Community Self-Governance in the Smart City: Towards a Typology

  • Sergei ZhilinEmail author
  • Bram Klievink
  • Martin de Jong
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 34)


The concept of the smart city increasingly being used but is in fact an umbrella topic covering several disciplines and domains. In the current literature is no agreement on a comprehensive vision of the smart city; perspectives on it vary from purely technological urban development to initiatives addressing societal challenges. We argue that in these perspectives, self-governance is often ignored, yet plays an important role in the smart city idea, bringing together people, technologies, and policies. The objective of this chapter is to provide a framework for the classification of self-governance initiatives on a community level. The framework unites heterogeneous urban initiatives giving a broader understanding of existing self-governance practices that could be used within the smart city.


Smart city Self-governance Urban commons Peer production 


  1. Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., et al. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 481–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s penguin, or, linux and “the nature of the firm”. The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benkler, Y. (2016). Peer production and cooperation. In Handbook on the economics of the internet (pp. 91–119). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved from
  5. Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Mapping dimensions of governance in smart cities versus prior research. In Proceedings of the 17th international digital government research conference on digital government research - dg.o ’16 (pp. 312–324). New York: ACM Press.
  6. Bunce, S. (2016). Pursuing urban commons: Politics and alliances in community land trust activism in East London. Antipode, 48(1), 134–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castelnovo, W., Misuraca, G., & Savoldelli, A. (2016). Smart cities governance: The need for a holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy making. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 724–739. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatterton, P. (2016). Building transitions to post-capitalist urban commons. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(4), 403–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cocchia, A. (2014). Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In R. P. Dameri & C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (Eds.), Smart city, progress in IS (pp. 13–43). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  11. Coe, A., Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (2001). E-governance and smart communities a social learning challenge. Social Science Computer Review, 19(1), 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Concilio, G., Marsh, J., Molinari, F., & Rizzo, F. (2016). Human smart cities: A new vision for redesigning urban community and citizen’s life. In Knowledge, information and creativity support systems: Recent trends, advances and solutions, advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 416, pp. 269–278). Cham: Springer.
  13. de Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 25–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denters, B. (2012). Community self-organization: Potentials and pitfalls. In Critical reflections on interactive governance (pp. 230–253). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  15. Douglas, G. C. C. (2014). Do-it-yourself urban design: The social practice of informal “improvement” through unauthorized alteration. City & Community, 13(1), 5–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douglas, G. C. C. (2016). The formalities of informal improvement: Technical and scholarly knowledge at work in do-it-yourself urban design. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(2), 117–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fallman, D. (2004). Design-oriented research versus research-oriented design. CHI 2004 workshops (pp. 1–3). Retrieved from
  18. Finn, D. (2014). DIY urbanism: Implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 7(4), 381–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. FixMyStreet. (2017). Retrieved June 12, 2017, from
  20. Foster, S. (2011). Collective action and the urban commons. Notre Dame Law Review, 87(1), 57.Google Scholar
  21. Foster, S., & Iaione, C. (2015). The city as a commons. Yale Law & Policy Review, 34, 281–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giffinger, R., Christian, F., Hans, K., Robert, K., Natasa, P.-M., & Evert, M. (2007). Smart cities-ranking of european medium-sized cities. Rapport Technique. Vienna Centre of Regional Science.Google Scholar
  23. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 524–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gooch, D., Wolff, A., Kortuem, G., & Brown, R. (2015). Reimagining the role of citizens in smart city projects. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing and proceedings of the 2015 ACM international symposium on wearable computers - ubicomp ’15 (pp. 1587–1594). New York: ACM Press.
  25. Haythornthwaite, C. (2009). Crowds and communities: Light and heavyweight models of peer production. In Proceedings of the 42nd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HICSS (pp. 1–10).
  26. Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. The Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the new commons. SSRN Electronic Journal, 14–18.
  28. Hilgers, D., & Ihl, C. (2010). Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector. The International Journal of Public Participation, 4(1), 67–88.Google Scholar
  29. Huron, A. (2015). Working with strangers in saturated space: Reclaiming and maintaining the urban commons. Antipode, 47(4), 963–979. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ismael, J. T. (2011). Self-organization and self-governance. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 41(3), 327–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iveson, K. (2013). Cities within the city: Do-it-yourself urbanism and the right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 941–956. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobs, J. (1993). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  33. Kleinhans, R. (2017). False promises of co-production in neighbourhood regeneration: The case of Dutch community enterprises. Public Management Review, 19(10), 1500–1518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2014). Developing multi-layer information infrastructures: Advancing social innovation through public–private governance. Information Systems Management, 31(3), 240–249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kohtala, C., & Bosqu, C. (2014). The story of MIT-Fablab Norway: Community embedding of peer production. Journal of Peer Production, 5, 8. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  36. Komninos, N. (2013). Intelligent cities: Innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from
  37. Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2015). Production and governance in hackerspaces: A manifestation of commons-based peer production in the physical realm? International Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(5), 555–573. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. LabGov. (2014). Regulation on collaboration between citizens and the city for the care and regeneration of urban commons. Retrieved from
  39. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2008). Citizensourcing: Citizen participation in a networked nation. In Civic engagement in a network society (pp. 207–233). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moilanen, J. (2012). Emerging hackerspaces—Peer-production generation. In IFIP advances in information and communication technology, 378 AICT (pp. 94–111).
  44. Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1969–1990. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011a). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government research conference on digital government innovation in challenging times - dg.o ’11 (p. 282). New York: ACM Press.
  47. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011b). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In 5th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (ICEGOV 2011) (pp. 185–194). New York: ACM.
  48. Niaros, V. (2016). Introducing a taxonomy of the “smart city”: Towards a commons-oriented approach. TripleC, 14(1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Gardner, R. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 404–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pagano, C. (2013). DIY urbanism: Property and process in grassroots city building. Marquette Law Review, 97(2), 335–469. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  52. Paskaleva, K. A. (2011). The smart city: A nexus for open innovation? Intelligent Buildings International, 3(3), 153–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petrescu, D., Petcou, C., & Baibarac, C. (2016). Co-producing commons-based resilience: Lessons from R-Urban. Building Research & Information, 44(7), 717–736. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Phills, J. A. J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 34.Google Scholar
  55. Pissourios, I. A. (2014). Top-down and bottom-up urban and regional planning: Towards a framework for the use of planning standards. European Spatial Research and Policy, 21(1).
  56. Raven, R., Cheshmehzangi, A., de Jong, M., Sengers, F., Späth, P., & Xie, L. (2017). An institutional perspective on smart city experimentation:: Comparing institutional arrangements in Amsterdam, Hamburg, Ningbo and Songdo. Utrecht University Repository.Google Scholar
  57. Rüede, D., & Lurtz, K. (2012). Mapping the various meanings of social innovation: Towards a differentiated understanding of an emerging concept. EBS Business School Research Paper Series, 12(3), 1–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schmidthuber, L., & Hilgers, D. (2017). Unleashing innovation beyond organizational boundaries: Exploring citizensourcing projects. International Journal of Public Administration, 41, 268–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, A. G., Hielscher, S., Dickel, S., Soderberg, J., & van Oost, E. (2013). Grassroots digital fabrication and makerspaces: Reconfiguring, relocating and recalibrating innovation? SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–30.
  60. Wortham-Galvin, B. D. (2013). An anthropology of urbanism: How people make places (and what designers and planners might learn from it). Footprint, 7(2), 21–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Multi-Actor SystemsDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations