Exploring the formation of cyberparks as a smart urban public open space (Case study: the initiative cyberpark projects)

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor in Science & Technology of Architecture Faculty of Architecture & Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor in Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture & Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
The rapid growth of information and communication technology, mobile connectivity and social media has led to the emergence of new needs, patterns and relationships. They are driving forces in smartification and extremely influencing the way that people experience time and space. Despite the challenges of information and communication technologies, they also provide users with many opportunities through the provision of various digital services and improve business and enhance interactions between people, spaces and infrastructure.
Cyber parks are a kind of smart public open spaces that focusing on Technological systems, human and environmental issues. In this context, real-world space is combined with intelligent infrastructure through the co-creation. Consecrating both virtual systems and real systems in nature, Cyberpark can establish a balance between digital and human life. Co-creation is strategic solutions to engage stakeholders through social interactions and synergies in different aspects of human life. CyberPark explains how digital media can become an attraction to bring people outdoors getting them engaged in forms of learning and attracting them to lead an active healthy life style in POS. This Cyber-physical system allows users to exchange information, share knowledge, experiences, and transfer technology and innovation as drivers of future growth.
Methodology
The aim of this research is to compare and analyze the pioneering cyberpark projects in order to extract their goals, models and processes. Given the new and sophisticated concept of cyberpark and the emergence of cyberpark projects in the world, this research attempts to use the features of qualitative content analysis and systematically research in order to document the cyberpark pioneering projects, their goals and methods of cyberpark implementation. In the research method, three key examples of the pioneering cyberpark project and their elements have systematically reviewed by comparatively analyzing from different approaches.
Results and discussion
The pattern and function of public open spaces, stakeholders and ICTs along with the implementation methods and goals of cyberpark development have been explored in the case studies.
The first pioneer Cyberpark is C3Places project. This project has been implemented in three locations in the form of living labs, the first one focuses on teenagers in Lisbon, the second one works on old citizens in Vilnius and the third one emphasizes on green stakeholders within open public in Ghent. The main aim of these labs is to explore the attributes of Cyberparks, analyze the related information and observe social media.
The components of the sub-project in Lisbon are open public spaces (park, green spaces, garden, square and sidewalk), stakeholders (teenagers, 13-17) and information and communication technology-ICT (mobile and web applications, living labs in open public spaces and dynamic system models). In this way, the elements of the sub-project in Vilnius are including open public spaces (living labs, the urban zones), stakeholders (inhabitants, owners of cultural-commercial buildings and municipality) and information and communication technology (mobile and web applications, social media). Finally, the modules of the sub-project in Ghent are open public spaces (Mega space, the complex of park and square), stakeholders (green users) and information and communication technology (mobile and web applications).
The second pioneer Cyberpark is the project by the name of digital interactions in university campus. This project was executed in 2019 in three areas of Europe continent with different cultures (Cork University in Ireland, University of Thessaly in Greece, and University of Warsaw in Poland). The major goal of this project is to investigate interactions among students within the universities in order to evaluate the social behavior models regarding the usage of information technology and communication. The main components of this project are open public spaces (cultural-educational open public spaces), stakeholders (students, visitors and clerks) and information and communication technology (lab tops, personal desktop computers, tablets and smart mobile phones).
The third pioneer Cyberpark is User-generated content (UGC) project. The chief objective of this project is to focus on content of social digital media (data and information generated, collected and shared in the forms of different files such as audio, video, visual and written by stakeholders specifically users) within open public spaces in Barcelona, Spain in order to identify new social manners and behaviors. The main components of this project are open public spaces (city center, riverside, seashore and cultural exhibition square in Barcelona), stakeholders (local users, visitors and tourists) and information and communication (twitter social network and way app).
Conclusion
The most important achievement of cyberpark as a social networking context is to encourage people to participate and interact in various community affairs in order to create quality, vibrant and intelligent urban environments and thus promote sense of place, social interaction and vitality in public open spaces. The findings of this research indicate that pioneering Cyberpark projects focus on both technological and human issues. They try to improve the quality of environment and enhance the level of modern human’s life so as to achieve the goals of sustainable development.

