agenda’s objectives (2015) do not include or mention any socially related topic, rather it is focusing on that Swedish cities should be the role models for the smart sustainable cities and Swedish industry should become the global leader of providing SSC solutions. These two objectives strongly resonate with the Agenda’s observation that the large developing countries with rapid economic growth such as China and India become the leaders in implementing smart sustainable city solutions, therefore the

involvement of Swedish companies with experience and reference in SSC solutions to those new urban developments would provide a great business opportunity for them (Strategic Innovation Agenda for SSC, 2015). In Malmö, after learning from Bo01 development in Western Harbour, the next stages needed a new framework in collaboration. Malmö’s Planning Department introduced ‘the creative dialogue’ in the further developments in Bo02 and Bo03 in 2004 by involving numerous developers and creating a test panel of engaged citizens in order to initiate a dialogue about architecture, planning, environment and quality in the area. The goal was that this type of dialogue “would lead to a complete and detailed plan for realising good, sustainable and affordable housing” in the Bo02 development (The creative dialogue for Flagghusene, 2011, p.8). The special was in this framework that the Municipality encouraged developers to share knowledge and know-how rather than competing with each other. The idea was behind that the developers could reduce the production costs of new sustainable solutions, thus reducing the housing prices. According to the Municipality the framework resulted cooperation between developers and carried out join procurements in their projects (Malmö City Planning Office, 2011). In Climate-Smart Hyllie the project is based on a collaboration called Climate Contract for Hyllie (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013), and it was signed in 2011 by the Municipality of Malmö, E.on, and the municipally owned infrastructure company VA-SYD. This document set a framework for those private actors who are being involved in the project. Only those companies and their subcontractors are allowed to be involved in the construction which signed the Climate Contract. However, according to our interviewees, the Climate Contract does not force the involved companies to fulfil sustainability criteria and make the dwellings affordable for instance. The chosen approach in the construction and facilitating the buildings depend on the companies because it is a voluntary decision. Therefore, there are companies which are the forefront of sustainability and implementing sustainable solutions, and there are others which rather focus on the functionality of the buildings and taking the profit out of it. The signatory parties agreed on the foundation for Hyllie “to become the Öresund region’s most climate- smart city district and a global benchmark for sustainable urban development” (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013, p. 2). The vision what was formulated also illustrates the intention to develop a new district in Hyllie which potentially become the global model for sustainable urban development and increase the city’s competitiveness. In addition to that, E.on and Siemens signed a separate cooperation agreement in the same year where E.on is responsible for the overall planning of the new energy solutions, while Siemens is developing the technological applications and smart infrastructure in Hyllie (E.on, 2011). Furthermore, in this agreement, the two large multinational companies strengthen the intention of the Climate Contract and set a common goal to bring the best smart solutions to the project (E.on, 2011). By signing this contract, these two companies created a competitive advantage and became more influential in the projects of Hyllie. Both companies benefit from this agreement and develop more quality solutions which potentially place E.on and Siemens on the map for other smart city projects nationally and globally. As similar to Hyllie’s Climate Contract was signed in the development of Sege Park in 2018 between the same key actors City of Malmö, E.on, and VA-SYD. This partnership also based on the triple helix collaboration model where the public (the City of Malmö and Vinnova), private (E.on and Trianon) and academinia (International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) form a partnership to undertake the implemented project within a certain framework for this project. In Malmö, the municipality strongly relies on the large multinational private companies such as E.on and Siemens in their smart city projects in the development of urban areas. These companies are also the constructor and facilitators of the smart city projects. E.on and Siemens are the most dominant in Malmö’s smart city projects in relation to energy, especially in Hyllie where the two companies signed

a cooperation agreement to complement each other’s areas of lack. The City of Malmö provides access in the very early stages of implementing, to these key actors in smart city projects. In general, the cooperating and partnership can be seen more in terms of implementing and facilitating the projects by, for example, providing settings and regulations, or providing an open atmosphere for collaboration with private sectors. In fact, regarding the notion of partnership, generally, there is positive experiences and potentials in regulations and implementation though in the planning phase and in the case of the concept of the smart city as strategic and integrated plan, this potential is urban scale seems to be neglected.

Concluding points of the analysis:

 Smart city in Malmö is a project-based approach rather than a strategic and holistic plan, which the projects are mainly defined based on the environmental goals or based on the angel of innovation rather based on a holistic vision of smart city concept. Many of these projects are considered as experimental projects and test beds.  These projects, based on the context of city and social sustainability, are not addressing the main challenges of city  The related strategies are defined in the national and regional scale which are naturally broad and abstract, following more general ambitions. So, the place-based strategy and plan in the city scale are lacking.  In the strategy and goals level, the common strategies and goals are being economically attractive, and internationally role model and leading, highlighted in most documents.  The main developers of these projects are mainly from the private sector. The partnership is seen in the projects mainly in terms of implementing rather defining them.  The smart city projects are more recognisable in the private sector platform than the public sector. Some projects are not mentioned as one of the smart city projects.  The projects address a few dimensions of smart city concept especially when it comes to social aspects like smart people, smart living. Regarding smart people and living, projects show mainly convenient life, the opportunity for choosing the environmentally sound behaviour (like participating in energy saving and waste management, etc.) and educating people in those regard, and raising awareness.  Among the projects, those which mostly and frequently mentioned in the public sector platform, are those projects which are branded-strongly as sustainable planning.  There is a strong potential, opportunity, and strength point for partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors in Malmö in general, and in case of implementing projects with a sustainability profile.  There are also potentials to follow sustainability goals, as many private sectors show willingness in engaging with sustainability criteria in line with their responsibility.  The data from the interviews did not provide other information about the reality of projects, plans, and policies were found from the documents, but revealed considerable information about the challenges and difficulties exist because of the complexity of the issue of city planning, and other issues can bring tension or limitation like political issue, funding, and regulation issue, etc. Many of them are taken as concluding points to make the argument around them in the discussion part.

7. Discussion and Recommendation

This section aims to answer the research question with the argument based on the debate in the analysis part. This argument is shaped around the more important challenges and issues which were mapped and concluded from the data and analyses. They are also categorised into the headlines to make arranging the argument structured. The first point addresses the most missing consideration and the second one is about the different tensions which exists or can be created. Under each point, it is discussed what are the implications of this current understanding and practicing of the smart city for sustainable urban planning and policy-making. Also, since this study looked at Malmö city as the case study, the final section discusses what the potentials in Malmö in relation to recommendations are.

7.1. The needs for strategic vision and planning, fitting to the city scale

Our review of this case study evidenced that the smart city is not defined as a strategic concept in urban scale, showing no clear sign of holistic envisioning in urban development. It could be seen again smart city “is just a little more than marketing tools label, being still a hollow urban imaginary in search of meaning (Buck & While, 2017, p.504)”. This already notified fact, here, crystallised in the form of detached private project-based ideas and fragmented strategies from urban planning and contextual issues of the city. In this sense, it will not be surprising that Malmö is not fully benefiting from smart city initiatives especially in order to address its main challenges when there is no holistic vision portraying how smart city concept should take role for a city, and also the contribution of public sector i.e. municipality in defining this concept and its framework is considerably lesser and subordinate to the private sector. This point is considerable since at first municipalities have the monopoly of planning (Widestam, personal communication, 2018) - at least in case of Malmö - and there will be a question how this sector can contribute in planning and developing initiatives without having definition, framework, or model. Moreover, how it can scale and evaluate the projects in relation to the other plans and a border perspective. To elaborate, this trend of developing smart city projects can be limiting for a city since the possibility and competence of private sector is limited to their core responsibility and as it mentioned before they define smart city based on their field of expertise. Thus, for instance, it is not relevant to expect a company such as E.on as an energy provider to address public engagement, social integration or inclusion, truism or mobility, etc. when it comes smart city concept. Considering the latter example, the point becomes more crucial when we look at the previous studies and critiques which expressed that the current smart city either as a concept or in many practices already leaded or can lead to exclusion. This exclusion is not only for the city, as the benefit of digital innovation, such as smart grids, will be unevenly distributed across population and private sectors become attracted to wealthier parts of city, but also for economic actors and homeowners who are not capable of involving in smart projects and product or cannot invest (Buck & While, 2017; Martin et al., 2018). In case of Malmö one can claim that smart projects such as in Hyllie or Western Harbour have been in line with the city’s environmental sustainability programme by focusing on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and waste management. This fact itself in level of a project might be logical and valid, but in city scale cannot provide a strategic and holistic approach. In fact, this is a matter of strategic planning and a coherent plan of actions, providing a setting within which various initiatives with different targets can be envisioned and come true, and then can be evaluated. The absence of holistic planning strategy

results in the emerging of the smart projects as single component, implemented based on an individual basis, hindering them to be sync with each other. Even if the individually perform well- which can be discussed- but the lack of connection creates fragmentation and even sometimes contrast (Cugurullo, 2018). In this regard, if one again claims that there is an intention to focus on these type of projects, such as energy efficiency and waste management or smart grids, based on one dimension, then it can be discussed from at least three perspectives: the confidence level guarantees the single-oriented approach to succeed, the implication of insisting on branding it as the sustainable development, and its correlation to sustainability concept with this narrow perspective. At first, from the previous literature and empirical studies there are critiques, raising this concern that “digitising urban infrastructure alone does little to protect the environment” (Martin et al., 2018, p.3) or “energy efficiency alone will unlikely lead to an effective reduction in resources' consumption (Lombardi & Trossero, 2013, p.274)”. Also, it is seen as a superficial concern with the environment which is used as justification by companies to seek new markets for their products, and municipalities for realising efficiency and optimising recourse (Martin et al., 2018). In this regard, another tension is about the culture of consumerism and the consumer behaviour which these smart projects such as smart grids and metering, rely on that (Vanolo, 2016). Critics argued that at first the notion of consumerist culture embedded in these smart city projects is not compatible with environmental protection and also the level of consumer engagement is not consistent over time, there also is a possibility that efficiency saving from smart grids might be diverted by consumer to the other resource-intensive products (Martin et al., 2018). There is not aimed to exemplify the case of Malmö in relation to the given critiques, but it needs to mention again the implications of project-based perspective without strategic and holistic vision which contravene integrated urban development policies. In fact, there should be a strong reason to answer why local government and digital technology corporates are engaged in initiatives to digitise the infrastructure (for energy efficiency) instead of other initiatives to protect the environment. According to Martin, et al. (2018, p.3) “Urban ecosystems including green space and infrastructure, which improve the quality of life of citizens and reduce environmental impacts of the urban metabolism tend to be neglected in visions of the smart city.” The second issue is about the intention behind representing smart projects synonymous with the sustainable urban development or sustainable city. This one-dimensional approach can be easily questioned by looking at the global model of sustainability, triple bottom line, and also by looking at the results of some practices in the reality. Several studies showed that even in fulfilling those environmental goals smart city projects cannot guarantee or did not fully successful. For instance, in the case of British cities, Yigitcanlar and Teriman (2014) showed that there is no a positive correlation between smart technology adaptation and sustainability outcomes. Also, in the case of BO01 the energy efficiency goal was not achieved (Freeman, 2017) though the project is considered as a good experiment from developers’ perspective. Moreover, as it mentioned before, one of the given critiques resulted from literature reviews, evaluation studies, etc., is raising doubt if current smart city - as concept or project - is sustainable or, some claimed that it is not. This dichotomy between the discursive of smart city in literature and the language of its practical actors and developers can be another matter of question. Therefore, insisting on considering smart city term, with this narrow vision, synonymous with sustainable development/city is not only contradictory for some cases, also can be ‘misleading’ (Zinkernagel, personal communication, 2018). In fact, there can be a threat of institutionalising this doubtful or under-experiment approach as sustainable however, the projects might not necessarily fit sustainability criteria except carrying the label of ‘smart’. In this regard Parks (2018) discussed that how

some smart experiences in Malmö reshaped and possibly institutionalised the urban environmental governance only to the expense of energy efficiency despite their invasiveness, and also how smart grids and housing might redefine sustainability in the eyes of property developers. Freeman (2017) and Grossi and Pianezzi (2017) also support this process of normalisation or institutionalisation exist in smart practices in relation to neoliberalising and depoliticising of the planning. Freeman (2017), specifically by tracking Malmö’s journey from the development of Western Harbour to Hyllie, explains that although Western Harbour was an attempt to attract elites to city with high-class profile, it ‘triggered debate and resistance’, but in case of Hyllie all those ‘contestation and political debate has vanished’ and it showed that they institutionalised the previous experience (Freeman, 2017, p. 58). This approach in current private-oriented trend can only provide a branding or marketing possibility to the benefit of smart products’ providers. In this sense, it is not surprising why the only smart projects in the form of smart housing and grids are being commercialised in the public sector’s platform. This trend, when it comes to the presenting smart city as utopia, can even exaggerate the challenge. Because as it tried to clarify in theoretical analysis, there is a relation between utopia and ideology (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017) or collective thinking (Ganjavie, 2012; Brown, 2015), and there is a power in this word in relation to promising a good means of planning, and impressing citizens (Ganjavie, 2012). However, this utopia regarding the smart city appeared as some (unsuccessful or controversial) private- oriented projects and lack of strategic visionary without an integrated plan of actions for the city. It is considerable to mention that many studies suggest that smart city utopia conflicts with its aspirations when it is translated into practice (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017) and there is a disconnection between smart city concept, the way it is presented as sustainable development or utopia, and its contribution in public policies in reality (Angelidou, 2015; Vanolo, 2016; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). Hence, Grossi and Pianezzi (2017) conclude that “techno-utopian smart city solutions might become rhetorical devices mobilized to divert the attention away from the real problems of the citizenry (Grossi and Pianezzi, 2017, p.80).” However, the argument is not just about why they are presented in the synonymous but is also about the practical relation of the smart city with sustainability as the third issue. In this case study, it was found that smart city projects have limited contribution to social sustainability and not integrated into city policies. Its disconnection to strategic planning of city can show its underestimation from city’s complexity and also sustainability tension in planner triangle (Freeman, 2017) while its developer promised that smart city is aimed to manage complexity (Sujata et al., 2016). The experimental project- based perspective makes a concept- here smart city- happens in a chaotic and uncoordinated instead of integrated manner (Cugurullo, 2018). On the other hand, Cugurullo (2018) through ‘urban experimentation’ lens, argues that “when two different elements of an urban experiment contrast each other, the most remunerative one prevails” and this urban experimentation approach, principally, prevents the formation of sustainable cities due to the imbalance in planning. This point can be a matter of dissection in case of Hyllie or Western Harbour when the balance of two dimensions of social and environmental sustainability might be seen in contrast. This imbalance becomes more crucial in the scale of city. Freeman (2017), in case of Malmö, mentions that the insisting on practices in low carbon development and environmental goals, as a one-dimensional approach, could result in slowing down or even stopping the previous projects and addressing most pressing problem, here inequity and housing shortage, which does not show balance in social and environmental sustainability, and between long-term and short term perspective. He believes this is the point above all what should qualify a city as a smart city. The ambition that without strategic plan and holistic vision is unlikely to achieve.

Moreover, our study showed the imbalance of involvement in defining and planning projects between stakeholders. The lack of involvement from planners and local public sector and also people in defining, envisioning, and planning smart city concept, especially based on the city context, make Lash’s tripartite model (Campbell, 1996) out of the question to consider. Its implication is not only about escalating the current smart city situation and leaving it to the private sector contribution, which is not rooted in the social theoretical foundation, but more is about the legitimacy of projects. Because as Legacy (2010) expresses, if one of the actors is excluded, the legitimacy of the plan breaks down. On the other hand, the public engagement is one of the important concerns and subject matters in urban planning (Legacy, 2010) which in case of the smart city can be questioned. The place of the private sector in defining and bringing initiatives in the smart city, based on the Lash’s model, can be interpreted wrong or a new phenomenon, calling for developing new sector model in planning for the smart city. It is mentioned that the engagement of the private sector in the smart city project is inevitable due to the technical issues which the public sector lacks. However, Buck and While (2017, p.506) believe that “the delegation of public tasks to the private sector is misunderstood as a discharge of public duties, and the enabling of private-sector intervention requires new regularity task for management, performance evaluation, and supervision by public authorities.” This is also alarmed that this trend in envisioning smart city, which shows a neoliberal-based smart city (Vanolo, 2016; Buck & While, 2017; Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017) may lead to privatisation of decision- making and exercise of power insulated from democratic accountability (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). Besides all arguments, another point which is sometimes used as justification is that smart city projects are experimental to make experience and learn. This is a considerable point of view, however this point is also notable to ponder that “the city is not necessarily a supine patient waiting to be experimented on and reward, but bringing its own challenges and demands in different ways (Buck & While, 2017, p.506).” Therefore, considering the previous arguments, the importance of having strategic plan which can balance the different perspectives and lead the projects to the harmonious appears from another perspective as well.

7.2. The tension between stakeholders’ interest

7.2.1. Public interest vs. private interest

The magnitude of complexity of a city is huge (Sujata et al., 2016), and through this case analysis, some challenges in the form of lack of economic resource, political and legal tensions, and collaboration appeared in managing and planning a city. However, in this atmosphere, the City of Malmö has shown a positive relation and communication with private sectors and created an open atmosphere so that Holgersen and Baeten (2017) mentioned this is one reason that developers consider Malmö as an advantageous place for development and investment. However, they believe this is not only due to the highly qualified staff and expertise of Malmö city but also because of municipality’s priorities which can be the intention to attract business and capital to invest and then based on that bringing benefit for city (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014; Holgersen & Baeten, 2017) Therefore, despite the challenges were mentioned before, the current experiences of smart city projects - in Hyllie and Western Harbour - are seen positive from both sectors involved, since it was an achievement in finding synergies. This synergy can be seen as an achievement regarding the implementation process in the project scale. For instance, when private sector needs legitimacy or facilitation in regulations and laws from the public sector, or when convincing private sectors and developers to follow sustainability goals is very challenging, thus reaching this collaboration can be

considered as an achievement. However, when we zoom out, seeing the smart city as a concept and as a plan which should be defined strategically in urban development, this synergy gets blurred and does not show public sector and citizen involvement. Nevertheless, these experimental projects - particularly in Hyllie - are considered as a win-win situation even for Malmö municipality (Widestam, personal communication, 2018). The reasons are attracting private sector to fill housing shortage (Widestam, personal communication, 2018), making an attraction for business to move there (Comprehensive plan for Malmö, 2014) and keeping and inviting high- income people to pay taxes in Malmö instead of surrounding municipalities (Holgersen & Baeten, 2017; Zinkernagel, personal communication, 2018). This might be justifiable form a perspective which wants a city inclusive for every economic class, however, it is beyond of this thesis’ scope to discuss how taking this perspective in urban development can affect the city and what its implications are. But from this study’s perspective, it can be discussed that pursuing this trend implies using the smart city as a means of marketing and neglecting other aspects of smartness to the benefit of the city. Because this policy is being justified in the condition that there is no strategic plan for the smart city in urban scale, and its initiatives mainly come from private sector, and also when it comes to presenting, mapping smart city projects reveals a strong focus of those types of projects which have the possibility to sell smart products. This presumption becomes more robust by looking at the way through which sustainable smart city is articulated in the national document (Strategic Agenda for SSC, 2015), which is form business perspective tied up with goals of attractiveness. It should be noticed that the given trend is emerging in the condition that many studies and researchers mentioned to the segregation and polarisation as a process in Malmö (Holgersen & Baeten, 2017). In this regard, it is explained that applying those policies (attracting investment and increasing the tax income to have a more benefited city) not only did not succeed (made the poor poorer) also could reproduce the problem of segregation and polarisation on a different geographical scale because it means that regions and districts should compete against each other to attract the rich which results the increase of economic polarisation (Holgersen & Baeten, 2017). The City of Malmö follows similar objectives such as Hammerby Sjöstad from Stockholm to use smart city initiatives and projects in order to brand and market the city internationally which potentially bring and attract investments and highly skilled people to the city. However, studies show (Ignatieva & Berg, 2014; Cele, 2015) that the new development in Hammerby Sjöstad created an area with high-quality housing with multiple green places for recreational options and at the same time mostly attracted high- income and a homogeneous social group into the newly developed district. Specifically, due to the development conflict between equity and environmental protection (Campbell, 1996), there might be a high risk in Hyllie and in Western Harbour to create eco-gentrification in the area with rising property values and turning the transformation to spatial segregation for wealthy people. Thus, the existing economic segregation can generate this type of environmental segregation. By linking the development conflict to the concept of just city it is important to underline that public investments and regulations ought to decrease the gap between the opposite sides of the society and should not make the wealthy wealthier and increase significantly their access to high quality of living (Fainstein, 2000). In addition to that, the above mentioned urban developments involved serious amount of national and EU funds which should theoretically serve the general public interest and not only citizens with higher income. Again in this sense, we can question how this smart city concept - in this case study - claims sustainability when even intends to be a means for serving these policies.

7.2.2. Demand sector vs. Supply sector

The way of developing smart city initiatives by the private sector, without laying on a strategic plan and without integration to the urban development strategies, can open up another matter of subject to discuss which relates to technology push as the existing force in the current smart city concept which was mentioned as one the critiques. This force is seen in tension with the demands of society so that the current smart city based on this force is more supply driven than demand driven (Angelidou, 2015). This push can become critical as technology is increasingly developing new idea and releasing new products which are not necessarily based on the demands (Angelidou, 2015; Buck & While, 2017). In that case, when a city does not have a strategic programme for smart city in relation to urban planning and its complexity, and also based on the Lash’s model, when the share of main actors in envisioning smart projects is limited or not defined, it is unlikely for a city to lessen this tension or guide projects towards city’s demands. That is why smart city solutions are criticised as they are disconnected from the social context of the city, failing to tackle a city’s problem (Angelidou, 2015) or the way of undersetting it has a limited consideration of actual social needs and aspiration (Vanolo, 2016). Moreover, private sector by its nature tends to produce a universal solution that can be applied globally with limited adaptation (Buck & While, 2017) this tendency can exacerbate the tension between their supply and the contextual demand which might be very specific to a city. On the other hand, their interest in short-term perspective can conflict with the long-term perspective of the city and its plans. In this regard, the absence of public sector, which is supposed to address the city demands, in defining the smart city vision and framework, and also the lack of place-based smart city solutions appears critically problematic. This need becomes more considerable when it was found, in the case of Malmö, the current smart city initiatives can be easily interpreted in line with national policy and goals which seeks, for instance, international attractiveness and being the leader of innovation in the smart city. In fact, while these projects can be justified based on those national goals, cannot be evaluated based on the city demand and its context because there is no any framework and plan in the scale of the city. This is another tension was found from the review and analysis which is elaborated in the following section.

7.2.3. National scale vs. City scale

In general, the political and legal document in national and regional scale have an influence on the urban documents so that the correlation of main policies is traceable in different scales. This influence based on our findings also appeared as a force from a political level which unlocked another tension in policy- making which is related to gain political support to be legitimated and accepted (e.g., social sustainability document). However, this trace is not clear when it comes to the smart city concept. It was discussed that the role of main actors in planning in this case study, based on the Lash’s model, is uneven and in the scale of a city does not exist. Based on this model, the contribution of politicians might be fairly seen in a larger scale, because the only documents that provide vision and ambition, in the form of the political document exist in the national and regional scale. However, the problem is that in this scale, obviously, strategies and policies are broad, abstract and more general. In fact, they can provide a political and legitimised setting in which other strategies and projects can be developed. The larger scale, the lesser connection they have to the practical strategies for a city. So, that is the reason why Strategic Agenda for SSC (2015) indicates that it is not in its scope to define the smart city for sustainable urban development. In fact, even if we, presumably, consider those documents positively effective, there is gap in hierarchical order.

The point or problem here is that how those broad documents which provide national vision and goals are translated into city projects and tailored to the city scale and its context? That is why as it mentioned before, in the micro-level and in case of single project, one can see for example the smart initiatives in housing or smart grids in line with the goals and strategies. Since they are experiments in the area of innovation, can make attraction, and also can be branded as one of those project for being internationally role model, or fulfil part of environmental and climate actions. However, the city cannot figure out how much projects are in line with its urban issues and demands, and what kind of other initiatives can be developed within the smart city concept which is now missing. The vision of being internationally role model in the national and regional documents might seem sensible. However, when there is no place-based strategic approach toward a concept, and mainly private sector takes action to bring initiatives based on their competence, therefore it is not surprising that most presented smart projects are tied with smart products that can be sold, and come with branding languages, or meant to be in this way. In this atmosphere where there are abstract ambitions but not strategic and city-tailored plan in urban scale, and the focus is on the single model rather than the whole (Cugurullo, 2018), there is a possibility that many projects are defined based on those ambitions to get legitimacy but without necessarily bringing benefit to the entire city. So, considering the way of representing them as sustainable or utopia, they can be used as references for future projects either in other countries or the local context.

In summary, this research showed that the current way, under which smart city is being understood and practised, has, not only, the limitation to achieve sustainable development and is not able to tackle the complexity of urban planning, but has also potential to have the opposite contribution. The study showed that although the smart city concept is introduced as a sustainable paradigm in the city planning, it is incapable to play an effective role in urban developed. This concept is incompetent as long as it cannot define itself integrated into the strategies and urban plans and continues to its fragmented experimental projects which are mainly developed based on the private sector supply rather the actual city demands. Above of and based on all these discussions, one important conclusion can be about the relation of this current smart city concept with the social sustainability concept which is the most problematic and ironic one. It is not only because of the limit contribution of smart city projects in social sustainability which was mapped and discussed before but is more about the impossibility that exists in this type of smart city visionary for addressing social sustainability. It can be questioned how this current vision and practice, detached from the city demand, is able to address social sustainability which is based on the contextual issues varies in every community and city. How the goal of being role model for the word which is claimed by many smart city projects can fit the notion of social sustainability either in term of dissimilarities in challenges or the public and citizens’ inclusion. The citizens who are not unified (Vanolo, 2016), even if this very technical smart city concept would be able to involve them. How this visionary can be a part of social sustainability programme, when even its relation with the innovation- as a foundation- is seen as a means to compete, to be world leading, and to make benefit of possible market (Strategic Agenda for SSC, 2015), rather seeing the innovation for problem-solving and addressing the community’s challenges. Referring back to the originating process of the smart city concept by international private companies, it can be interpreted that why the current focus has been on environmental dimension since the environmental issues may be generalised across the world but social issues may not.

Therefore, as Vanolo (2016, p.26) concluded that smart city concept is poor as a model for citizens’ urban life in the future, since they are considered as passive and unified subjects (smart projects that aim to be international model), here, it can also be claimed that this current smart city can be poor for addressing social sustainability concept in planning. It is a poor concept as long as it cannot define itself based on the community demands and contextual-related strategies and framework and with the involvement of different stakeholders in envisioning it. In this regards, the smart city concept needs strong leadership model and requires local government and municipalities to take this leadership position in order to make policies to define a strategic concept of the smart city. This concept either in terms of urban conception or sustainability concept needs to be envisioned holistically and, in the level of practices, be integrated into the strategic planning of the city.

7.3. Potential of smart city concept in Malmö

The City of Malmö attempts to position itself as a leading sustainable and green city, a role model for other cities, thus their major urban development’s strive to achieve these goals. Many of the city’s urban developments has been involved smart city solutions in their projects from housing to infrastructure where large portion of them were originated by the private sector. This type of approach strongly resonates with Cohen’s first generation of smart cities where the process is driven by large multinational technology companies, and in Malmö these dominant companies are E.on, Siemens and Skanska while at the national scale Ericsson and IBM just to mention a few (Strategic Agenda for SSC, 2015). Moreover, the relevant departments do not have the sufficient knowledge and experience working with the newest technologies, therefore the Municipality strongly rely on companies from specific fields to implement their plans and solutions (Cohen, 2015). This requires high level of trust, otherwise the public sector can be vulnerable and highly dependent from the private sector, however Malmö and for instance E.on has built a profound and positive relationship which created a solid foundation for further cooperation. If Municipality of Malmö wants to decrease its dependency from the private sector, a more proactive approach should be taken in order to increase quality of life by improving public services and not consider citizens as customers in urban developments. This turn would lead the city to Cohen’s second generation of smart cities and would create new possibilities to support the technology industry and innovation as well as to hold expos in this field which would also place the city as a whole on the map, and not only certain projects (Cohen, 2015). The prerequisite of this to have forward-thinking mayors and planners in key decision-making positions. This level also requires a strong cross-sector collaboration with research institutes and key private companies in order to foster innovation and being the leaders in sector, however these initiatives ought to originate from city leaders and planners which would guarantee that the public interest is considered (Cohen, 2015; Ferrer, 2018). In order to improve quality of life and public services the smart city concept should be defined in a strategic level and integrated into the existing policies and plans. A smart city strategy could provide a holistic approach and vision for the city through specific smart city action plans. These action plans function would be to cover all different segments and public services of the city, and not managing and tackling them separately. Furthermore, the idea is to connect data, citizens and knowledge which can function as a hub for building productive, open and shared indicators and tools, thus enabling residents to collectively build their own neighbourhood and the city as a whole. The City of Malmö has also a great access and insight to various data about citizens and infrastructure which is also essential in smart city projects. Thus this ability should be involved and developed in order to improve decision and policy- making as well as to create more integrated smart city projects for the benefit of the city. Residents and local communities are essential in a legitimate planning process by engaging them in a meaningful and active way where key knowledge is exchanged and implemented in the end of the

process. The public is an important pillar of the planning process, therefore a tokenistic involvement is not efficient to achieve legitimacy in certain plans and policies. Cohen’s third generation of smart cities suggests that citizens should be the catalysts of smart city initiatives, therefore it is essential to finding new ways to encourage citizens to form their initiate ideas for the benefit of the city. This makes citizens an integral actor for transformation. In the case of Malmö, a potential would be improving the online platform of Malmöinitiativet for citizen input and creating a more meaningful and not tokenistic collaborative planning with current residents in order to create more socially sustainable and inclusive urban developments in Malmö. Furthermore, social innovation is a cornerstone in smart city initiatives in leading smart cities which strives to foster the efforts of private and public sectors and NGOs for the implementation of proven and solutions to local context (Ferrer, 2018). There is a profound and positive relationship and collaboration between E.on and Malmö so future smart city projects should be built upon this partnership by continuing and maintaining it. The City of Malmö established a close collaboration with the key private stakeholders from developers to the energy sector. Malmö potentially can improve its smart city projects due to the well-established relationship and cooperation between the municipality and key expert private companies as well as Skåne region has a strong third sector with Lund and Malmö University which potentially could contribute in research and innovation. Moreover, Living Lab at Malmö University potentially can bring new ideas in social innovation and improve social sustainability in the city with strong collaboration with the municipality and the private sector and investors. In general, municipalities should remain the catalyst to engage and keep all stakeholders connected in order to ensure the support from every stakeholder and to foster innovation in a continuous way (Cohen, 2015; Ferrer, 2018). Since the technological development does not show signs to slow down, and more advanced and faster technologies appear in the foreseeable future such as 5G wireless network system which will provide thousand times faster data traffic than the current 4G system after 2020. This trend shows that cities more likely are going to involve and implement technology in order to manage city life, thus the importance of smart city solutions is going to increase (Phan & Qureshi, 2017). Therefore, the social deficit and lack of social aspects can appear also in future smart city projects if this trend continues. This means that technology should not be seen as a goal, instead it should be considered as facilitator in order to assist better decision and policy-making at the city level. Increasing number of cities will face to similar challenges in relation to social sustainability and urban policies such as Malmö where the integration and implementation of smart city concept is going to be crucial. Moreover, if this current approach continues, the policy-makers will not achieve sustainability and also public sector will not gain power in shaping policies. The concept of smart city should serve the citizens’ interests and engage them in improving their city by strengthening them with tools and knowledge.

8. Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to find and map out how the current understanding and practicing of smart city concept - which lacks clear definition and theoretical foundation, and is dominated by technical perspective and the private sector’s contribution- can affect sustainable urban planning. This objective pursued by examining the city of Malmö as case study and analysing the policy and strategy documents in planning, and smart city projects. The analysis was also supplemented by the interviews from the representatives of the main actors in smart city projects and urban planning. The findings revealed that the lack of holistic understanding of smart city among actors and also lack of social contribution in defining it hinders the smart city act as a holistic and strategic concept for the city and mainly practised based on the experimental project-based initiatives mainly developed by private sectors. This lack results in a condition under which the smart projects are developed and legitimised based on some broad strategies and goals which are not tailored to the city’s context and scale. This trend can end in some projects which do not address necessarily the main demands of the city or alleviate its most pressing issues which consequently can be questioned for their contribution to social sustainability concept. Moreover, without a defined framework for the smart city as a strategic concept for the city, it is unlikely to evaluate the contribution of projects towards different aspects of sustainable urban development. For instance, regarding this thesis’s case, the projects mostly showed a limited perspective, targeting one dimension of sustainability- environmental- which were legitimised based on the controversial past experiences. Despite the controversies, they are still seen leading since they could define themselves based on the general or national goals of attractiveness, innovation, and climate actions. It is also claimed that this trend can result in a chaotic form of the smart city which cannot benefit the city planning holistically, and also can offset the other projects and plans by bringing contradictory and underperforming results. For example, in some cases the social implications of those one-dimensional projects, as knock-on effects such as polarisation and exclusion, are so considerable that can question the projects as a whole. Therefore, this trend not only cannot alleviate the tensions and conflicts in the sustainability interests (planner triangle), also try to neglect the complexity of the city and its planning. On the other side, since the contribution of public sector -municipality as the sector which monopolise the planning- is lesser, and sometimes in the subaltern status, the smart city strategies and projects might not be integrated into the city planning’s strategies and objectives, and cannot act as strategic visionary and model. This imbalance in the collaboration which is more severe regarding citizens can question not only the social sustainability of current smart city planning but also the legitimacy of planning. The position and place of citizens are excluded more, seemingly, due to the domination of technical perspective which resulted in reducing the strategies to its lowest notion such as ‘being easy to be followed’. Therefore, from this perspective, the citizens are not seen as an integral stakeholder in the planning process but as the follower of strategies and projects. Many scholars are calling for redefining the current smart city approach. This study revealed that in the first place, the smart city concept needs an interdisciplinary dialogue to be able to be translated inclusively into the integrated strategies and initiatives. To achieve this, it is required that:

 the public sector, here municipalities, and planners take a leadership position and shift their role from a passive actor to a proactive actor in defending the concept in the concept in favour of the city.  different perspectives and stakeholders are involved in defining a holistic and strategic model and plan based on the city’s demands and integrated into the urban planning strategies.

 an integrated framework is defined under which it can be possible to evaluate the contribution of smart city projects in different sustainability goals.  innovation is used as a means of improving smart city concept in different dimensions in order to community empowerment and problem-solving, addressing demands and challenges, and not just to test new ideas.

9. Recommendations for further study

Since it is found that there is a need for strong leadership in planning of smart city from municipality, and on the other hand, it was revealed that many variables can create tension in planning process, further research in needed to discover what are the difficulties for public sector to develop a holistic model integrated into the urban planning process. This issue can also be seen in line with the ‘organizational change’, mentioned in the interviews, as a reasons which hinders the municipality to change direction. So, taking an organizational perspective to either find out ‘blockages’ or define a ‘leadership model’ is an effective contribution. Besides, this study revealed the absence of urban planners or social scholars in defining the smart city and its consequences in practical level. But, due to the scope and time limitation, the solution like a model or framework did not provided. So, the further study can work on defending a model or framework based on which the smart city concept and projects can be seen in an integrated into the urban planning and sustainability model. Another significant point is about the citizen’s perception and expectation. Insisting smart city on improving quality of life and claiming that project put people on the focus, it is interesting to find out how and to what degree people have found smart city so far in relation to their everyday life. This point in the scale of a city can also reveal how much smart city could contribute into the citizens’ life inclusively with providing demographic pattern across the city. This can be the first step in the process of finding the way how people can be engaged in the planning process. Because, the study also can work on revealing the public’s knowledge and understanding of the smart city and the quality of this awareness.

10. References

Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60, 234-245. Alberti, M. & Waddell, P. (2000). An integrated urban development and ecological simulation model. Integrated Assessment, 1, 215-227. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22 (1), 3-21. Anand, A., Rufuss, D. D., Rajkumar, V. & Suganthi, L. (2017). Evaluation of Sustainability indicators in smart Cities for India Using MCDM Approach. Energy Procedia, 141, 211-215. Anderson, T., (2014). Malmö: A city in transition. Cities, 39, 10-20. Andersson, R., & Turner, L. M. (2014). Segregation, gentrification, and residualisation: from public housing to market-driven housing allocation in inner city Stockholm. International Journal of Housing Policy, 14(1), 3-29. Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95-106. Angelidou, M. (2017). The Role of Smart City Characteristics in the Plans of Fifteen Cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 3-28. Anthopoulos, L. G., Ipsilantis, P., & Kazantzi, V. (2016). The project management perspective for a digital city. Project Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 793- 811). IGI Global. ASCIMER. (2017). Assessment Methodology for Smart City Project: Application to the Mediterranean Region, European Investment Bank. Atkinson, R. (2000). The hidden costs of gentrification: Displacement in central London. Journal of housing and the built environment, 15(4), 307-326. Austin, G. (2013). Case study and sustainability assessment of Bo01, Malmö, Sweden. Journal of Green Building, 8(3), 34-50. Baeten, G. (2012). Normalising neoliberal planning: the case of Malmö, Sweden. In Contradictions of neoliberal planning (pp. 21-42). Springer, Dordrecht. Baeten, G. (2012). Normalising neoliberal planning: the case of Malmö, Sweden. Contradictions of neoliberal planning (pp. 21-42). Springer, Dordrecht. Baeten, G., Westin, S., Pull, E. & Molina, I. (2017). Pressure and violence: Housing renovation and displacement in Sweden. Environment and Planning, 49, 631–651. Basiago, A. D. (1998). Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist, 19(2), 145-161. Batty, M. (2014). Against Smart City. [Online] Available at: http://www.spatialcomplexity.info/archives/2138 [Accessed 2018].

Bentivegna, V. et al. (2002). vision and methodology for integrated sustainable urban development. BEQUEST, Building Research & Information, 30(2), 83-94. Beretta, I. (2018). The social effects of eco-innovations in Italian smart cities. Cities, 72, 115–121. Bibri, S. E. & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart Sustainable Cities of the Future: An Extensive Interdisciplinary Literature Review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183-212 Bibri, S. E. (2017). Foundational Framework for Smart Sustainable City Development: Theoretical, Disciplinary, and Discursive Dimensions and Their Synergies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 758-794 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9, 27-40. Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 30-48. Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2006). What is ‘social sustainability’, and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it. Sustainable Communities and Green Futures’ Conference, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, London. Brown, V. A. (2015). Utopian thinking and the collective mind: Beyond transdisciplinary. Futures, 65, 209-216. Buck, N. T. & While, A. (2017). Competitive urbanism and the limits to smart city innovation: The UK future cities initiatives. Urban Studies, 54(2), 501-519. Business Sweden. (2015). Retail Guide Sweden: Stockholm-Gothenburg-Malmö, Business Sweden. Calzada, I., & Cobo, C. (2015). Unplugging: Deconstructing the smart city. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 23-43. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296-312. Caragliu, A. & Del Bo, C. F. (2015). Do Smart Cities Invest in Smarter Policies? Learning From the Past, Planning for the Future. Social Science Computer Review, 1-16. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of urban technology, 18(2), 65-82. Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. F. (2015). Smart specialization strategies and smart cities: An evidence- based assessment of European Union policies. The rise of the city. Spatial dynamics in the urban century, 55-84 Chan, E., & Lee, G. K. (2008). Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 243-256. Chourabi, H. et al. (2012) Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework, 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Cisco (2018): What is a smart city?

[Online] https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/industries/smart-connected-communities/what-is-a- smart-city.html [Accessed 2018]. Cohen, B. (2015). The Three Generations of Smart Cities. Inside the development of the technology driven city. FastCompany CoExist. Retrieved, 25. Colding, J. & Barthel, S. (2017). An urban ecology critique on the “Smart City” model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 95-101. Commission for a Socially Sustainable Malmö. (2013). Malmö Path Towards Sustainable Future, Malmö; Malmö Stad. Cowley, R., Joss, S. & Dayot, Y. (2018). The smart city and its publics: insights from across six UK cities. Urban Research & Practice,11, 53-77. Cugurullo, F. (2016). Urban eco-modernisation and the policy context of new eco-city projects: Where Masdar City fails and why. Urban Studies, 53 (11), 2417-2433 Cugurullo, F. (2018). Exposing smart city and eco-cities: Frankenstein urbanism and the sustainability challenges of the experimental city. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(1), 73-92. Dameri, R. P., & Cocchia, A. (2013). Smart city and digital city: twenty years of terminology evolution. X Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS, ITAIS, 1-8. Deakin, M. (2014). Smart cities: the state-of-the-art and governance challenge. Triple Helix, 1(1), 7. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable development, 19(5), 289-300. Deutscher-staedtetag. (2011). Integrated Urban Development Planning and Urban Development Management – Strategies and instruments for sustainable urban development, Berlin: German Association of Cities. Dirks, S., & Keeling, M. (2009). A vision of smarter cities: How cities can lead the way into a prosperous and sustainable future. IBM Institute for business Value, 8. E.on, n.d. The future begins in Hyllie. [Online] Available at: https://www.eon.com/en/new-energy/new- energy-world/future-begins-in-hyllie.html [Accessed 2018]. Effing R., Groot B.P. (2016) Social Smart City: Introducing Digital and Social Strategies for Participatory Governance in Smart Cities. In international Conference on Electronic Government and information systems perspective (pp. 241-252). Springer Eger, J. (2003). Smart communities: Becoming smart is not so much about developing technology as about engaging the body politic to reinvent governance in technology as about engaging the body politic to reinvent governance in. Urban Land, 60, 50-55. Eger, J. M. (2009). Smart growth, smart cities, and the crisis at the pump a worldwide phenomenon. I- WAYS-The Journal of E-Government Policy and Regulation, 32(1), 47-53. Egger, S. (2006). Determining a sustainable city model. Environmental Modelling & Software, 21(9), 1235-1246.

Eisenbeiß, K. (2016). The SDGs go local! Why cities need to engage in integrated urban development. [Online] Available at: http://www.urbanet.info/sdgs-integrated-urban-development/ [Accessed 2018]. Elwood, S. (2002). Neighborhood revitalization through collaboration': Assessing the implications of neoliberal urban policy at the grassroots. GeoJournal, 58(2-3), 121-130. Ericsson (2017): IoT achievements make smart, sustainable cities a reality. [Online] Available at:https://www.ericsson.com/en/news/2017/8/ericsson-iot-achievements--smart-cities [Accessed 2018]. European Investment Bank. (2018). What is an “integrated plan for sustainable urban development”? [Online] Available at: http://www.eib.org/products/blending/jessica/faq/what-is-an-integrated-plan-for-sustainable-urban- development.htm [Accessed 2018]. European Union. (2014). Integrated Sustainable Urban Development-COHESION POLICY 2014-2020, European Union. Eurostat. (2016). Urban Europe Statistics on cities, towns and suburbs [Online] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Urban_Europe_%E2%80%94_statistics_on_cities,_towns_and_suburbs [Accessed 2018]. Eurostat (2017) People in the EU – statistics on housing conditions [Online] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/People_in_the_EU_- _statistics_on_housing_conditions [Accessed 2018]. Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban affairs review, 35(4), 451-478. Freeman, G. (2017). The Origin and Implementation of the Smart-Sustainable City Concept: Master's thesis, Science in Environmental Sciences, Policy & Management. Lund: jointly operated by Lund University – University of Manchester - University of the Aegean – Central European University. Friedmann, J. (2000). The Good City: In Defense of Utopian Thinking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), 460-472. Ganjavie, A. (2012). Role of Utopia for Design of Future Cities: Utopia in Urban Planning Literature. Studies in Literature and Language, 5, 10-19. Garau, C. & Pavan, V. M. (2018). Evaluating Urban Quality: Indicators and Assessment Tools for Smart Sustainable Cities. Sustainability, 1-18. Gehl, J. (2007). Public spaces for a changing public life. Open space: People space, 3-7. Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. Island press. Ghahramanpouri, A., Lamit, H., & Sedaghatnia, S. (2013). Urban social sustainability trends in research literature. Asian Social Science, 9(4), 185.

Giffinger, R., Fertner, Ch., Kramar, H., Pichler-Milanovic, N., Meijers, E. (2015). European Smart City. [Online] Available at: http://www.smart-cities.eu/index2.html [Accessed 2018]. Gospodini, A. (2002). European cities in competition and the new 'uses' of urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 7(1), 59-73. Greenfield, Adam. (2013). Against the Smart City. London, UK: Verso Grossi, G. & Pianezzi, D. (2017). Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology? Cities, 69, 79-85. Haarstad, H. (2016). Constructing the sustainable city: examining the role of sustainability in the ‘smart city’ discourse. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19 (4), 1-15 Habitat, U. N. (1976). The Vancouver declaration on human settlements. UN-Habitat (1996). The Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements. Han, H. & Hawken, S. (2018). Introduction: Innovation and identity in next-generation smart cities. City, Culture and Society, 12, 1-4. Hara, M., Nagao, T., Hannoe, S. & Nakamura, J. (2016). New Key Performance Indicators for a Smart Sustainable City. Sustainability, 8, 1-19. Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning theory, 2(2), 101-123. Holgersen, S. & Baeten, G. (2017). Beyond a Liberal Critique of ‘Trickle Down': Urban Planning in the City of Malmö. International Journal of Urban and Regional Planning, 40(6), 1170-1185. Hollands, R. G. (2015). Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 61-77. IBM. (2018): Smarter Cities. New cognitive approaches to long-standing challenges. [Online] Available at: https://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/smarter_cities/overview/ [Accessed 2018]. Ibrahim, M., El-Zaart, A. & Adams, C. (2017). Smart Sustainable Cities Roadmap: Readiness for Transformation towards Urban Sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society,37, 530-540 JESSICA, (n.d.) What is an “integrated plan for sustainable urban development”? [Online] Available at: http://www.jessicafund.gr/index.php/about-jessica/what-projects-are- eligible/integrated-plan/?lang=en [Accessed 2018]. Jessop, B. (2005). Fordism and post-Fordism: a critical reformulation. Pathways to industrialization and regional development (pp. 54-74). Routledge. Khakee, A. (2007). From Olympic village to middle-class waterfront housing project: Ethics in Stockholm's development planning. Planning, Practice and Research, 22(2), 235-251. Klijn, E. H., & Teisman, G. R. (2002). Governing public-private partnerships: Analysing and managing the processes and institutional characteristics of public-private partnerships. In Public-private partnerships (pp.102-120). Taylor & Francis. Komeily, A. & Srinivasan, R. (2017). Sustainability in Smart Cities: Balancing Social, Economic, Environmental, and Institutional Aspects of Urban Life. In: Smart Cities: Foundations, Principles and Applications. (pp. 503-534). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kornberger, M., & Carter, C. (2010). Manufacturing competition: how accounting practices shape strategy making in cities. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(3), 325-349. Kummithaa, R. K. R. & Crutzen, N. (2017). How do we understand smart cities? An evolutionary perspective. Cities, 67, 43-52. Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., Haybatollahi, M., & Schmidt-Thomé, K. (2016). Urban happiness: context- sensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(1), 34-57. Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: an intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283-299. Lee, J., Kurisu, K., An, K. & Hanaki, K. (2014). Development of the compact city index and its application to Japanese cities. Urban Studies, 52(6), 1054 - 1070. Legacy, C. (2010). Investigating the knowledge interface between stakeholder engagement and plan- making. Environment and Planning A, 42(11), 2705-2720. Lombardi, P. & Trossero, E. (2013). Beyond energy efficiency in evaluating sustainable development in planning and the built environment. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 4(4), 274-282. Lorimer, P. A. K., Diec, V. M.-F. & Kantarci, B. (2017). COVERS-UP: Collaborative Verification of Smart User Profiles for social sustainability of smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 348-358 Macke, J., Casagrande, R. M., Sarate, J. A. & Silva, K. A. (2018). Smart City and Quality of Life: citizens’ perception in a Brazilian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 717-726 Madakam, S., Ramaswamy, R. & Date, H. (2017). Quality of Life: Palava Smart City: A Case Study. Global Business Review, 20, 1-35. Malmö Stad. (2001). Bo01 – An ecological City of Tomorrow in the City in the Western Harbour, Malmö. [Online] Available at: http://malmo.se/download/18.4a2cec6a10d0ba37c0b800012603/ [Accessed 2018]. Malmö Stad. (2017). Continuing work for a socially sustainable Malmö: Follow-up of work carried out in 2016, Malmö: City of Malmö. Malmö University (2015). Living Lab: The Neighbourhood. [Online] Available at: http://medea.mah.se/living-lab-the-neighbourhood/ [Accessed 2018]. Manitiu, D. N. & Pedrini, G. (2016). Urban smartness and sustainability in Europe. An ex ante assessment of environmental, social and cultural domains. European Planning Studies, 1-16. Mappiasse, S. (2015). Looking for Social Sustainability in a Smart City: The Case of Makassar City, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. North Sulawesi, Indonesia, s.n. Maria E Ignatieva & Per Berg. (2014): Hammarby Sjöstad: A New Generation of Sustainable Urban Eco-Districts. [Online] Available at:

https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2014/02/12/hammarby-sjostad-a-new-generation-of- sustainable-urban-eco-districts/ [Accessed 2018]. Marsal-Llacuna, M. L., & López-Ibáñez, M. B. (2014). Smart urban planning: Designing urban land use from urban time use. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(1), 39-56. Martin, C. J., Evans, J. & Karvonen, A. (2018). Smart and sustainable? Five tensions in the visions and practices of the smart-sustainable city in Europe and North America. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133, 269-278. Mayangsari, L. & Novani, S. (2015). Multi-stakeholder co-creation analysis in smart city management: an experience from Bandung, Indonesia. Procedia Manufacturing, 4, 315 – 321. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Mihailova, D. (2017). Environmental Justice in the Post-industrial, Entrepreneurial City: A Look at Malmö’s Built Environment. Master's thesis. jointly operated by Lund University – University of Manchester University of the Aegean – Central European University. IIIEE, Lund University. Mommaas, H. (2004). Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: towards the remapping of urban cultural policy. Urban studies, 41(3), 507-532. Monfaredzadeh, T. & Berardi, U. (2015). Beneath the smart city: dichotomy between sustainability and competitiveness. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 140-156, https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2015.1057875 Monfaredzadeh, T. & Krueger, R. (2015). Investigating social factors of sustainability in a smart city. Procedia Engineering, 118, 1112 – 1118. Monzon, A. (2015). Smart cities concept and challenges: Bases for the assessment of smart city projects. In Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS), 2015 International Conference on (pp. 1-11). IEEE. Mora, L., Bolici, R. & Deakin, M. (2017). The First Two Decades of Smart-City Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 3-27. Morgan, D. R. (2015). The dialectic of utopian images of the future within the idea of progress. Futures, 66, 106-119. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 185-194). ACM. Nefs, M. (2006). Unused urban space: conservation or transformation? Polemics about the future of urban wastelands and abandoned buildings. City and time, 2(1), 4-47. Neuman, M. (2005). The Compact City Fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 11- 26. New York Times. (2006). [Online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/books/jane- jacobs-urban-activist-is-dead-at-89.html [Accessed 2018].

Nordic City Network. (2014). 450 Urban Projects. Malmö Stadsbyggnadskontor. Oudin, A., Richter, J. C., Taj, T., Al-Nahar, L., & Jakobsson, K. (2016). Poor housing conditions in association with child health in a disadvantaged immigrant population: a cross-sectional study in Rosengård, Malmö, Sweden. BMJ open, 6(1), http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015- 007979. Parks, D. (2018). Energy efficiency left behind? Policy assemblages in Sweden’s most climate-smart city. European Planning Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1455807 Perri & Bellamy, Christine. (2012). Principle of methodology: Research Design in Social Science. SAGE Publication. London Pierce, P., Ricciardi, F. & Zardini, A. (2017). Smart Cities as Organizational Fields: A Framework for Mapping Sustainability-Enabling Configurations. Sustainability, 9(9), 17-21. Polèse, M., & Stren, R. E. (Eds.). (2000). The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the management of change. University of Toronto Press. Randhawa, A. & Kumar, A. (2017). Exploring sustainability of smart development initiatives in India. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 6, 701-710. Richard, F. (2002). The rise of the creative class: and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic. Rosadi, S. D., Suhardil & Kristyan, S. A. (2017). Privacy challenges in the application of smart city in Indonesia. Bandung, International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI). Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M., & Vellinga, P. (2000). An integrated planning tool for sustainable cities. Environmental impact assessment review, 20(3), 265-276. Sala, S.; Ciuffo, B.; Nijkamp, P. (2015). A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 119, 314–325. Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and quantity, 36(1), 43-53. Sandberg, L. A. (2014). Environmental gentrification in a post-industrial landscape: the case of the Limhamn quarry, Malmö, Sweden. Local Environment, 19(10), 1068-1085. Sandberg, L. A. (2014). Environmental gentrification in a post-industrial landscape: the case of the Limhamn quarry, Malmö¨, Sweden. Local Environment, 19, 1068–1085. Shelton, T., Zook, M., & Wiig, A. (2015). The ‘actually existing smart city’. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 13-25. Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427-450. Sneddon, C., Harris, L., Dimitrov, R., & Özesmi, U. (2002). Contested waters: Conflict, scale, and sustainability in aquatic socioecological systems. Society &Natural Resources, 15(8), 663-675. Solesbury, W. (2013). Policy in urban planning: structure plans, programmes and local plans. Elsevier.

Sujata, J., Saksham, S., Tanvi, G. & Shreya. (2016). Developing Smart Cities: An Integrated Framework. Procedia Computer Science, 93, 902-909. Taşan-Kok, T., & Baeten, G. (Eds.). (2011). Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning: Cities, policies, and politics (Vol. 102). Springer Science & Business Media. Tonts, M. & Thompson, S. (2008). Qualitative Urban Analysis: An International Perspective. Amsterdam: JAI Press. Trindade, E. P. et al. (2017). Sustainable development of smart cities: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market and Complexity, 3, 1-14. Trivellato, B. (2016). How can ‘smart’ also be socially sustainable? Insights from the case of Milan. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1–15. Tryggestad, K., Georg, S., & Hernes, T. (2010). Constructing buildings and design ambitions. Construction management and economics, 28(6), 695-705. United Nations. (2013) World Economic and Social Survey 2013, Sustainable Development Challenges. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. E/2013/50/Rev. 1. ST/ESA/344 Van Der Waals, J. (2000). The compact city and the environment: A review. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 91(2), 111-121. Vanolo, A. (2016). Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures, 82, 29-36. Wang, X. & Hofe, R. v. (2007). Research Methods in Urban and Regional Planning. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York William D. Eggers & John Skowron (2018): Forces of change: Smart cities. [Online] Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/smart-city/overview.html [Accessed 2018] World Bank. (2018). [Online] Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS [Accessed 2018] Yigitcanlar, T. & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land Use Policy, 71, 49-58. Yigitcanlar, T. & Teriman, S. (2014). Rethinking sustainable urban development: towards an integrated planning and development process. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12 (1), 341–352 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research. London: Sagesco

Appendix

Appendix 1: Literature review table

Table 8: Themes from literate review and their disciplines

Themes No. scholars Discipline Method Critical discursive on smart 14 (Han & Hawken, 2018) social science: 6 QN: 1 city in general or with the (Monfaredzadeh & Krueger, 2015) business & QL: 13 focus on a specific topic like (Kummithaa & Crutzen, 2017) management: 4 equity, citizen right, privacy, (Colding & Barthel, 2017) engineering: 4 innovation, (Calzada & Cobo, 2015) (Deakin, 2014) (Hollands, 2008) (Rosadi et al., 2017) (Caragliu & Del Bo, 2015 ) (Bibri, 2017) (Bibri & Krogstie, 2017) (Yigitcanlar, 2015) (Vanolo, 2016) (Buck & While, 2017) Evaluation or analysis a case 12 (Mappiasse, 2015). Social science: 4 QN: 2 study (Mayangsari & Novani, 2015): business & QL: 10 (Madakam et al., 2017): management: 3 (Macke et al., 2018): engineering: 5 (Garau & Pavan, 2018) (Cowley et al., 2018) (Beretta, 2018) (Shelton et al., 2015) (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017) (Trivellato, 2016) (Randhawa & Kumar, 2017) (Cugurullo, 2017)

Propose model (focus on a 5 (Effing & Groot, 2016) Engineering: 5 Mixed: 1 specific aspect like, IT, E- (Lorimer et al., 2017) QN: 1 participation/technical (Ibrahim et al., 2017) QL: 3 solution) (Hara et al., 2016) (Sujata et al., 2016) Evaluation of smart city as a 7 (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017) social science: 3 QN:4 concept: Comparison (Monfaredzadeh & Berardi, 2015) Engineering: 3 QL:3 sustainability (Anand et al., 2017) business & indicators/definition and (Monzon, 2015) management: 1 smart city (Trindade et al., 2017) indicator/definition- based on (Martin et al., 2018) literature review (Mora et al., 2017)

Case study evaluation or 4 (Yigitcanlar & Kamruzzaman, 2018) Social science: 1 QN: 2 measurement: based on (Komeily & Srinivasan, 2017) Engineering: 2 QL: 1 sustainable development (Manitiu & Pedrini, 2016) business & Mixed: 1 criteria (Anthopoulos, 2017) management: 1

Appendix 2: Interview Guides

Private Sector/smart city projects:

Opening section: Introductory and the interviewee’s position and role

Guiding questions:

 What is your role and position in smart city projects in partnership with Malmo Municipality?  What are your values and benefits in doing smart city projects with Malmo Municipality?  Are Hyllie or Sege park planned based on a specific agenda or strategies framework from Malmo Municipality?  (Is there any model or framework for the smart city for Malmo that make you develop ideas within and based on that?)  Where the idea of branding of Hyllie comes from?  What are your action and considerations in social sustainability in project like Sege park? Is there any similar approach in this regard (affordable housing) in Hyllie as in sage park?  What is the main criteria or consideration in choosing a partner? (why Siemens)?

Public sector/environmental department: Opening section: Introductory and the interviewee’s position and role Guiding questions:

 What is the Malmo Municipality’ understanding of the concept of Smart city?  Why Malmo Municipality is developing Smart city projects and what they want to achieve out of this approach?  In terms of partnership with private sector, how is the process of planning and making ideas? What benefits Malmo Municipality gets from this partnership?  What is the role and position of Malmö Municipality in this partnership model?  How the private sector can affect the planning in smart city projects?  What is the main purpose behind climate contract in Hyllie and who is the main influencer in developing this document?  How Eu policies and fund affect the Malmo Stad’s policy in smart city projects?

Public sector/urban planning department

Opening section: Introductory and the interviewee’s position and role, the role of department in planning The interview started by the summary of the history of urban planning in Malmo and in relation to the sustainability, followed by more details about Hyllie district.

Guiding questions:

 How urban planning department take role or influence smart city project like Hyllie.  Considering that Hyllie is considered as sustainable planning and future for Malmo, why do you think Hyllie is a good way of sustainable urban development in Malmo in relation to smart projects?

 Based on our findings there is an intention to use Hyllie and Western Harbour to brand Malmo, what is Malmo municipality’s goal and what values will be brought to the city from that?

Appendix 3: Extracted quotes from documents

Appendix 3-1 Malmö’s comprehensive plan looks two decades into the future. The overarching aim is that Malmö will be an attractive and sustainable city socially, environmentally and economically. […] The aim is to create a robust and long-term sustainable urban structure for an increased population, green growth and a continued development of Malmö’s attractiveness (Comprehensive plan for Malmo, 2014, p.16).

Cities and regions compete for people and capital. A city’s overall attractiveness is influenced by a range of factors, including availability of an attractive housing stock and good schools, attractive public spaces and cultural life, the social cohesion of the city and safety (Comprehensive plan for Malmo, 2014, p.4).

Appendix 2-1… 3-2 An attractive city is a city that prioritizes environmental issues. Experience will be drawn from Malmö's visionary initiatives with an environmental or climate focus and continued successful environmental work will be added to creative developments in order to make Malmö a healthier milieu for individuals and businesses alike. Malmö's attractiveness and economic and social development is reliant on a functional housing market which offers a broad selection of good homes. High quality of childcare is crucial to attract working families. Good schools ensure that as many young people as possible progress into higher education and future employment (Comprehensive plan for Malmo, 2014, p.7).

Appendix 3-3 Regional cooperation as the first strategy for comprehensive plan: its importance is seen crucial for ‘Malmö’s future development and attractiveness’

Business and tourism: Malmö’s attractiveness as both a business location and place of residence should increase.

Functional environments in attractive urban settings will permit more work opportunities per square foot in both the inner city and designated industrial areas.

Greener city: An attractive and sustainable urban environment needs to be both dense and green.

Traffic and transportation: Malmö's public transport system should become more attractive: faster, more convenient, comfortable and safe and more easily accessible to different social groups.

Sustainable waste management, energy and construction: Investment in urban ecology contributes to decreased resource use. Energy efficient housing, resource effective construction and sustainable buildings combined with attractive architecture create both ecological and economic values (Comprehensive plan for Malmo, 2014, pp10-14).

Appendix 3-4 Economic sustainability entails a robust development of the city and its business community, creating value and supplying the region and the people of Malmö with an income and livelihood. Companies should have good opportunities to operate and grow and Malmö should be a place which attracts established businesses. Diversity in the commercial sector is important to secure a strong post- industrial economy which can supply a range of employment opportunities, ensuring an even spread of wellbeing. A city with a well-educated population is the basis for a positive development in the private sector (Comprehensive plan for Malmo, 2014, p. 4).

To be a centre of regional growth where companies can safely invest, it is essential that Malmö can provide a continuous supply of premises and land for both small start-ups and major international companies who wish to locate in the city (Comprehensive plan for Malmo, 2014, p. 7).

An attractive region acts as a role model. Succeeding with this will enhance Skåne's global competitiveness and the region will become an internationally attractive place to live and work (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014, p.43).

Appendix 4 “Skåne needs to become more well-known in the European and global arenas. This is decisive if Skåne is to be considered an internationally attractive region and if people and companies are to want to move here. In this way, we can attract talented individuals, tourists, companies and investments to Skåne. Skåne shall profile itself as a region with high quality of life and welfare, with an open and welcoming attitude. We shall market the open Skåne as an attractive, international melting pot with unique cultural and natural values and develop tourism in Skåne from an international perspective” (The Open Skåne 2030, 2014, p. 42).

“Malmö has the ambition to be a world leader in sustainable urban development which provides a range of challenges, for example regarding environmental issues. Achieving a socially balanced city where everyone can enjoy good conditions for life is a decisive challenge for Malmö. A prioritised target is therefore to strengthen the economic base for the livelihood of Malmö’s citizens. ... Malmö, together with Copenhagen, will function as an engine in the Öresund region to strengthen competitiveness (Comprehensive plan for Malmo, 2014, p. 16)”.

Appendix 4: The brief Description of projects

Bo01, “The City of Tomorrow” in Western Harbour

The development of Bo01 began in 1995 as the result of the comprehensive planning process undertaken by the Municipality of Malmö, and it was financed by the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (BOVERKET) and partly involved European Union fund. Bo01 as a project for the European Millennium Housing Exposition set high expectations and placed high pressure for all stakeholders involved in order to produce a successful project. This type of complex urban development was new and challenging to the Municipality that time, therefore a collaborative process between national agencies, public and private stakeholders was essential for successfully implementing different concepts in the projects (Western Harbour, 2008; Austin, 2013). The Bo01 development started in 2001 and it was the first phase of a larger revitalisation project in the Western Harbour with a focus on creating a mixed-use neighbourhood. The closing of several industrial areas on the Western Harbour accelerated the process of planning, and freed up large amount of valuable

real estate spaces which allowed Malmö to continue its transition from an industrial city to a knowledge- based and sustainable city with a potential to be a transnational hub as well (Austin, 2013). The car traffic and parking spaces in the area are minimised as an environmentally friendly approach of urban planning while walking, bicycling and cars with alternative fuel stations are promoted and emphasised in the development. These environmentally friendly solutions are combined with public transport which operates electric and natural gas buses in the area as well as the bus stops provide information on arrival time and schedule on displays (Austin, 2013). The initial idea was also to offer some affordable housing in the area which was brought high expectation to one of the housing associations, HSB in their development. The most emblematic and controversial building is the Turning Torso in the area which is owned by HSB and constructed by NCC. The criticism emerged due to increasing construction and rental costs, the latter contradicted with HSB’s values on providing affordable housing for ordinary citizens. In addition to this, HSB had to sell off a substantial part of their own assets due to cost increases and time delays. Therefore, the project failed to bring and implement smart solutions based on welfare and social inclusion which is part of smart living (Tryggestad et al., 2010).

Climate-Smart Hyllie

Since Hyllie is located in an ideal transportation hub between the centre of Malmö and Copenhagen through the Öresund bridge, focusing on mobility was obvious, thus the Municipality constructed a tunnel for trains and placed a train station in the centre of Hyllie in order to create good conditions for regional public transport (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013; Widestam, personal communication, 2018). Later various smart solutions were established for gas and electric vehicles, carpooling and for bikes. Due to the location of the development and the built infrastructure for transportation the smart mobility dimension is also part of the Climate-Smart Hyllie with its special focus on carpooling and shared bikes, clean and not motorised options, traffic management and multimodality (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013). Furthermore, there is plan that Hyllie will be connected to two low-income surrounding areas, namely to Holma and Solbacken, thus the goal is to expand Hyllie closer and link physically to the city. Thus, the final goal is to connect Hyllie to the rest of the city and the new district should not be an island (Widestam, personal communication, 2018).

Sege Park

In Sege Park a former hospital area in East part of Malmö is going to be developed where innovative and smart solutions will be implemented to create a resource efficient and climate-friendly neighbourhood with affordable housing between 2018-2025. Sege Park has a smaller scale than the previously mentioned urban development due to its neighbourhood level, and it is outside of prioritised development areas, however the Municipality and E.on claim that it is an important project in the city because it illustrates a shift to affordability and social aspects. The development shows similarities to the ‘eco-district’ project in Augustenborg where it also is implemented climate-friendly solutions by improving blue-green infrastructure in a low-income neighbourhood with existing buildings. The development in Hyllie is taken as a good example and the attempt is to develop this model in Sege Park as well in order to potentially become the new model for sustainable urban development. The development is financed by the European Union and partly by Malmö Innovationsarena (Planprogram Sege Park, 2015; Sharing for Affordable and Climate Smart Living, 2015; Markanvisningsprogram för Sege Park, 2016). Sharing is the foundation of the Sege Park development in many segments of the project from planning to implementation, the area will be built with the ambition to enable high quality of life with low

consumption of resources in reasonable costs through circular economy and sharing economy. Thus, according to the plan this approach also should contribute to affordability (Planprogram Sege Park, 2015; Sharing for Affordable and Climate Smart Living, 2015; Markanvisningsprogram för Sege Park, 2016). The concept of sharing appears in the early stages: sharing drawings, know-how (follows ‘the creative dialogue’ recommendations), place making. After the development the energy, the waste system, mobility and water solution will be shared among the tenants, and besides these the food production, sustainable procurement and the community building will be shared as well. Furthermore, a digital platform is planned where the sharing activities take place within the local community. In addition, various services will be shared such as laundry and repair services will be related to the concept of sharing. Therefore, sharing economy mainly is focusing on waste management, energy and transportation (Planprogram Sege Park, 2015; Sharing for Affordable and Climate Smart Living, 2015; Markanvisningsprogram för Sege Park, 2016).

Appendix 5: Climate Smart Hyllie

Among the given projects, two projects are mentioned as the most important and prioritised area of urban development in Malmö which are Hyllie and Västra Hamnen. These are mentioned as the most important smart projects as well. So in this regard we look at Hyllie in the following to present more information in detail. Hyllie is introduced as “Future of Malmö” and “the most climate-smart city” in Öresund region. It is one of three large test beds in Sweden for smart grids and frequently referred as “the largest expansion area in Malmö” (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013). looking at documents from both public and private sectors about smart city smart Hyllie, some main points can be highlighted.

 This project is introduced as a successful model for sustainable development from Malmö Municipality perspective and its partners which are involved in planning and implementing that. “Hyllie to become the Öresund region’s most climate-smart city district and a global benchmark for sustainable urban development. […] In the City of Malmö, there are many companies that want to focus on innovative technology, and to contribute to new approaches to transportation, living and working. In Hyllie we are working together to test and develop the concepts that will serve as a role model for Malmö’s continued progress as a sustainable city (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013, p.1)” “Hyllie, Malmö´s largest development area, will lead the way towards Malmö becoming a sustainable city” (Malmö Stad, 2016)” In the Hyllie city district, we are testing the solutions that we later want to deploy throughout the city. By as early as 2020, the city district will be 100% sustained by renewable or recycled energy. This is driving developments for the companies that want to be part of achieving this goal (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013, p.12)”

 It is branded and defined as a global and regional model. “Hyllie is the Öresund region’s most climate-smart city district and a global benchmark for sustainable urban development (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013)” “after we spent two days with our colleague Peder Berne, project leader at E.ON Sverige, we had a very concrete idea about what a smart city of the

future could look like – and that it could happen anywhere. Then, the requirements of the projects were clear right from the beginning – it needs to be scalable in a way that the blueprints of change can be transferred to any other district and city (Stenzenberger, 2016)”. “Hyllie is one of the leading European showcases for sustainability (Stenzenberger, 2016)”.

 It is branding in a way within which emphases are mainly on inviting people to live and business to invest and for private sector as a reference to market. “Its homes, workplaces, hotels, shops and amenities enjoy an exceptional location at the foot of the Öresund Bridge” (Malmö Stad, 2016). “The unique location, combined with modern architecture, parks and nearby countryside, will create an attractive environment for local people, businesses and visitors. Rich agricultural land, excellent public transport links and regional integration are the hallmarks of Malmö’s southern entry point” (Malmö Stad, 2016). Today, it’s a prime real estate destination, especially for young families. How do these changes impact the residents in their everyday life? We took a look for ourselves. From small, efficient one-family houses to the big, efficient apartment complexes, we examined everything (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013)” “[…] we asked him (project leader at E.ON Sverige) what the secret to success was for Hyllie. He thought about it for a second, then said that the most important factors are: Good partnership, a proactive city, trust, open dialog and the integration of systems […] We took the buzzwords, “trust and integration “, along with us on our trip back to Copenhagen. On the long bridge over the Öresund, we saw the mushroom shaped water tower from Hyllie in the background growing smaller and smaller. At the exact same moment, we received a text message from our colleague Alex, who had spent the last couple days in Munich, back in Germany. On the grounds of the so- called workers ‘quarters there, E.ON helped to build another, smaller smart city project. He was amazed. All we could do was to shrug our shoulders… To meet the ambitious climate goals of the German capital, we have to work with the best (Stenzenberger, 2016)”. This motif can also be seen from other angles e.g. its connection to Denmark (in some cases to the rest of the world) which is mentioned frequently as one of the key focus point and advantage of this area, defining this area as a “world-class sustainable city”, or the great emphasis on its relation to Öresund region as the best hub.

 It is completely defined by environmental projects. In the Table 9 the main vision and strategies of smart Hyllie are summarised which shows that Hyllie portraits an entirely techno-environmental perspective towards smart city. The main actions and projects within Hyllie target energy consumption, recycling and renewable energy, and waste management. In some parts, they mention people and mobility as strategies which are supposed to promise some initiatives regarding the quality of life or socio-cultural issues. However, by looking at the actions relating to those statement, we see that the focus on people is defined only regarding mandatary waste management which should be easy to do, environmentally certified office buildings, or providing smart

housing in which tenants can control and measure their energy consumption by applications or receive higher standard of living. And in this case, owner will conserve energy and save money. In this regard, when they mention “generation sense of community”, it is considered through urban farming. Moreover, in relation to mobility, the actions are carpooling and station for charging electric cars, station for bikes, and Hyllie station which are more defined again based on environmental purposes.

Table 9: The main goals and actions in smart Hyllie

Goals Main standpoints Main actions/possibilities

renewable or Quality of life for people living in a manner that is resource-efficient and energy- recycled energy smart/application for waste management and energy consumption Mobility Carpool, bike station, near to Hyllie station, charging stations for electric cars Green and nature close to nature. Parks, planting areas People in focus Mandatory sorting of food Living and working in the Öresund region’s most climate-smart city waste should be easy to live a climate-smart life, Easy to recycle and sort The smart home waste, energy consumption through application Urban farming City of Malmö is promoting urban farming as a successful method for creating a greater sense of community, Sustainable travel great access to carpools and it will be easy to refuel with biogas or charge your electric car. Easy to recycle and In Hyllie, companies will have the ability to enhance their sort waste environmental profile by moving into environmentally certified office buildings. Tomorrow’s Smart grids Residents of the property will achieve a higher standard of living energy systems The control of energy while the property owner will conserve energy and save money as – smart energy Smart buildings with new the supply and demand of energy are optimised. solutions energy technology Balance between the consumption and production of energy Smart buildings Small-scale production of Solar cells – equipped for the renewable energy future Low-energy housing focused The objective of the project is to on residents and users demonstrate mainstream cost effective techniques and methods for constructing very low energy buildings in various European climates. Note: data extracted form (Climate-Smart Hyllie, 2013).