著：（荷蘭）阿揚(yáng)·范提默倫 譯：沈鋒

近來(lái)，對(duì)不同國(guó)家的城市進(jìn)行比較的學(xué)術(shù)研究一直以“西方”（the west）與“東方”（the east）之間，或更常用的發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家（the global north）與發(fā)展中國(guó)家（the global south）之間的嚴(yán)格區(qū)分作為標(biāo)志。這反映了一種根深蒂固的假設(shè)，即世界上發(fā)達(dá)程度不同的地區(qū)、城市之間的不可衡量性。如今，這些假設(shè)正面臨挑戰(zhàn)，因?yàn)榘l(fā)展中國(guó)家與發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家城市之間的比較通常基于前者向后者學(xué)習(xí)政策或“經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)”[1-2]。比較應(yīng)該基于平等的條件，即可以從各自的經(jīng)驗(yàn)中學(xué)到的東西以及它們相互之間的“政策和技術(shù)流動(dòng)性”[3]的潛力。在此背景下，筆者介紹了荷蘭一個(gè)蓬勃發(fā)展的新研究所的工作：AMS研究所（Amsterdam Based Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions），希望能加強(qiáng)中荷合作、促進(jìn)相互學(xué)習(xí)和積累項(xiàng)目經(jīng)驗(yàn)。本研究的重點(diǎn)是為未來(lái)的城市尋找、開(kāi)發(fā)和實(shí)現(xiàn)新的、更好的和更令人興奮的解決方案——基于出色的學(xué)術(shù)研究，以及創(chuàng)新型公司之間關(guān)于提出愿景、公共管理和項(xiàng)目實(shí)施方面的動(dòng)態(tài)互動(dòng)。

“智慧城市”的3個(gè)基本要素是：城市+人+技術(shù)，每個(gè)要素都有自己的變化和發(fā)展步伐。對(duì)于城市本身而言，已建成的環(huán)境和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施變化非常緩慢，而且經(jīng)常需要大量的投資，但是城市的遺產(chǎn)通常會(huì)賦予城市魅力和吸引力；信息技術(shù)發(fā)展得非常迅速，給社會(huì)帶來(lái)了重大變化；相比物質(zhì)環(huán)境（城市）的變化，人的行為模式能夠更快地進(jìn)行適應(yīng)和作出改變，但比信息技術(shù)的變化要更慢。然而，在所有情況下，人都應(yīng)該成為主要的研究視角。

為了解決這些競(jìng)爭(zhēng)因素，創(chuàng)新不能強(qiáng)加于城市，而需要在“生活實(shí)驗(yàn)室”（living lab）中形成和測(cè)試，實(shí)驗(yàn)室包括設(shè)計(jì)空間和試驗(yàn)平臺(tái)，公民、學(xué)術(shù)界、政府、公民社會(huì)和企業(yè)家（“四螺旋”）可以在該平臺(tái)共同制定有針對(duì)性的技術(shù)解決方案與政策，使城市更適宜于生活。

AMS研究所是一個(gè)年輕的科學(xué)組織，借助將阿姆斯特丹市作為生活實(shí)驗(yàn)室進(jìn)行一系列的前沿研究，它致力于與公共和私人合作伙伴一起應(yīng)對(duì)當(dāng)今和未來(lái)的都市挑戰(zhàn)（圖1）。在AMS研究所，大都市問(wèn)題的解決方案是對(duì)城市在可持續(xù)性和生活質(zhì)量方面的挑戰(zhàn)進(jìn)行回應(yīng)，這些挑戰(zhàn)包括能源、資源和糧食安全、機(jī)動(dòng)性和物流、水和廢物管理以及其對(duì)健康和福祉的影響。除了研究項(xiàng)目外，AMS研究所還通過(guò)慕課（MOOC）和相應(yīng)的理學(xué)碩士項(xiàng)目（Master of Science, MSc）、都市分析和設(shè)計(jì)工程（Metropolitan Analysis and Design Engineering, MADE），為全球優(yōu)秀的學(xué)生提供新開(kāi)發(fā)的方法和工具。AMS研究所的總體目標(biāo)是應(yīng)對(duì)與城市化進(jìn)程和變革領(lǐng)域相關(guān)的都市挑戰(zhàn)，例如氣候變化。AMS研究所的活動(dòng)也關(guān)注具有挑戰(zhàn)性的國(guó)際問(wèn)題，并力求將解決方案應(yīng)用在那些面臨著更嚴(yán)峻挑戰(zhàn)的都市圈。

在獲得阿姆斯特丹市的國(guó)際招標(biāo)后，AMS研究所由代爾夫特理工大學(xué)（TUD）、瓦赫寧根大學(xué)（WUR）和波士頓麻省理工學(xué)院（MIT）于2014年成立。此次招標(biāo)的背景是阿姆斯特丹市意在將更多技術(shù)引入阿姆斯特丹都會(huì)區(qū)（Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, AMA）的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，應(yīng)對(duì)科學(xué)中新的“機(jī)遇窗口”，從而創(chuàng)造各種價(jià)值和商機(jī)（圖2）。為此，這座城市及其周邊地區(qū)被作為“生活實(shí)驗(yàn)室”：用于實(shí)驗(yàn)的寶貴的城市文脈，將有助于開(kāi)發(fā)先進(jìn)的解決方案，應(yīng)對(duì)全球日益增多的城市化大都市地區(qū)。

為此，AMS研究所作為一個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)組織，計(jì)劃與本地和國(guó)際合作伙伴（私人和公共），以及最重要的，與公民和用戶建立平臺(tái)。AMS研究所匯集了該領(lǐng)域最聰明的人才，為都市解決方案創(chuàng)造了新方法，并在試點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目和實(shí)驗(yàn)中進(jìn)行了測(cè)試和演示，以求能對(duì)開(kāi)展這些實(shí)驗(yàn)的城市的市民生活帶來(lái)積極影響（圖3）。

AMS研究所的項(xiàng)目和研究的一般方法是基于：1）科學(xué)的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)和基礎(chǔ)性的“再思考”；2）在大都市范圍內(nèi)，為人、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和建筑物進(jìn)行技術(shù)和接口的開(kāi)發(fā)、設(shè)計(jì)、實(shí)施以及評(píng)估；3）與社會(huì)資本和社會(huì)學(xué)習(xí)相關(guān)的參與性開(kāi)發(fā)和使用策略；4）基于形成AMS研究所DNA的四螺旋方法，采用多學(xué)科和跨部門的方法（多重領(lǐng)域和多重參與者的過(guò)程）；5）協(xié)同進(jìn)化（既包含個(gè)體行為者所處的層次，又包含體制參與者）；6）無(wú)標(biāo)度思維，借助基于基礎(chǔ)研究的解決方案，通過(guò)生活實(shí)驗(yàn)室的工作方式進(jìn)行應(yīng)用和測(cè)試；7）城市肌理，基于建筑物、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施與動(dòng)態(tài)城市系統(tǒng)中的使用者之間的互惠性；8）方法的完整性。

