Ms. Dinca, you have been working intensively on the topic of smart cities for many years. How has the understanding of a “smart city” changed over time?
Cornelia Dinca: I worked for nine years on the Amsterdam Smart City program, which began in 2009 with EU funding. At that time, the focus was on smart energy and smart grids. Much of the emphasis was on the use of smart meters, dashboards and apps designed to encourage people to save energy in a playful way. These pilot projects achieved some measurable success, but above all, they succeeded in creating an ecosystem of different parties working together. After the EU funding ended, the model was continued as a public-private partnership involving the city of Amsterdam, the energy grid operator, along with other partners. The program has undergone structural changes and now operates as the Innovation Lab of Amsterdam Economic Board.
©Marchionda Photography
Mr. van Arman, how would you define the term “smart city”?
Tom van Arman: For me, smart cities are not purely a technological issue. It goes far beyond that. When I started looking into smart cities 15 years ago, the focus was on apps, APIs and sensors. But ultimately, what matters is for example whether there is data to show how urban plans and policies are actually improving the places we live, work and socialize. In short, for me, a smart city is a livable city.
Cornelia Dinca: I see it similarly: smart city means collective intelligence. Public authorities, citizens, businesses, and science bring their knowledge together. What we’ve seen in most projects, is that technology can play a role, but it‘s never sufficient on its own.
©EAS Photographie
Amsterdam is considered a smart city pioneer. What lessons have been learned in recent years?
Cornelia Dinca: For me there are two main lessons. First, we were naive to think that technology could only solve problems. In reality, it can just as easily create or worsen them. It’s important to consider the societal values it affects. Second, it’s crucial to involve citizens meaningfully and consistently, keeping them in mind as the ultimate beneficiaries.
Tom van Arman: I agree: living labs are crucial. They are designated innovation districts where innovations can be tried out together with citizens. We are collecting relevant data at locations throughout the city. The experiments in these inner city field labs will help accelerate real world solutions to many urban challenges.
Ms. Dinca, were there any setbacks on the way to becoming a smart city?
Cornelia Dinca: One of the biggest problems was financing our program, which was based on a four-year cycle. After each cycle, we had to again justify the value to our partners and secure a new round of funding. That worked well for 15 years, but at some point, the concept began to lose momentum. This certainly has something to do with the fact that the term “smart city” has lost some of its appeal. It has become too closely associated with big tech and surveillance.
Mr. van Arman, what obstacles do you see?
Tom van Arman: Three things: the political framework, financing, and public perception. Political election cycles are short, and innovation is an investment. Financing large-scale smart city projects is usually difficult. Often there is money for pilot projects, but not to keep the projects running in the long term. There is also the issue of public trust, meaning that there is a real concern about privacy in public spaces.
Can you give some examples of previous projects?
Tom van Arman: My first project was “Reducing Waste Through Smart Reuse” to help the City of Amsterdam significantly reduce household waste. The aim was to make reuse easier than illegal dumping. Then came APIs that connected various services, followed by the Internet of Things. Today, we work with all kinds of sensors and artificial intelligence. Our approach has always remained the same: Open the data, create transparency and prioritize digital rights. And the principle should always apply: “If you want to change or improve things, you need to measure it first.“
How does citizen participation work in Amsterdam?
Cornelia Dinca: Originally, working directly with citizens was a key goal of the Amsterdam Smart City projects. Unfortunately, over time, direct engagement with citizens came to be seen as too difficult and resource intensive. As a result, the approach shifted toward involving them indirectly through key societal partners.
Tom van Arman: For me, citizen engagement is the key. I regularly organize “Sensor Safaris” for local residents, policy makers, civil servants and designers. These are guided walking tours to reveal the many invisible layers of our digital city. We show them the sensors, explain our projects, and discuss opportunities and fears. Older people are often skeptical, while young people are more open. But when discussions are conducted openly, moments of realization occur. This is the only way to build understanding and trust.
What role do partners play?
Cornelia Dinca: Amsterdam Smart City was organized as a public-private partnership from the outset. The city and the energy grid operator were the founding partners, but other governmental bodies, companies, academic institutions, and civil society organizations also had a seat at the table. Over time, various partners joined and left, gradually building a broader ecosystem.
Tom van Arman: Cities should definitely team up with universities and local stakeholders to validate their smart city projects. My advice is to start “super smart and hyper local” to validate the smart city solution before asking help from big tech companies to help scale. My advice: Start locally, with projects that can be implemented quickly and easily.
Where do you see Amsterdam in the coming years?
Cornelia Dinca: With Amsterdam Smart City, we often talked about creating a future-proof city. Going forward, I expect a stronger focus on greening the city and deeper, more inclusive bottom-up approaches – building the city together with residents.
What advice would you give to other cities that are just starting out?
Tom van Arman: Start small and dare to experiment – “Durf te doen,” “Dare to do things,” as we say here in the Netherlands. Back up your successes with fact and evidence-based decisions (or design). And act ethically and legally. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and citizens’ rights must be the guiding principles.