The State of Eindhoven
Participant responses, The State of Eindhoven, 23 October 2015
Citizens aren't all alike
In the first lecture of the day, Evelien Tonkens - a professor of Citizenship and Humanisation of the Public Sector at the University of Humanistic Studies - formulated three basic conditions for citizen participation in the smart city. First of all, citizens must genuinely have influence. Second, different types of citizens must be taken into account. And third, users' preferences must be tested before being implemented. Many participants in the audience voiced support for Tonkens' three conditions. Their primary question was: How could the involvement of people from every social stratum be ensured? In other words, how will they be invited to take part?
To involve as many residents as possible, Tonkens advised that the city should use media in a thoughtful way. For instance, every resident should be approached using the medium best suited to him or her, whether it be print or YouTube videos. She also proposed specific ways informational meetings could be made more attractive to a wider group of residents, such as adding on a tour of the PSV football stadium. A smaller-scale solution would be to make use of existing opportunities for contact with underrepresented citizens - e.g., the installation of a home e-meter or parents' night at school.
But what about citizens who are already participating? What do they get in return? Later in the day, someone brought up the example of "smart garbage": "I have to separate my rubbish more and more - what do I get for it?" A few of those present opined that participation should not be mandatory: citizens should be able to opt out without being excluded.
Several people questioned Eindhoven's smart-city ambitions. "It's assumed that we want to be a smart city, but is that true?" And who owns the smart city, anyway? "Is it controlled from the top down or the bottom up?" "We want more power for the people. Not coming out of the institutions - there are already so many powerful forces in the city." Who bears responsibility for the smart city, and how will it be organised? Finally, one attendee provided a sobering reminder that "100% agreement can never be achieved."
What kind of smart city does Eindhoven want to be?
At the end of his talk, Dan Hill - a designer, urbanist and associate director of the London design and engineering firm Arup - asked the audience: What kind of city do we want Eindhoven to be? No one offered a real answer. Many did observe that any new applications adopted should suit the city's character. "Eindhoven is a high-tech city, so many new applications will be technological in nature." But others warned of digital illiteracy and said it could limit technology's effectiveness. "A lot of local people don't have Internet access or a smartphone. Be careful with technology!" Someone else said, "The smart city shouldn't be based on IT but on people."
Which tools do we need?
The first panel discussion focused on how to involve local people in developing the smart city. Gaming was cited as a way of reaching a broader spectrum of residents and a means of initiating the decision-making process. "Doorstep conversations" were also mentioned as a way of involving residents in new developments. Audience responses indicated that people considered a local, personal approach important. A dating site for Nigerians in the Bijlmer district of Amsterdam was cited as an example of bottom-up smart-city best practice. The project was initiated and built by people from the neighbourhood and has been highly successful. One audience member said Eindhoven should become a "learning organisation": "It's a win-win situation when businesses have real interaction with local residents and the community gets the best answers to its questions."
How should we manage disparate interests?
After the second panel discussion, audience members were asked to think about whether and how all the various insights and interests might be brought together and reconciled. Their answers fell broadly into two categories: first, bureaucracy should be reduced, and second, discussion should be increased and broadened.
In the first group, one participant said, "What would make a difference would be to simplify bureaucracy." Others said local infrastructure should be made more transparent so that various parties' interests would be more visible. One person suggested that to encourage more flexible development, regulations should be tested and given version numbers, like software.
People in the second group argued that unifying all interests should not be the goal. They saw the smart city not as a one-size-fits-all set of solutions but as a diverse arena. They also said a broader approach should be taken in discussing various interests in Eindhoven. Conversation should be conducted not only with long-term residents but also with international visitors, foreign students and expatriates, they said.
Welke instrumenten hebben we nodig?
De eerste paneldiscussie concentreerde zich op middelen om mensen te betrekken bij de ontwikkeling van de smart city. Gaming werd genoemd om een breder spectrum inwoners te bereiken of als faciliteit voor het besluitvormingsproces in te zetten. Verder werden 'voordeur-gesprekken' genoemd als manier om inwoners te betrekken bij nieuwe ontwikkelingen. Uit de reacties blijkt dat een lokale en persoonlijke benadering belangrijk wordt gevonden. Als bottom-up smart city 'best practice' werd een dating site voor Nigerianen in de Bijlmer genoemd. Het project is door de wijk zelf geïnitieerd en gebouwd, en heeft een enorm succes. Eindhoven wordt geadviseerd een lerende organisatie te worden: "het is een win-win situatie als bedrijven echte interactie hebben met de inwoners, en de community de beste antwoorden krijgt voor de vragen die zij stellen."
Hoe moeten we omgaan met verschillende belangen?
Na de tweede paneldiscussie werd het publiek gevraagd om na te denken of en hoe we alle inzichten en belangen met elkaar kunnen verenigen. Grofweg werd die vraag op twee manieren beantwoord: door bureaucratie te verminderen, en door meer en breder overleg. De eerste groep omschreef het zo: "Om het verschil te kunnen maken moet de bureaucratie eenvoudiger worden gemaakt." Anderen stellen dat de infrastructuur transparanter zou moeten worden zodat ieders belangen duidelijker zijn. Een suggestie om een meer flexibele ontwikkeling te stimuleren, was om regelgeving te testen en versienummers te geven, zoals bij software gebruikelijk is.
In de tweede groep werd gesteld dat we niet alle belangen moeten willen verenigen. Zij zagen de smart city niet als één homogeen stel oplossingen, maar als een arena. Er werd ook gesteld dat het bespreken van belangen in Eindhoven breder zou moeten worden aangepakt. Het gesprek zou niet alleen gevoerd moeten worden met de langdurige inwoners van de stad, maar ook met internationale bezoekers, buitenlandse studenten en expats.