研究工作的多學(xué)科性質(zhì)使得在AMS研究所的發(fā)起大學(xué)（代爾夫特理工大學(xué)、瓦赫寧根大學(xué)以及波士頓麻省理工學(xué)院）的基礎(chǔ)研究與整個(gè)社會(huì)的實(shí)施之間增加一個(gè)步驟是很重要的，無(wú)論這些基礎(chǔ)研究是基于理論、實(shí)驗(yàn)室還是模型（圖4）。為了解釋這一點(diǎn)，我們提出了“三級(jí)跳”（“單足跳—跨步跳—跳躍”）的類比：基于已有的社會(huì)挑戰(zhàn)，進(jìn)行問(wèn)題分析并提出研究問(wèn)題，重點(diǎn)關(guān)注大都市環(huán)境以及關(guān)鍵利益相關(guān)者?！叭?jí)跳類比”中“單足跳”的起點(diǎn)：基礎(chǔ)科學(xué)，包括在設(shè)置約束條件的環(huán)境下進(jìn)行的模型和實(shí)驗(yàn)室研究。這些研究仍將主要在3所發(fā)起大學(xué)進(jìn)行，以確保創(chuàng)建尖端科學(xué)，引領(lǐng)能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)真正范式轉(zhuǎn)變的解決方案。接下來(lái)，作為創(chuàng)新和新引入的類似于“三級(jí)跳”之間的“跨步跳”，研究活動(dòng)的第一階段（“單足跳”）的結(jié)果將在阿姆斯特丹都會(huì)區(qū)（AMA）內(nèi)部的特定居住環(huán)境（設(shè)置部分約束條件）中被實(shí)施和驗(yàn)證，同時(shí)涉及所有（公共和私人）關(guān)鍵利益相關(guān)者。在合作創(chuàng)新的包容環(huán)境中，這一獨(dú)特的“跨步跳”構(gòu)成了現(xiàn)實(shí)生活研究與其多重利益相關(guān)者之間重要的“中間步驟”。因此，它將有助于實(shí)現(xiàn)有活力的生活環(huán)境：更加宜居、可持續(xù)、有韌性和公正，并能夠擴(kuò)大自身規(guī)模。這個(gè)步驟構(gòu)成了解決方案的基礎(chǔ)，使解決方案可以更好地適應(yīng)現(xiàn)實(shí)生活和城市環(huán)境的所謂“雙重復(fù)雜性”，從而最終在全社會(huì)范圍內(nèi)實(shí)現(xiàn)更快的實(shí)施（“跳躍”）：在這個(gè)日益城市化和充滿挑戰(zhàn)的世界中，實(shí)現(xiàn)更快的科學(xué)成果轉(zhuǎn)化，最重要的是，以更大的影響力，更快、更安全和更成功地過(guò)渡到更可持續(xù)、更公正和更有韌性的未來(lái)。

正因如此，生活實(shí)驗(yàn)室的方法引入了一個(gè)重要的中間步驟，來(lái)獲得更大影響、更快，以及最重要的，在社會(huì)范圍內(nèi)更好的實(shí)施。AMS研究所的關(guān)注點(diǎn)直接解決了這一問(wèn)題，方法是基于對(duì)城市主義的系統(tǒng)思考，這些系統(tǒng)思考被歸納為過(guò)去20年演變成的城市復(fù)雜性理論（Complexity Theories of Cities, CTC）。CTC假 設(shè)城市是由多個(gè)相互連接的子系統(tǒng)組成的多層系統(tǒng)，包括建筑物、街區(qū)、河流和交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)、社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)。由于所涉及子系統(tǒng)的多重性、幾個(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)主體之間的相互作用及其嵌套性，作為復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)的城市邊界是模糊的。此外，城市是由“相互作用的成分”所組成，這些成分“可能隨著時(shí)間的推移以不可預(yù)測(cè)的方式改變其作用”：這個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)包含協(xié)同進(jìn)化的物種和系統(tǒng)，并遵循獨(dú)特的進(jìn)化軌跡。 AMS研究所基于CTC的方法除了將城市評(píng)價(jià)為陌生的“復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)”之外，還認(rèn)識(shí)到其復(fù)雜性帶來(lái)的好處：首先，復(fù)雜的城市系統(tǒng)會(huì)產(chǎn)生感知上的豐富性并提供更多的功能；其次，在復(fù)雜的環(huán)境里，城市中的系統(tǒng)會(huì)產(chǎn)生協(xié)同作用，從而創(chuàng)造出附加價(jià)值，其價(jià)值要大于各個(gè)部分的總和。

在各種城市挑戰(zhàn)和系統(tǒng)思考的背景下，通常可以用城市新陳代謝的概念來(lái)考慮大都市地區(qū)的運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。城市新陳代謝是指一個(gè)用于對(duì)復(fù)雜城市系統(tǒng)的物質(zhì)和能量流進(jìn)行建模的框架，就好像城市是一個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。AMS研究所引入了這種城市新陳代謝方法中整合技術(shù)和社會(huì)視角的基本組成部分，因?yàn)樗鼘⑦@種整合視為“發(fā)生在城市中的技術(shù)和社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)過(guò)程的總和，促進(jìn)了城市的增長(zhǎng)、（可再生）能源的生產(chǎn)，并消除浪費(fèi)，以提高公平性、可持續(xù)性和宜居性”（圖5）。

1 我們“共同的挑戰(zhàn)”

氣候變化、生物多樣性喪失、資源稀缺以及與宜居性相關(guān)的挑戰(zhàn)，反復(fù)陳述這些令人擔(dān)憂的現(xiàn)實(shí)似乎有些陳詞濫調(diào)，即便是對(duì)具備新聞素養(yǎng)的人也是如此，但其警示性怎么強(qiáng)調(diào)都不為過(guò)。當(dāng)前，我們面臨著一系列日益棘手的全球危機(jī)。眾所周知，這些危機(jī)嚴(yán)重威脅著我們的文明和特定的方面，如過(guò)度城市化、人口增長(zhǎng)、陸地或水生生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的退化、氣候變化的多種后果（城市熱島、干旱、降水模式、洪水等）、資源稀缺（能源、水、材料、食物和清潔的土壤）、地下水枯竭、城市、農(nóng)業(yè)和工業(yè)對(duì)合理清潔水的更高需求、向可再生能源轉(zhuǎn)變以及全球向水、能源和資源密集型生活方式和飲食的轉(zhuǎn)變。如今的人類對(duì)地球的生物、地質(zhì)和水文過(guò)程都產(chǎn)生了巨大的影響，以至于當(dāng)前的地質(zhì)時(shí)代被稱為人類世。在過(guò)去的30年中，每隔5年，聯(lián)合國(guó)政府間氣候變化專門委員會(huì)（Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC）的報(bào)告在確定誰(shuí)是罪魁禍?zhǔn)祝ㄈ祟悾r(shí)變得更加一致，對(duì)未來(lái)的預(yù)測(cè)（危機(jī)）更加清醒，對(duì)我們應(yīng)該何時(shí)解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題（現(xiàn)在）更加明確。

AMS研究所負(fù)責(zé)以一種方法論和創(chuàng)新的方式解決這一問(wèn)題。但是，面對(duì)這些相互交織的危機(jī)，調(diào)整城市社區(qū)將是這個(gè)時(shí)代最大的挑戰(zhàn)。為此，對(duì)于能源、食品、廢物和交通這些方面的基本流程和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，城市必須確保其安全和“綠色化”。但最重要的是，需要幫助改變公民的行為模式和參與方式，從而使他們成為這些解決方案不可或缺的支持部分（圖6）。