Keywords

References

  1. Agora, C., 2017, Http://Cyberparks-Project.Eu/Agora/Forums/Topic/Extended-Definition-Based-On-Discussion.
  2. Almeida, I. A., 2018, Teenagers as Co-Researchers in the Production of Inclusive Public Spaces, Insights from a Living Lab in Lisbon.
  3. Arvanitidis, P., Kenna, T., & Maksymiuk, G., 2019, Public space engagement and ICT usage by university students: An exploratory study in three countries. In CyberParks–The Interface between People, Places and Technology (pp. 87-108). Springer, Cham.
  4. Batagan, L., 2011, Smart Cities and Sustainability Models, Informatica Economic, Vol. 15, No. 3, PP. 80-87.
  5. Castells, M., 2001, The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society, Oxford Press.
  6. Castells, M., and Cardoso, G., 2005, The Network Sociey: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington D. C. Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.
  7. Colldahl, C., Frey, S., & Kelemen, J. E., 2013, Smart Cities: Strategic Sustainable Development for an Urban World, Institute of Technology Karlskrona, Sweden.
  8. COST, 2015, CyberParks Project, Fostering Knowledge about the Relationship between Information and Communication Technologies and Public Spaces Supported by Strategies to Improve Their Use and Attractiveness, www.cost.eu/domains_actions/tud/Actions/ TU1306, [Access date: 01.02.2015].
  9. Costa Echaniz, O., 2014, What Is the Role of Sustainable Consumption in the Smart Sustainable Cites’ Projects Across Europe? Master of Science Thesis, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

10. Costa, C. S., and Šuklje E., 2019, The Rationale of Cyberparks and the Potential of Mediated Public Open Spaces, In CyberParks–The Interface Between People, Places and Technology (pp. 3-13), Vol. 11380. Springer.

11. Costa, C. S., Bovelet, J., Dolata, K., & Menezes, M., 2018. Building a theory on co-creating a Cyberpark Lessons learnt from the COST Action CyberParks and the Flussbad Project, Berlin. Beyond Mirrors: research pathways (CeiED 2013-2017), PP. 165-174.

12. Costa, C. S., Erjavec, I. Š., & Mathey, J., 2008, Green Spaces – A Key Resource for Urban Sustainability, The Green Keys Approach for Developing Green Spaces, Urbani Izziv, Letnik, Vol. 19, No. 2, PP. 199-211.

13. Cresswell, T., 2014, Place: An Introduction, Blackwell: Wiley.

14. Dulsich, L., 2016, Smart City Projects and Energy Transition, A Comparative Case Study of the Smart City Projects in Amsterdam and Cologne, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

15. Erjavec, I. S., and Ruchinskaya, T., 2019, A Spotlight of Co-Creation and Inclusiveness of Public Open Spaces, In Cyberparks, 209-224.

16. Femenia Serra, F., and Neuhofer, B., 2018, Smart Tourism Experiences: Conceptualisation, Key Dimensions and Research Agenda, Journal of Regional Research, Vol. 42, PP. 129-150.

17. Frantzeskaki, N., 2016, Resilient Europe, A Concept for Co-Creating Cities of the Future, University Rotterdam, Netherlands.

18. Girardi, P., & Temporelli, A. (2017). Smartainability: a methodology for assessing the sustainability of the smart city. Energy Procedia, Vol. 111, No. 1, PP. 810-816.

19. Katzeff, C., Wangel, J., 2015, Social Practices, Households, and Design in the Smart Grid, in ICT Innovations for Sustainability, Springer, PP. 351-365.

20. Kim, B. H., Oh, S. Y., 2014, A Study on the SMART Education System Based on Cloud and N-Screen, Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society Vol 15, No. 1, PP. 137-143.

21. Klichowski, M., 2017, Learning in Cyberparks, A Theoretical and Empirical Study, Series Interdisciplinary Research, Adam Mickiewicz University Press, No. 49, P. 66.

22. Klichowski, M., 2018, Learning in Cyberparks: Evidence From EEG Experiment Supported by TUD COST Action TU1306.

23. Klichowski, M., Bonanno, P., Jaskulska, S., Smaniotto Costa, C., de Lange, M., & Klauser, F. R., 2015, Cyberparks as a New Context for Smart Education: Theoretical Background, American Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 3, No. 12A, PP. 1-10.

24. Kramers, A., Höjer, M., Lövehagen, N., & Wangel, J., 2014, Smart Sustainable Cities–Exploring ICT Solutions for Reduced Energy Use in Cities, Environmental Modeling and Software, Vol. 56, PP. 52-62.

25. Mayer Schonberger, V., and Cukier, K., 2013, Big Data – A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Thing, Harcourt Publishing.

26. Menezes, M., and Mateus, D., 2018, Walking As Tactile Method Urban Planning and Design – In: Cyberparks, PP. 65-74.

27. Menezes, M., Arvanitidis, P., Costa, C. S., & Weinstein, Z., 2019, Teenagers’ Perception of Public Spaces and Their Practices In ICTs Uses. In CyberParks–The Interface between People, Places and Technology (pp. 109-119). Springer, Cham.

28. Menezes, M., Arvanitidis, P., Kenna, T., & Ivanova-Radovanova, P., 2019, People - Space - Technology: An Ethnographic Approach, In CyberParks–The Interface between People, Places and Technology (pp. 76-86). Springer, Cham.

29. Molin, J., Fors, H., & Faehnle, M. E., 2016, Citizen Participation for better urban green spaces: Policy Brief. NBforest. Info: Facts & Reviews: Policy brief.

30. Montserrat Pallares, B. et al. 2019, Challenging Methods and Results Obtained From User-Generated Content in Barcelona’s Public Open Spaces, In: Cyberparks, PP. 120–136.

31. Mora, L., Deakin, M., Aina, Y. A., & Appio, F. P., 2019, Smart city development: ICT innovation for urban sustainability. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable Cities and Communities. Cham: Springer.

32. Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F., 2014, Current Trends in Smart City Initiatives: Some Stylized Facts, Cities, Vol. 38, PP. 25-36.

33. Osaba, E., Pierdicca, R., Duarte, T., Bahillo, A., & Mateus, D., 2019, Using ICTs for the Improvement of Public Open Spaces: The Opportunity Offered by CyberParks Digital Tools. In CyberParks–The Interface between People, Places and Technology (pp. 278-293). Springer, Cham.

34. PMBOK Guide, 2017, The Project Management Institute (PMI), Sixth Edition.

35. Report for Living Lab in Gent, 2019, The Report of the Living Lab.

36. Report for Living Lab in Lisbon, 2018, The Report of the Living Lab.

37. Report for Living Lab in Vilnius, 2018, The Report of the Living Lab.

38. Rivera, M. B., Eriksson, E., & Wangel, J., 2015, ICT practices in smart sustainable cities-In the intersection of technological solutions and practices of everyday life. In EnviroInfo and ICT for Sustainability. Atlantis Press.

39. Sajid Khan, M. S., Woo, M., Nam, K., & Chathoth, P. K., 2017, Smart City and Smart Tourism: A Case of Dubai, Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 12, P. 2279.

40. Siemens, G., 2005, Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, International Journal of Instructional Technolgy and Distance Learning, Vol. 2, No. 1, PP. 3-10.

41. Skarzauskiene A., Maciuliene M., Ivanova-Radovanova P. (2019) Modelling Co-creation Ecosystem for Public Open Spaces. In: Smaniotto Costa C. et al. (eds) CyberParks – The Interface Between People, Places and Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 11380. Springer, Cham

42. Smaniotto Costa, C., Menezes, M., & Šuklje Erjavec, I., 2015, How Can Information and Communication Technologies be Used to Better Understand the Way People Use Public Spaces. Planeamento Cultural Urbano em Áreas Metropolitanas, PP. 161-172.

43. Ssekatawa, D., 2016, Towards More Socially Inclusive Smart Sustainable Cities, A Study of Smart City Districts in the Greater Copenhagen Region, Lund, Sweden.

44. Thomas, S., 2014, Cyberparks Will Be Intelligent Spaces Embedded with Sensors and Computers, retrieved from http://theconversation.com/cyberparks-will-be-intelligent -spaces-embedded-with -sensors-and-computers-26837.

45. UNHabitat, 2018, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development United Nations.

46. United Nations, 2017, New Urban Agenda. A/RES/71/256. United Nations. http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/nua-english.pdf.accessed 10 december 2017.

47. Yigitcanlar, T., and Kamruzzaman, Md., 2018, Does Smart City Policy Lead to Sustainability of Cities? Land Use Policy, Vol. 73, PP. 49-58.

Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)
Volume 7, Issue 4
January 2020
Pages 855-877

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics