Co-design, Co-creation, and Co-production of Smart Mobility System

  • Hiroko KudoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9741)


Smart Cities with their mobility system are assumed to be based on smart technology, smart people or smart collaboration, assigning citizens significant roles. While some argue that ICT will enhance democratic debate and empower citizens, others concern about the development of Smart Cities “without critical discussions and politics”. Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) launched its Smart City project in 2010, setting specific criteria to ensure the “participation of all the stakeholders”; however, drawing on analysis of official documents as well as on interviews with each of the four Smart Communities’ stakeholders, the paper explains that very little input is expected from Japanese citizens. Instead, ICTs are used by municipalities and electric utilities to steer project participants and to change their behaviour. The objective of these experiments would not be to involve citizens in city governance, but rather to make them participate in the co-production of public services.


Co-design Co-creation Co-production Citizen participation Pedestrian involvement Mobility system 


  1. 1.
    Carabias, V., Moser, C., Wilherlmer, D., Kubeczko, K., Ruben, N.: The importance of participatory foresight on the way towards smart cities. IFA Academic Seminar 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simard, L.: Repenser la démocratie participative dans le secteur de l’énergie, Mémoire déposé dans le cadre de la commission sur les enjeux énergétique du Québec (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maruyama, Y., Nishikodo, M., Iida, T.: The rise of community wind power in Japan: enhanced acceptance through social innovation. Energy Policy 35, 2761–2769 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fortin, M.-J., Fournis, Y.: L’acceptabilité sociale de projets énergétiques au Québec: la difficile construction par l’action publique, Symposium Territoire et Environnement: des représentations à l’action, Tours, 8–9 December 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Burer, M.J.: Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35, 2683–2691 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karlin B.: Public acceptance of smart meters: integrating psychology and practice. In: ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, pp. 102–113 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolsink, M.: The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smartgrids: renewable as common pool resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 822–835 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maréchal, K.: Not irrational but habitual: the importance of “behavioural lock-in” in energy consumption. Ecol. Econ. 69(5), 1104–1114 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steg, L.: Promoting household energy conservation. Energy Policy 36, 4449–4453 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanne, C.: Willing consumers or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption. Ecol. Econ. 42, 273–287 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ito, K., Ida, T., Tanaka, M.: Using dynamic electricity pricing to address energy crises evidence from randomized field experiments. Mimeo (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osborne, S.: The new public governance? Publ. Manag. Rev. 8(3), 377–387 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marres, N.: The cost of public involvement: everyday devices of carbon accounting and the materialization of participation. Econ. Soc. 40, 510–533 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R.: Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olson, O., Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C.: Global Warning! Debating International Developments in New Public Financial Management. Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, Oslo (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kettl, D.F.: The transformation of governance: globalization, devolution and the role of government. Publ. Adm. Rev. 60(6), 488–497 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., Pettinngrew, A.: New Public Management in Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    OECD: Managing Decentralisation: A New Role for Labour Market Policy, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Publishing, Paris (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kudo, H.: E-governance as strategy of public sector reform: peculiarity of Japanese IT policy and its institutional origin. Financ. Account. Manag. 26(1), 65–84 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fedele, P., Ongaro, E.: A common trend, different houses: devolution in Italy, Spain and the UK. Publ. Money Manag. 28(2), 85–92 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bovaird, T.: Beyond engagement & participation: user & community co-production of public services. Publ. Adm. Rev. 67(5), 846–860 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pestoff, V.: New public governance and accountability: some jewels in a treasure chest. In: CIES Centro de Investigación de Economía y Sociedad, N. 91 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ishikawa, Y.: Calls for deliberative democracy in Japan. Rhetor. Publ. Aff. 5(2), 331–345 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sabouret, J.-F.: L’Empire de l’intelligence. Politiques scientifiques et technologiques du Japon depuis 1945. CNRS Editions, Paris (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marres, N.: Material Participation: Technology, The Environment and Everyday Publics. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muhlberger, P., Stromer-Galley, J., Webb, N.: Public policy and obstacles to the virtual agora: insights from the deliberative e-rulemaking project. Inf. Polity 16(3), 197–214 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gutiérrez, V., Galache, J.A., Sánchez, L., Muñoz, L., Hernández-Muñoz, J.M., Fernandes, J., Presser, M.: SmartSantander: internet of things research and innovation through citizen participation. In: Galis, A., Gavras, A. (eds.) FIA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7858, pp. 173–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kavanaugh, A., Krishnan, S., Pérez-Quiñones, M., Tedesco, J., Madondo, K., Ahju, A.: Encouraging civic participation through local news aggregation. Inf. Polity 19(1–2), 35–56 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sanford, C., Rose, J.: Characterizing eParticipation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 27(6), 406–421 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gramberger, M.R.: Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. OECD, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Akrivopoulou, C.M.: Digital Democracy and the Impact of Technology on Governance and Politics: New Globalized Practices. IGI Global, Hershey (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hague, B.M., Loader, B.: Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. Routledge, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., Schneeberger, A.: eParticipation: the research gaps. Electron. Particip. 5694, 1–11 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Millward, P.: The “grey digital divide”: perception, exclusion and barrier of access to the internet for older people. First Monday 8(7) (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mabi, C., Sa Vilas Boas, M.-H., Nonjon, M.: Comprendre la signification politique des technologies. In: De Biase, A., Ottaviano, N., Zaza, O. (eds.) Digital Polis. La ville face au numériqueGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Okimoto, D.I.: Between MITI and the Market: Japanese Industrial Policy for High Technology. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1989)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vanolo, A.: Smartmentality: the Smart City as disciplinary strategy. Urban Stud. 51(5), 883–998 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawChuo UniversityHachiojiJapan

Personalised recommendations