當(dāng)前，這些問(wèn)題的答案很有限，并且目前影響大都市解決方案的框架不能始終確保問(wèn)責(zé)制。隨著這些系統(tǒng)的普遍性、復(fù)雜性和規(guī)模的增長(zhǎng)，缺乏經(jīng)過(guò)驗(yàn)證、可靠且因而能夠迅速實(shí)施的解決方案是一個(gè)日益緊迫的問(wèn)題，有意義的（集成的）解決方案必須包括盡責(zé)、負(fù)責(zé)和正當(dāng)程序的基本保障。一些人（例如“智慧城市”的擁護(hù)者）認(rèn)為，人類唯一的出路是加快工業(yè)化進(jìn)程，并像從前那樣創(chuàng)新以擺脫稀缺性。其他人則聲稱，為了拯救地球，工業(yè)文明必須被制止，這就像在比賽中跳出超速賽車一樣荒謬。不管堅(jiān)持哪種意識(shí)形態(tài)，事實(shí)是，確保我們的物種和地球生存的任何途徑都意味著人類圈必須經(jīng)歷徹底和大規(guī)模轉(zhuǎn)變——也許這種轉(zhuǎn)變比從農(nóng)業(yè)人（類）到工業(yè)人（類）的轉(zhuǎn)變還要?jiǎng)×?。最重要的是要意識(shí)到?jīng)]有什么是一夜之間發(fā)生的。使用智能傳感器對(duì)城市進(jìn)行改造、安裝新的能源系統(tǒng)和碳固存技術(shù)、測(cè)試可以挽救數(shù)百萬(wàn)生命的轉(zhuǎn)基因作物新品系，這些都需要時(shí)間和資金。這也意味著我們需要以不同的方式來(lái)組織和規(guī)劃城市?？缭綄I(yè)領(lǐng)域的邊界，同時(shí)也跨越物理甚至法律邊界，以實(shí)現(xiàn)系統(tǒng)性變革（圖7）。

2 城市和腹地的互惠互利是智能解決方案的搖籃

如今，城市已成為現(xiàn)代性的舞臺(tái)。大數(shù)據(jù)革命，個(gè)人賦權(quán)以及自組織的社區(qū)和技術(shù)，這些變革將培育未來(lái)的城市環(huán)境。與地理相關(guān)的數(shù)據(jù)成為重要的信息，因?yàn)檫@些數(shù)據(jù)的反饋回路（feedback-loops）為市政當(dāng)局提供了更多選擇，以使決策更快、更有效。正如全世界對(duì)美國(guó)國(guó)家安全局（National Security Agency, NSA）竊聽(tīng)丑聞的強(qiáng)烈擔(dān)憂所表明的那樣，大數(shù)據(jù)不應(yīng)該與侵犯?jìng)€(gè)人隱私有關(guān)，而應(yīng)在公民與政府之間建立有用的聯(lián)系，從而促進(jìn)賦權(quán)和場(chǎng)所營(yíng)造?？偠灾髷?shù)據(jù)的新興趨勢(shì)，個(gè)人、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和自然界產(chǎn)生的數(shù)據(jù)點(diǎn)軌跡有望從根本上改變我們的城市（圖8）。

然而，重要的是要認(rèn)識(shí)到，盡管大數(shù)據(jù)可以更好地識(shí)別離群值和處理數(shù)據(jù)分層，信息泛濫引發(fā)了有關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)質(zhì)量以及誰(shuí)擁有訪問(wèn)權(quán)限的問(wèn)題。大數(shù)據(jù)不僅將使建筑物和城市區(qū)域變得更智能，而且作為次級(jí)效應(yīng)，建筑物或社區(qū)將成為能源市場(chǎng)等領(lǐng)域的積極參與者。有些建筑物或社區(qū)已經(jīng)參與了需求響應(yīng)計(jì)劃（Demand-Response Programs），該計(jì)劃重視“負(fù)電量”（即用戶向電網(wǎng)供電）。隨著法規(guī)政策的變化，更多的建筑所有者將發(fā)現(xiàn)以自己的條件——小規(guī)模，“產(chǎn)消合一者”（prosumer），即所謂的“千瓦”（kilowatt）——參與能源市場(chǎng)在財(cái)務(wù)上是可行的，使得他們能夠向電網(wǎng)傳輸電力或?qū)⑵浯鎯?chǔ)在本地。由于建筑物或區(qū)域在能源市場(chǎng)中充當(dāng)“產(chǎn)消合一者”，因此產(chǎn)生的能源是否來(lái)源于可再生方式變得不再明顯，并且無(wú)論產(chǎn)生的能源是否可持續(xù)，它們都可能破壞現(xiàn)有的商業(yè)模式和已有的系統(tǒng)，這些系統(tǒng)被設(shè)計(jì)來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)單方向的電流傳輸——來(lái)自集中式的電源。零能耗建筑和城市區(qū)域等雄心勃勃的目標(biāo)將改變城市中實(shí)體結(jié)構(gòu)的關(guān)系，進(jìn)而改變使用者（全時(shí)或非全時(shí)）與建筑物、城市以及彼此之間的關(guān)系（圖9）。它可以充當(dāng)促進(jìn)者，降低參與的障礙，并增加交換的速度和頻率，這個(gè)特征可以帶來(lái)積極或消極的結(jié)果。 AMS研究所的“空間能源”（Spacergy）、“智慧電網(wǎng)”（DC Smart Grids）和“URSUS+”等項(xiàng)目是此類研究的先行者（圖10）。這些原則也適用于其他由于城市環(huán)境和生活中的信息通信技術(shù)（Information and Communication Technologies, ICT）的集成而受到智能化影響的方面。

3 從智慧城市到智慧公民

今天，我們充分意識(shí)到，現(xiàn)狀是無(wú)法維持的。我們擁有的技術(shù)能力可以滿足所有人的基本需求，但是我們的技術(shù)和經(jīng)濟(jì)體系被架構(gòu)成規(guī)避風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和實(shí)現(xiàn)利潤(rùn)最大化的模式。我們必須認(rèn)識(shí)到，僅憑技術(shù)并不能拯救我們。如果我們的生活方式以及社會(huì)和政治制度沒(méi)有做出重大的改變，激進(jìn)的技術(shù)創(chuàng)新將陷入困境。

真正的社會(huì)變革只有在我們意識(shí)到創(chuàng)新不只是簡(jiǎn)單地改變新陳代謝的機(jī)制，或重新布置城市的組成部分（建筑物、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施及其管理方式），或者認(rèn)為已經(jīng)擁有所有的“拼圖塊”時(shí)發(fā)生。我們需要實(shí)現(xiàn)并支持智慧公民和用戶的增長(zhǎng)[4]。我們應(yīng)該學(xué)習(xí)擁抱城市（或社會(huì)總體）的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與復(fù)雜性，不論是其最低微的部分還是最光輝的部分，而不是通過(guò)簡(jiǎn)化復(fù)雜性和使用截?cái)嗨惴▉?lái)最大限度地降低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和維持現(xiàn)狀。我們對(duì)我們的星球和宇宙有很多了解，但是無(wú)論我們的計(jì)算機(jī)多么先進(jìn)，我們都無(wú)法創(chuàng)建真正反映現(xiàn)實(shí)的模型。設(shè)計(jì)先進(jìn)的技術(shù)和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施來(lái)支持城市生活是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠的。我們需要同樣精巧且令人信服的故事，以使思想從犬儒主義和虛無(wú)主義中解放出來(lái)（這兩種主義普遍存在于當(dāng)今文化中，并改變了我們對(duì)彼此之間以及與地球的關(guān)系的思考方式），朝著更美好的未來(lái)前進(jìn)，在這個(gè)未來(lái)中，技術(shù)創(chuàng)新能夠滿足人和自然需要，與倫理和理性相調(diào)和，而不是相反。

（未來(lái)）城市的專業(yè)人員通過(guò)應(yīng)用ICT，能夠借助算法軟件來(lái)分析“大”數(shù)據(jù)，這些數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)源于整個(gè)城市環(huán)境中部署的傳感器，這個(gè)過(guò)程構(gòu)成了經(jīng)常被稱為“智慧城市”都市構(gòu)想的一部分。面對(duì)當(dāng)今的多重危機(jī)，“智慧城市”的構(gòu)想時(shí)常被認(rèn)為是使城市更具響應(yīng)力、更敏捷和更有韌性的下一個(gè)關(guān)鍵城市基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施范式。AMS研究所也致力于實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)，然而，它從一開(kāi)始就采用了一種創(chuàng)新的方式，來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)對(duì)全球現(xiàn)行的“智慧城市”措施的普遍批評(píng)。據(jù)稱，這些措施通過(guò)強(qiáng)調(diào)專有軟件來(lái)遏制創(chuàng)新，這種軟件通常具有非民主和壟斷性質(zhì)，以市場(chǎng)為主導(dǎo)，而不是以公民為中心，通過(guò)追蹤來(lái)削弱個(gè)人的自主性。與此相反，對(duì)于AMS研究所而言，一個(gè)城市如果要變得智慧，只有能夠集成和分類從每種類型的傳感器收集的數(shù)據(jù)，并使公民和企業(yè)能夠應(yīng)用新的ICT技術(shù)來(lái)節(jié)省時(shí)間，提升個(gè)人流動(dòng)性，促進(jìn)信息和服務(wù)的可達(dá)性，節(jié)省能源和資源，幫助他們適應(yīng)變化以及參與城市營(yíng)造（和決策）的過(guò)程。只有這樣，才能提高大都市區(qū)和其市民與使用者的持久效率、公平性、可持續(xù)性以及生活質(zhì)量（圖11）。

一般而言，大都市解決方案和生活實(shí)驗(yàn)室中與城市新陳代謝相關(guān)的所有主題均與城市的各種流動(dòng)相關(guān)，并且需要數(shù)據(jù)（包括大數(shù)據(jù)）分析。在這種背景下，AMS研究所的價(jià)值平臺(tái)不僅是數(shù)字城市網(wǎng)絡(luò)生成數(shù)據(jù)的中立主機(jī)，這個(gè)主機(jī)使這些數(shù)據(jù)的處理以及它們的交換成為可能；而且是一處集市，創(chuàng)造交叉點(diǎn)或幣值。為此，AMS研究所的關(guān)鍵工作是創(chuàng)建支持合理使用和公民共同增長(zhǎng)的社會(huì)、政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。因此，公正和可持續(xù)的轉(zhuǎn)型應(yīng)理解為既包括分配要素，即與投資預(yù)期的和已實(shí)現(xiàn)的社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和環(huán)境成果的分配有關(guān)的要素；又包括程序性要素，即由誰(shuí)參與創(chuàng)造（決策）都市環(huán)境相關(guān)的要素。

這種基于共生和互惠的替代途徑，可以看作是一種以生物為導(dǎo)向，以資源為基礎(chǔ)的社會(huì)。在ICT的幫助下，這樣的社會(huì)能夠振興并賦權(quán)地方經(jīng)濟(jì)，鼓勵(lì)城市新陳代謝的多中心發(fā)展，并維護(hù)城市、環(huán)都市和農(nóng)村腹地的尊嚴(yán)——這三者之間的相互關(guān)系定義了如今的文明。我們必須樹立一種新的精神：重視社區(qū)、自組織以及個(gè)人及其社區(qū)的賦權(quán)，無(wú)論是在本地還是全球范圍內(nèi)。定義了現(xiàn)代社會(huì)的城市集群必須超越僅基于技術(shù)、運(yùn)輸和貿(mào)易的連通性，而轉(zhuǎn)向其周邊腹地、農(nóng)村社區(qū)和自然環(huán)境的界限，以促進(jìn)動(dòng)態(tài)的平衡。

4 智慧公民是（城市）韌性的關(guān)鍵條件

隨著城市復(fù)雜性的增長(zhǎng)和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的愈發(fā)網(wǎng)絡(luò)化，它們不可避免地越來(lái)越成為城市居民日常生活的組成部分，最重要的是，面對(duì)顛覆性的系統(tǒng)性變革，它們十分脆弱。因此，其形式和服務(wù)的規(guī)劃必須適應(yīng)當(dāng)前和未來(lái)城市居民的需求以及環(huán)境基準(zhǔn)條件的預(yù)期變化。在城市化和智慧城市中應(yīng)用的系統(tǒng)思維是“城市復(fù)雜性理論”[5]和“城市新科學(xué)”[6]的重要分支。系統(tǒng)思維的方法不再將復(fù)雜性問(wèn)題呈現(xiàn)為效率問(wèn)題或最明顯的因果關(guān)系，并將其重構(gòu)為關(guān)系、結(jié)構(gòu)、元過(guò)程甚至人文關(guān)懷的語(yǔ)言。

盡管系統(tǒng)思維有助于理解復(fù)雜（城市）系統(tǒng)的形式結(jié)構(gòu)特征，但它本身很少考慮網(wǎng)絡(luò)化對(duì)環(huán)境的影響以及數(shù)據(jù)驅(qū)動(dòng)變革的角色和使用。作為結(jié)果，有人可能會(huì)辯稱，建成環(huán)境與自然是截然相反的實(shí)體這一主流觀點(diǎn)極大地增加了城市環(huán)境在面對(duì)不可預(yù)知的沖擊時(shí)的脆弱性[7]。然而，挑戰(zhàn)并不是停止顛覆性變革（這一任務(wù)已被反復(fù)證明是不可能的），而是要在發(fā)生變化時(shí)對(duì)其進(jìn)行理解，最終以處于動(dòng)態(tài)平衡的“城市—自然”系統(tǒng)的結(jié)合來(lái)提高城市環(huán)境適應(yīng)和吸收破壞的能力[4]。這表明，隨著城市環(huán)境的復(fù)雜性不斷增長(zhǎng)，行動(dòng)驅(qū)動(dòng)型戰(zhàn)略的有效性似乎不斷下降（圖12）。

應(yīng)對(duì)這些挑戰(zhàn)，有3種替代方法：1）不作為策略；2）減法策略；3）刺激效應(yīng)策略，即讓主體（城市、鄰里、社區(qū)等）承受較小、可控制且連續(xù)的壓力，目的是強(qiáng)化它，以防將來(lái)可能會(huì)面臨的相同類型的大沖擊。如果不作為策略或減法策略導(dǎo)致了匱乏，則最后一個(gè)策略可以根植于前兩個(gè)策略，比如，可以有意識(shí)地使生活水平的舒適度，相對(duì)地低于正常水平[7]。尤其是結(jié)合了刺激效應(yīng)的減法策略，引起了廣泛的興趣，因?yàn)樗⒃谙到y(tǒng)性學(xué)習(xí)的基礎(chǔ)上，并且有機(jī)會(huì)引入基于組合技術(shù)和基于自然措施（nature-based solutions, NBS）的方法。其中更深層的原理是在城市環(huán)境中應(yīng)用此類策略將提高“社會(huì)—生態(tài)”的韌性。這“需要理解包含本地用戶知識(shí)的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)”[8]，還要理解社會(huì)過(guò)程如何通過(guò)有計(jì)劃和有針對(duì)性的不作為來(lái)最大限度地減少其影響，最終目標(biāo)是提高城市環(huán)境應(yīng)對(duì)顛覆性變革的能力。社會(huì)過(guò)程需要擁抱變化，并讓生態(tài)過(guò)程來(lái)幫助應(yīng)對(duì)變化[7]。社會(huì)、城市和AMS研究所研究的解決方案所面臨的主要挑戰(zhàn)是如何在（環(huán)境）技術(shù)、用戶（市民）參與和自然（生態(tài)過(guò)程）之間找到平衡。

城市基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施不僅構(gòu)成城市的物質(zhì)結(jié)構(gòu)，還具有城市和都市的永久性功能，但就目前的形式而言，它既不靈敏也不適合于空間、社會(huì)、技術(shù)、政治和生態(tài)變化的新視角。關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)的新科學(xué)被稱為復(fù)雜性理論。過(guò)去20年的發(fā)展中，復(fù)雜的系統(tǒng)被描繪為相互連接的節(jié)點(diǎn)。對(duì)復(fù)雜網(wǎng)絡(luò)的大多數(shù)研究都傾向于關(guān)注其節(jié)點(diǎn)不是動(dòng)態(tài)代理的網(wǎng)絡(luò)。相對(duì)而言，人類網(wǎng)絡(luò)的節(jié)點(diǎn)（例如城市）是動(dòng)態(tài)的認(rèn)知主體，每個(gè)主體都是嵌套的復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)。人類活動(dòng)和城市網(wǎng)絡(luò)是代理之間多次互動(dòng)的結(jié)果，至少在理論上，它們“在全局上思考并在局部上采取行動(dòng)”。通過(guò)這種方式，代理的局部活動(dòng)和互動(dòng)導(dǎo)致了多個(gè)城市社會(huì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)和實(shí)體城市網(wǎng)絡(luò)之間的相互依存關(guān)系，反過(guò)來(lái)又影響了代理在循環(huán)因果關(guān)系中的認(rèn)知、行為、運(yùn)動(dòng)和行動(dòng)。

5 中荷城市解決方案的對(duì)等（P2P）學(xué)習(xí)觀

由于氣候變化、城市擴(kuò)張導(dǎo)致的天氣擾動(dòng)增加，我們對(duì)能源、水和物質(zhì)資源的需求不斷增加，對(duì)地球正在進(jìn)入稀缺期的預(yù)測(cè)。在這些因素下，應(yīng)對(duì)顛覆性變革、脆弱性、復(fù)雜性和依賴性對(duì)規(guī)劃未來(lái)城市的發(fā)展至關(guān)重要[7]。19—20世紀(jì)，人口的大量增長(zhǎng)和城市化速度的提高導(dǎo)致當(dāng)今城市環(huán)境遇到的生態(tài)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)沖擊的頻率和規(guī)模不斷增加。即使到今天，這些沖擊所帶來(lái)的后果的程度也難以確定。生活中主要的壓力和焦慮的來(lái)源，是不可控制和不可預(yù)測(cè)的[9]（圖13）。

可以肯定的是，盡管許多城市的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施似乎表面上可以通過(guò)技術(shù)進(jìn)行管理，但我們面臨的最重要的城市問(wèn)題實(shí)際上是社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題，也稱為“棘手問(wèn)題”。棘手的問(wèn)題是那些無(wú)法由中央計(jì)劃委員會(huì)（board of central planners）或自上而下的控制機(jī)制解決的情形[10]。AMS研究所的大多數(shù)項(xiàng)目中所包含的新通信技術(shù)在改善城市環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性和整體質(zhì)量方面的主要優(yōu)勢(shì)在于，能夠使人們與其他技術(shù)一同協(xié)作，這些技術(shù)可以提高舒適度、效率、響應(yīng)能力、靈活性并減少開(kāi)支。如果以正確的方式建立起來(lái)，信息通信技術(shù)將為具有相似目標(biāo)和抱負(fù)（例如韌性、宜居性和可持續(xù)性）的機(jī)構(gòu)、公司、社區(qū)和個(gè)人提供分享思想、進(jìn)行對(duì)話和組織的相應(yīng)途徑。重要的是，任何新的制度安排都應(yīng)與所有參與方（特別是公民）密切同步[11]。如果這些系統(tǒng)不具有包容性，人們可能會(huì)開(kāi)始覺(jué)得采取行動(dòng)或采用建議或?qū)嵤┑慕鉀Q方案是徒勞的。沒(méi)有包容性，當(dāng)今以技術(shù)為主導(dǎo)的文化將縮小留給人類影響自己的生活條件的范圍。在這種前景下，需要采取新的體制來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)信息通信技術(shù)的使用以及與物質(zhì)環(huán)境相關(guān)的問(wèn)題。實(shí)際上，新的體制更加強(qiáng)調(diào)采用另一種方法來(lái)組織基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和建筑。應(yīng)對(duì)大都市挑戰(zhàn)和通常相關(guān)的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資的解決方案是那些能夠反映、重現(xiàn)和改變城市空間中社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和環(huán)境關(guān)系的變革推動(dòng)者。

技術(shù)進(jìn)步可能并不是我們僅有的優(yōu)點(diǎn)。在大都市的社會(huì)背景中提高技術(shù)效率和功效的不太理智的驅(qū)動(dòng)可能會(huì)使一些考慮變得模棱兩可，比如歷史位次以及古典和古代社會(huì)用來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)不斷變化的環(huán)境條件的實(shí)用知識(shí)和技術(shù)。AMS研究所的方法與它的西方社會(huì)背景相關(guān)，也與它通常在生活實(shí)驗(yàn)室環(huán)境中進(jìn)行的一些研究項(xiàng)目相關(guān)。它旨在呼吁互惠互利的中荷對(duì)等學(xué)習(xí)合作，這種合作著重于2個(gè)古老的社會(huì)和文化，同時(shí)學(xué)習(xí)彼此的方法和都市解決方案，且最好在類似的基于四螺旋的背景下。這種對(duì)等的學(xué)習(xí)以及共同尋找解決方案和相關(guān)的系統(tǒng)變化的前景既迫切又充滿希望。實(shí)現(xiàn)過(guò)渡到維持某種正常狀態(tài)的“后稀缺”（post-scarcity）社會(huì)這個(gè)任務(wù)需要一種跨學(xué)科的方法，并且需要將我們最優(yōu)秀的工程師、物理學(xué)家、醫(yī)生、設(shè)計(jì)師、社區(qū)組織者、藝術(shù)家、農(nóng)民、教師，尤其是個(gè)人和社區(qū)都納入其中（圖14）。

圖片來(lái)源：

圖1、4、5、7、8、10由AMS研究所提供；圖2由creative commons pinterest提供；圖3由Leif Niemczik拍攝；圖6由AMS研究所和MIT共同提供；圖9由代爾夫特理工大學(xué)環(huán)境技術(shù)與設(shè)計(jì)部提供；圖11由Daniela Maiullari繪制；圖12由Waag Society提供；圖13由Ge Dubbelman拍攝；圖14由Dimitri Houtteman拍攝。

（編輯/王亞鶯）

Towards Sustainable, Just and Livable Smart Cities: A Dutch Perspective

Until recently, academic research that compared cities in different countries has been marked by a rigid divide between either“the west” and“the east”, or more frequently stated, “the global north” and“the global south”, reflecting embedded assumptions about the incommensurability of cities in more or less developed parts of the world. These assumptions are now being challenged because comparisons between cities of the south with those of the north are usually based on the transfer of policies or“l(fā)essons” from the latter to the former[1-2]. Comparisons should be based on equal terms with regard to what can be learned from the experience of each and the potential for“policy and technology mobility”[3]in any direction between them. In this context this article presents the work of a thriving new institute in The Netherlands: the AMS Institute(the Amsterdam based Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions) in the hope it will enrich the Sino-Dutch collaboration, reciprocal learnings and projects. The focus of this article be on finding, developing and realising new, better and more exciting solutions for our future cities— based on excellent academic research and the dynamic interaction of vision, public administration and implementation by innovative companies.

The three basic ingredients for“smarter cities” are: city+ people+ technology, each with its own pace of change and development. The city itself, the built environment and infrastructure, changes very slowly and often with major investment costs. The heritage of cities however often provides the city’s charm and attractiveness. Information Technology develops very rapidly, thus causing major changes for society. People’s behavioral patterns adapt and change faster than the physical environment but slower than Information Technology. However, in all cases, people should be the leading perspective.

To resolve these competing ingredients, innovation cannot be imposed on cities but needs to be generated and tested within“l(fā)iving labs” — inclusive design spaces, test-beds where citizens, academia, government, civil society and entrepreneurs(a quadruple helix) can come together to co-create bespoke technological solutions and policy that can make the cities we love even better places to live.

AMS is a young scientific organization that addresses together with its public and private partners todays’ and future’s metropolitan challenges with cutting edge research using the city of Amsterdam as a Living Laboratory(Fig. 1). At AMS Institute, metropolitan solutions are responses to the urban challenges of sustainability and quality of life, including energy, resource and food security, mobility and logistics, water and waste management, and its effects on health and wellbeing. Besides of the research projects, at the AMS Institute’s newly developed methods and tools are taught to a rising amount of young excellent students at all levels of expertise around the world, through MOOCs, but also in a proper MSc“MADE” (Metropolitan Analysis and Design Engineering). As the general aim of the AMS Institute is to address metropolitan challenges related to processes of urbanization and(related) aspects of change, e.g. climate change, the activities of AMS Institute also have a challenging international outlook. To implement solutions in metropolitan areas elsewhere, where(similar) challenges are(even more) disruptive.

The AMS Institute was founded in 2014 by Delft University of Technology(TUD), Wageningen University(WUR) and Boston based Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT), after winning the international tender by the City of Amsterdam. Background of this tender was the aim of the City of Amsterdam to introduce more technology into the ecosystem of the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area(AMA), addressing new“windows of opportunities” in science and by doing so, creating all kinds of value and business opportunities(Fig. 2). To do so the city and its surroundings had been put forward as a“Living Laboratory”: a valuable context for experiments that would help develop advanced solutions for challenges in a rising amount of urbanized metropolitan areas around the globe.

In this, the AMS Institute intends to work as a networking organization, initiating platforms with local and international partners, private and public, and above all with citizens and users. AMS Institute brings the field’s brightest minds together to create innovations for metropolitan solutions, tested and demonstrated in pilot projects and experiments in and with the city that will have a positive impact on the life of citizens(Fig. 3).

The general approach to projects and research of AMS Institute is based on: 1) Scientific rigor and a fundamental“re-think”; 2) Development, design, implementation and assessment of technology and interfaces for people, infrastructures and buildings within the metropolitan context; 3) Participative development and use strategy connected to social capital and social learning; 4) Multi-disciplinary and cross-sectoral approach(multi domain and multi-actor processes), based on the quadruple helix approach that forms the DNA of the AMS Institute; 5) Co-evolutionary(both incorporating the niche level on which individual actors operate, as incorporating regime players); 6) Scalefree thinking, with fundamental research based solutions, applied and tested in-, and through a Living Lab way of working; 7) Urban fabric based on reciprocity of both buildings and infrastructures and use(rs) with(in) dynamic(urban) systems; 8) Integralness in approach.

The multidisciplinary nature of working makes that it is important to include a step in between fundamental, either theory based, laboratory based or modeling based research at our founding universities Delft University of Technology, Wageningen University and Research and MIT Boston, and society wide implementation(Fig. 4). To explain this, we bring up the analogy of the Triple-Jump(“Hop-Step-Jump”): Based on discerned societal challenges, focusing on metropolitan contexts, together with key-stakeholders, problem analyses are made and research questions formulated. This is the starting point for the“Hop” in this“Triple Jump analogy”: fundamental science, including modeling and laboratory research within conditioned environments, will still mostly take place at the three founding father universities, assuring creation of cutting-edge science leading to solutions which aim for true paradigm shifts. Next, as an innovative, newly introduced in-between“Step” in this analogy of Triple-Jump, outcomes of this first phase of the research activities(“Hop”) will be implemented and validated in dedicated living environments inside the AMA, within partially conditioned settings, while involving all(public and private) key stakeholders. This unique in-between“Step” forms the important“in between step” of reallife research with its multiple stakeholders, in a coinnovating inclusive setting. It thus will help achieve prosperous living environments: more liveable, sustainable, resilient and just, capable to be scaled up. It forms the basis of solutions which are better tuned to the so-called“double complexity” of real life and urban environments, and thus in the end faster society-wide implementation(“Jump”): faster science-to-implementation trajectories, and above all, with higher impact and faster, more secured and successful transitions to more sustainable, just and resilient futures in this increasingly urbanizing and challenged world.

In this, the Living Lab approach forms an important in between step to achieve more impact, and faster and above all better society wide implementation. AMS Institute’s focus addresses this directly, basing its approach on systems thinking to urbanism, codified as Complexity Theories of Cities(CTC), evolving in the last two decades. Complexity Theory of Cities assumes cities as multilevel systems of several interconnected subsystems, as buildings, blocks, networks of streams and transport, social structures. Because of the multiplicity of subsystems involved, the interactions among several dynamic agents and their nestedness, the boundaries of cities as complex systems are fuzzy. Furthermore, a city is composed of“interactive components that may change their roles over time in unpredictable ways”: ecosystems contain coevolving species and systems and follow unique evolution trajectories. Beside the assessment of cities as“complex systems” unfamiliarity, the AMS Institute’s CTC based approach recognizes benefits entailed in their complexity: firstly, a complex urban system produces perceptual richness and offers more functional capacity. Furthermore, in a complex environment, synergies arise, creating an added value, which is more than the sum of the parts.

Within this context of urban challenges and systems thinking, metropolitan regions are often considered from the concept of urban metabolism: a framework for modeling complex urban systems’ material and energy flows as if the city were an ecosystem. AMS Institute introduces the essential component of integration of both technical as well as social perspective within this urban metabolism approach, as it addresses it as“the sum total of the technical and socio-economical processes that occur in cities, resulting in growth, production of(renewable) energy, and elimination of waste, for the improvement of equity, sustainability and livability” (Fig. 5).

1 Our“Joint Challenges”

The alarming realties of climate change, biodiversity loss, resource scarcity and challenges related to livability might at this point seem quite banal to reiterate for even the somewhat news literate, but it cannot be stressed enough. Presently, we are facing a number of concurrent and increasingly intractable global crises that pose a serious threat to the named aspects and to civilization as we know it: hyper urbanization, population growth, the degradation or terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, the multitudinous consequences of climate change(urban heat island, drought, precipitation patterns, flooding, etc.), resource scarcity(energy, water, materials, food and clean soil), groundwater depletion, the increased demands from cities, agriculture and industry for reasonably clean water, renewable energy(transition) and the global shift toward increasingly water, energy and resource intensive lifestyles and diets. Humanity now exerts such a tremendous influence on earth’s biological, geological and hydrological processes that the current geologic epoch is dubbed the Anthropocene. Every five years for the last three decades, IPCC reports(ao) have only become more universal in their certainty of who is the culprit(human beings), more lucid in their predictions of the future to come(dire) and more unequivocal of when we ought to deal the problem(now).

AMS Institute takes up the responsibility to address this in a methodological and innovative way. But still, adapting our urban communities in the face of these intertwined crises will be the greatest challenge of our time. To do this, cities must secure and“greenify” their essential flows and infrastructures for energy, food, waste and transportation. But foremost they need to help change citizens behavior and involvement, and thus make them an integral and supportive part of these solutions(Fig. 6).

Currently there are few answers to the questions, and the frameworks presently governing metropolitan solutions are not at all times capable of ensuring accountability. As the pervasiveness, complexity, and scale of these systems grow, the lack of meaningful(integrated) solutions, which are tested, accountable and thus able to be implemented rapidly— including basic safeguards of responsibility, liability, and due process— is an increasingly urgent concern. Some have argued(e.g proponents of“smart cities”) that the only way forward is to ramp up industrialization and innovate our way out of scarcity as we have done before. Others claim that in order to save the planet industrial civilization must be halted full stop— something as ludicrous as jumping out of speeding race car in the middle of a race. Whatever ideology you adhere to, the truth is that the any path that ensures the survival of both our species and the planet means that the anthroposphere must undergo radical and large-scale transformation— perhaps a transformation even more drastic than the shift from agrarian to industrial(hu)man. The key thing to realize is that nothing happens overnight. Retrofitting our cities with smart sensors, installing new energy systems and carbon sequestration technology, or testing new strains of genetically modified crops that can save millions of lives will take time and— most dauntingly— money, and a lot of it. But it will also imply that we need to organize and plan our cities in a different way. Crossing borders of specialisms, but also crossing physical and even legal borders towards systemic change(Fig. 7).

2 Reciprocities of Cities and Hinterlands as the Cradles of Smart Solutions

Nowadays, cities have become the stage of modernity. The revolutions of big data, empowerment of individuals and self-organized communities and technologies will foster the urban environments of the future. Data tied to geography becomes important information, as feedback-loops giving municipalities greater options for faster, more efficient decision making. As exemplified by the worldwide fervor over the NSA wire-tapping scandals, big data should not be about infringing on the privacy of individuals but creating useful connections between citizens and government that can potentially lead to empowerment and place making. In general, the emerging trends of big data, the trail of data points generated by individuals, infrastructure, and the natural world are what promises to fundamentally change our cities(Fig. 8). However, it is important to realize that while big data allows for better identification of outlier values and a finer stratification of data, the flood of information raises issues about the quality of the data and who has access to it. Big data will not only make buildings and urban areas smarter, but as a second order effect, buildings or communities will become active participants in for instance energy markets. Some are already participating in demand-response programs that put a value on“negawatts”. As regulatory policies change, more building owners will find it financially feasible to participate in energy markets on their own terms(smaller-, prosumer, so-called kilowatt), allowing them to upload electricity generated or store it onsite. As buildings or areas operate as“prosumers” in energy markets it is not that obvious that energy produced will be renewably sourced, and whether the energy produced is sustainable or not, they can disrupt existing business models and the systems in place that are designed for electricity flow in one direction— from centralized sources. Ambitious goals such as zero net energy buildings and urban areas will change the relationships that physical structures have within cities, and in turn change the relationships that occupants(full or part-time) have with buildings, cities and one another(Fig. 9). It may act as a facilitator, lowering barriers to participation, and increasing the speed and frequency of exchange, a characteristic that could lead to positive or negative outcomes. AMS Institute’s projects like“Spacergy”, “DC Smart Grids” and“URSUS+” are pioneering examples of research related to this(Fig. 10). The same will hold for several other aspects which will be influenced by smartness due to ICT integration in urban environments and life.

3 From Smart Cities Towards Intelligent Citizens

Today, we are completely aware that the status quo is untenable and have the technological capacity meet the basic needs of all human beings, yet our technological and economic systems are geared toward risk aversion and profit maximization. We must recognize that technology alone will not save us. Radical technological innovation without equally radical changes to our lifestyles and social and political institutions would render the former moot.

True societal transformation can only occur once we realize that innovation is not a matter of simply changing the metabolism, rearranging the components(buildings, infrastructures and the way they are managed) of a city, or thinking that we already have all the puzzle pieces on the table. We need to achieve and support the growth of intelligent citizens and users[4]. Instead of simplifying complexity and using algorithmic truncation to minimize risk and maintain the status quo, we must learn embrace risk and complexity of cities, or our societies in general, in all its obscurity and splendor. We understand a great deal about our planet and our universe, but no matter how advanced our computers get, we could never create a model that truly mirrors reality. Designing advanced technologies and infrastructures to support urban life is not enough. We need equally sophisticated and cogent narratives that immunize the mind from the cynicism and nihilism that is pervasive in today’s culture and changes the way we think about our relationship with one another other and the planet itself— towards possible futures where technological innovation, tempered by ethics and reason, meets the needs of both man and nature and not the other way around.

The use of ICTs to guide(future) urban professionals via the use of algorithmic software to analyse“big” data obtained from sensors deployed throughout the urban environment is often made part of the so-called“Smart City” urban imaginary, which is frequently considered as the next key urban infrastructure paradigm to make our cities more responsive, agile and resilient in the face of the concurrent crises we now face. AMS Institute aims to achieve this too, however, does so by applying from the very beginning an innovative response to general criticism to actual“Smart Cities” approaches around the globe; which are stated to be stifling innovation by emphasizing proprietary software, being too often non-democratic and monopolistic in character, market-led instead of citizen focused and reducing individual autonomy through indiscriminate tracking. Opposed to this, for AMS Institute a city can be smart only if it is able to integrate and sort data gathered from each type of sensor, while it enables citizens and enterprises to apply new ICTs to economise time, improve individual mobility, facilitate access to information and services, save energy and resources, assists them to adapt to change, and foremost to participate in urban(decision-)making processes. Only then, it will help to increase enduring efficiency, equity, sustainability and quality of life of metropolitan areas, its citizens and users(Fig. 11).

In principle, all themes in metropolitan solutions and Living Labs related to the metabolism of cities relate to urban flows and require data(including big data) analytics. The AMS Institute’s value platform in this context, is a neutral host for data generated by digital urban networks, enabling the handling of these data as well as their exchange and a possible marketplace to create cross overs or coin values. Key for AMS Institute in this, is the creation of social, political and economic infrastructures that support the growth of intelligent use and citizens. Just and sustainable transformations are therefore understood to include both distributive components, relating to the investment’s anticipated and realised distribution of social, economic and environmental outcomes, and procedural elements relating to who is involved in the(decision) making of metropolitan environments.

This alternative path, based on symbiosis and reciprocity, can be seen as a biologically oriented, resource-based society that, with help of ICT, revitalizes and empowers local economies, encourages polycentric development of urban metabolisms and vindicates the sanctity of city, peri-urban and rural hinterland, whose reciprocal relationship has defined our civilization thus far. We must foster a new ethos that values community, self-organization and the empowerment of the individual and their communities at a both local and global scales. The menagerie of polies(cities) that define modern society must look beyond connectivity based solely on technology, transportation and trade toward their surrounding hinterlands, their rural communities and the bounds of the natural environment, promoting a dynamic equilibrium.

4 Intelligent Citizens as a Key-Condition to(Urban) Resilience

As cities grow in complexity and infrastructures become more networked they invariably become increasingly integral to the functioning of daily life of city dwellers and, most importantly, fragile to disruptive systemic changes. Therefore, the planning of their forms and services must adapt to the needs of present and future urban dwellers as well as predicted shifts in environmental baseline conditions. Systems thinking as it is applied in urbanism and smart cities is considerable branch of what has been called the“Complexity Theories of Cities”[5]and the“new science of cities”[6]. The systems thinking approach presents problems of complexity as more than issues of efficiency or their most obvious causes and effects and reframes it into the language of relations, structures, meta processes, and even humanistic concerns.

While thinking in systems is useful in understanding the formal structural characteristics of complex(urban) systems, by itself it holds little regard for the environmental implications of networks and the role and use of data driven change. As a consequence, it may be argued that the predominant view that the built environment and nature are diametrically opposed entities drastically increases the vulnerability of urban environments in face of unforeseen shocks[7]. The challenge, however, is not in stopping disruptive change— a task that has repeatedly proven to be impossible— but in understanding them as they occur and, ultimately, improving the capacity of urban environments to adapt and assimilate disruptions as a combined urban-natural system in dynamic equilibrium[4]. It addresses the fact that while the complexity of urban environments is growing, at the same time the effectiveness of action-driven strategies appears to be decreasing(Fig. 12).

There are three alternative approaches which can be determined in response to this: 1) strategies of inaction; 2) strategies of subtraction; 3) strategies of hormesis, that keep their subject(cities, neighborhoods, communities, etc.) under a small, controlled and continuous dosage of stress, with the purpose of strengthening it for the eventuality of a possible future large shock of the same kind. The last strategy may be rooted in the first two if inaction or subtraction causes deprivation, especially when, say, consciously inducing lower-than-usual levels in relative comfort of living[7]. In particular the latter, that of hormesis is of interest, as it builds upon systems-learning and opportunities to include a combined technology based and nature-based solutions(NBS) approach. Background idea is that applying such strategies in urban environments will improve socialecological resilience. This“requires understanding of ecosystems that incorporates the knowledge of local users”[8], but also the understanding of how social processes can minimize their impact through calculated and targeted inaction, with the ultimate goal of improving the capacity of our urban environments to face disruptive change. Social processes need to embrace change and let ecological processes help in responding to it[7]. Key challenge to our societies, cities and AMS Institute’s solutions investigated is how to find a balance between(environmental) technology, engagement of users(citizens) and nature(ecological processes).

Urban infrastructure constitutes the physical structure as well as the urban and metropolitan functions of greatest permanency in cities and yet, in its current form, it is neither sensitive nor suitable to new perspectives on spatial, social, technological, political, and ecological change. The new science of networks is called complexity theory. Evolving in the last two decades, it portrays complex systems in terms of connected nodes. Most studies of complex networks tend to focus on networks whose nodes are not dynamic agents. The nodes of human networks(e.g. cities), per contra, are dynamic cognitive agents, each of which are nested complex systems. Human activity and urban networks are the outcome of multiple interactions between agents that, at least in theory, “think globally and act locally”. In this way, the local activities and interaction of agents gives rise to the interdependencies between multiple social and physical urban networks that in turn affects the agents’ cognition, behavior, movement, and actions in circular causality.

5 Sino-Dutch Outlook of Peer-to-peer Learning on Metropolitan Solutions

Considering the increase in weather perturbations resulting from climate change, urban growth, our constantly increasing demand for energy, water, and material resources and predictions that the planet is entering a period of scarcity, responses to disruptive change, vulnerability, complexity and dependence are essential to planning future urban growth[7]. Massive population growth and increased rates of urbanization over the past two centuries have contributed to the increased frequency and magnitude of ecological, economic and social shocks encountered by today’s urban environments. The full extent of the consequences of these shocks is even today difficult to determine. The major stressors in life, especially in anxiogenic situations, are uncontrollability and unpredictability[9](Fig. 13).

To be sure, while many of infrastructural aspects of cities seem superficially manageable through technology, the most important urban problems facing are in fact social and economic, also known as“wicked problems”. Wicked problems are situations that cannot be solved by a board of central planners or top-down mechanisms of control[10]. The key benefit of new communication technologies as included in most of AMS Institute’s projects in improving the sustainability and overall quality of urban environments is their ability to allow people to be more social in tandem with other technologies that improve comfort, efficiency, responsiveness, flexibility and reduce costs. If set up in the right way, ICTs will give institutions, companies, communities, and individuals with similar goals and aspirations(e.g. resilience, livability and sustainability) the means of sharing ideas, having conversations and organizing accordingly. It is important that any new institutional arrangements should be made in close agreement with all actors— especially citizens— involved[11]. If such systems are not inclusive, people might start to feel that it is useless to take action or adopt solutions proposed or implemented. If not, the scope that is left for them to affect their own living conditions will be reduced by the dominant technology driven culture of today. Within such an outlook, new institutional arrangements are required to cope with the use of ICT and physical environment related problems. In fact, it puts a greater emphasis on another way of organizing infrastructure and architecture. Solutions for metropolitan challenges and often related infrastructure investments are agents of change that reflect, reproduce and alter social, economic and environmental relations in urban space.

Technological progress might not be our saving grace. The pathological drive to increase the efficiency and efficacy of technology in metropolitan societal contexts might obfuscate considerations of historical precedence, pragmatic knowledge and techniques used by classical and ancient societies to cope with shifts environmental conditions. Through this article the approach of AMS Institute has been explained and illustrated related to its Western societal context and several of its research projects, often in a setting of Living Labs. It aims to call for a reciprocal Sino-Dutch peer-to-peer learning collaboration, which emphasizes two ancient societies and cultures while learning from each other’s approaches and metropolitan solutions, preferably in similar quadruple-helix based settings. The outlook of such peer-to-peer learning and joint finding of solutions and related systemic change is both urgent and promising. The task of transitioning to a postscarcity society that maintains some semblance of normalcy will require an interdisciplinary approach that includes our finest engineers, physicists, doctors, designers, community organizers, artists, farmers, teachers and above all, individuals and communities(Fig. 14).

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 ? AMS Institute; Fig. 2 ? creative commons pinterest; Fig. 3 ? Leif Niemczik; Fig. 6 ? AMS Institute and MIT; Fig. 9 ? TU Delft/ Environmental Technology& Design; Fig. 11 ? Daniela Maiullari; Fig. 12 ? Waag Society; Fig. 13 ? Ge Dubbelman; Fig. 14 ? Dimitri Houtteman.