and production of Smart City services that balance the technical “smartness” of sen-
sors, meters, and infrastructures with softer features such as clarity of vision, citizen
empowerment, social interaction in physical urban settings, and public-citizens part-
nership. The HSC approach is gaining increasing support from city governments
across Europe as well as the Smart City research community, as it more effectively
addresses key challenges such as low-carbon strategies, the urban environment, sus-
tainable mobility, and social inclusion through a more balanced, holistic approach to
technology.
This vision is labelled ‘Human Smart City’, which focuses on people and their
well-being rather than just ICT infrastructures and dashboards alone.
The Human Smart City concept appears as an improvement of the Smart City, fo-
cusing on creating a healthier and happier environment for citizens. Its aim is to de-
velop and provide solutions by involving citizens in co-creation processes to address
their own wishes, interests and needs (the WIN methodology). In the Human Smart
City, the city government implements and supports an ecosystem of urban innovation
(Urban Living Lab), which applies co-design and co-production of social and techno-
logical innovation services and processes, in order to solve real problems. The gov-
ernment agrees to be engaged and involved in citizens' initiatives on the basis of an
open, transparent and reliable relationship. In this ecosystem, information technolo-
gies are used to solve social problems and address economic and environmental is-
sues, focusing on the welfare and happiness of the citizens.
The Future Internet vision set forth in Periphèria project sees ICT as shifting from
bounded, do-it-all applications to a universe of ubiquitously available “fragments” in
the form of apps (Internet of People), sensor feeds (Internet of Things), resources
(Internet of Services), etc. The integration of these elements occurs in part through
technical interoperability, as has always been true, but also through an increasing role
for people-citizens-end users who “compose” the way different apps fit together
through human action: “People in Places”.
In addition, since this service composition occurs only in a sort of “run time”
where actual people do something specific, the role of the “place” where this happens
takes on increasing importance. The rise of location-based apps is a first testimony of
the importance of place not only in defining the context for automatic service compo-
sition and delivery (see for example Google Now), but also for defining the human
sequence of events that, in a city, gives meaning to the use of technology. Converse-
ly, the use of a given technology (through the presence of a given infrastructure) in a
given place changes that place as well.
Within such a Human Smart City approach, MyNeighbourhood exploits many
ways of designing the interaction between people, urban spaces, and technologies),
which could be supplied at many diverse urban scales. The neighbourhood scale is
the most promising one in the MyNeighbourhood vision– having been already proved
in the past to be effective in creating healthy, secure, liveable, happy cities.
Coherently, Human Smart Cities do not (only) focus on solutions, they rather
found on the way solutions are created, implemented and scaled up to the urban scale:
these solutions are rooted in citizens experiences of everyday urban problems and
challenges; these solutions are co-designed, co-experimented and co-produced; these
solutions consider that technology can contribute frugally rather than being the most
significant element.
46