荷兰视角下的迈向可持续、公正及宜居的智慧城市

著：（荷兰）阿扬·范提默伦 译：沈锋

近来，对不同国家的城市进行比较的学术研究一直以“西方”（the west）与“东方”（the east）之间，或更常用的发达国家（the global north）与发展中国家（the global south）之间的严格区分作为标志。这反映了一种根深蒂固的假设，即世界上发达程度不同的地区、城市之间的不可衡量性。如今，这些假设正面临挑战，因为发展中国家与发达国家城市之间的比较通常基于前者向后者学习政策或“经验教训”[1-2]。比较应该基于平等的条件，即可以从各自的经验中学到的东西以及它们相互之间的“政策和技术流动性”[3]的潜力。在此背景下，笔者介绍了荷兰一个蓬勃发展的新研究所的工作：AMS研究所（Amsterdam Based Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions），希望能加强中荷合作、促进相互学习和积累项目经验。本研究的重点是为未来的城市寻找、开发和实现新的、更好的和更令人兴奋的解决方案——基于出色的学术研究，以及创新型公司之间关于提出愿景、公共管理和项目实施方面的动态互动。

“智慧城市”的3个基本要素是：城市+人+技术，每个要素都有自己的变化和发展步伐。对于城市本身而言，已建成的环境和基础设施变化非常缓慢，而且经常需要大量的投资，但是城市的遗产通常会赋予城市魅力和吸引力；信息技术发展得非常迅速，给社会带来了重大变化；相比物质环境（城市）的变化，人的行为模式能够更快地进行适应和作出改变，但比信息技术的变化要更慢。然而，在所有情况下，人都应该成为主要的研究视角。

为了解决这些竞争因素，创新不能强加于城市，而需要在“生活实验室”（living lab）中形成和测试，实验室包括设计空间和试验平台，公民、学术界、政府、公民社会和企业家（“四螺旋”）可以在该平台共同制定有针对性的技术解决方案与政策，使城市更适宜于生活。

AMS研究所是一个年轻的科学组织，借助将阿姆斯特丹市作为生活实验室进行一系列的前沿研究，它致力于与公共和私人合作伙伴一起应对当今和未来的都市挑战（图1）。在AMS研究所，大都市问题的解决方案是对城市在可持续性和生活质量方面的挑战进行回应，这些挑战包括能源、资源和粮食安全、机动性和物流、水和废物管理以及其对健康和福祉的影响。除了研究项目外，AMS研究所还通过慕课（MOOC）和相应的理学硕士项目（Master of Science, MSc）、都市分析和设计工程（Metropolitan Analysis and Design Engineering, MADE），为全球优秀的学生提供新开发的方法和工具。AMS研究所的总体目标是应对与城市化进程和变革领域相关的都市挑战，例如气候变化。AMS研究所的活动也关注具有挑战性的国际问题，并力求将解决方案应用在那些面临着更严峻挑战的都市圈。

在获得阿姆斯特丹市的国际招标后，AMS研究所由代尔夫特理工大学（TUD）、瓦赫宁根大学（WUR）和波士顿麻省理工学院（MIT）于2014年成立。此次招标的背景是阿姆斯特丹市意在将更多技术引入阿姆斯特丹都会区（Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, AMA）的生态系统，应对科学中新的“机遇窗口”，从而创造各种价值和商机（图2）。为此，这座城市及其周边地区被作为“生活实验室”：用于实验的宝贵的城市文脉，将有助于开发先进的解决方案，应对全球日益增多的城市化大都市地区。

为此，AMS研究所作为一个网络组织，计划与本地和国际合作伙伴（私人和公共），以及最重要的，与公民和用户建立平台。AMS研究所汇集了该领域最聪明的人才，为都市解决方案创造了新方法，并在试点项目和实验中进行了测试和演示，以求能对开展这些实验的城市的市民生活带来积极影响（图3）。

AMS研究所的项目和研究的一般方法是基于：1）科学的严谨和基础性的“再思考”；2）在大都市范围内，为人、基础设施和建筑物进行技术和接口的开发、设计、实施以及评估；3）与社会资本和社会学习相关的参与性开发和使用策略；4）基于形成AMS研究所DNA的四螺旋方法，采用多学科和跨部门的方法（多重领域和多重参与者的过程）；5）协同进化（既包含个体行为者所处的层次，又包含体制参与者）；6）无标度思维，借助基于基础研究的解决方案，通过生活实验室的工作方式进行应用和测试；7）城市肌理，基于建筑物、基础设施与动态城市系统中的使用者之间的互惠性；8）方法的完整性。

研究工作的多学科性质使得在AMS研究所的发起大学（代尔夫特理工大学、瓦赫宁根大学以及波士顿麻省理工学院）的基础研究与整个社会的实施之间增加一个步骤是很重要的，无论这些基础研究是基于理论、实验室还是模型（图4）。为了解释这一点，我们提出了“三级跳”（“单足跳—跨步跳—跳跃”）的类比：基于已有的社会挑战，进行问题分析并提出研究问题，重点关注大都市环境以及关键利益相关者。“三级跳类比”中“单足跳”的起点：基础科学，包括在设置约束条件的环境下进行的模型和实验室研究。这些研究仍将主要在3所发起大学进行，以确保创建尖端科学，引领能够实现真正范式转变的解决方案。接下来，作为创新和新引入的类似于“三级跳”之间的“跨步跳”，研究活动的第一阶段（“单足跳”）的结果将在阿姆斯特丹都会区（AMA）内部的特定居住环境（设置部分约束条件）中被实施和验证，同时涉及所有（公共和私人）关键利益相关者。在合作创新的包容环境中，这一独特的“跨步跳”构成了现实生活研究与其多重利益相关者之间重要的“中间步骤”。因此，它将有助于实现有活力的生活环境：更加宜居、可持续、有韧性和公正，并能够扩大自身规模。这个步骤构成了解决方案的基础，使解决方案可以更好地适应现实生活和城市环境的所谓“双重复杂性”，从而最终在全社会范围内实现更快的实施（“跳跃”）：在这个日益城市化和充满挑战的世界中，实现更快的科学成果转化，最重要的是，以更大的影响力，更快、更安全和更成功地过渡到更可持续、更公正和更有韧性的未来。

正因如此，生活实验室的方法引入了一个重要的中间步骤，来获得更大影响、更快，以及最重要的，在社会范围内更好的实施。AMS研究所的关注点直接解决了这一问题，方法是基于对城市主义的系统思考，这些系统思考被归纳为过去20年演变成的城市复杂性理论（Complexity Theories of Cities, CTC）。CTC假 设城市是由多个相互连接的子系统组成的多层系统，包括建筑物、街区、河流和交通网络、社会结构。由于所涉及子系统的多重性、几个动态主体之间的相互作用及其嵌套性，作为复杂系统的城市边界是模糊的。此外，城市是由“相互作用的成分”所组成，这些成分“可能随着时间的推移以不可预测的方式改变其作用”：这个生态系统包含协同进化的物种和系统，并遵循独特的进化轨迹。 AMS研究所基于CTC的方法除了将城市评价为陌生的“复杂系统”之外，还认识到其复杂性带来的好处：首先，复杂的城市系统会产生感知上的丰富性并提供更多的功能；其次，在复杂的环境里，城市中的系统会产生协同作用，从而创造出附加价值，其价值要大于各个部分的总和。

在各种城市挑战和系统思考的背景下，通常可以用城市新陈代谢的概念来考虑大都市地区的运转。城市新陈代谢是指一个用于对复杂城市系统的物质和能量流进行建模的框架，就好像城市是一个生态系统。AMS研究所引入了这种城市新陈代谢方法中整合技术和社会视角的基本组成部分，因为它将这种整合视为“发生在城市中的技术和社会经济过程的总和，促进了城市的增长、（可再生）能源的生产，并消除浪费，以提高公平性、可持续性和宜居性”（图5）。

1 我们“共同的挑战”

气候变化、生物多样性丧失、资源稀缺以及与宜居性相关的挑战，反复陈述这些令人担忧的现实似乎有些陈词滥调，即便是对具备新闻素养的人也是如此，但其警示性怎么强调都不为过。当前，我们面临着一系列日益棘手的全球危机。众所周知，这些危机严重威胁着我们的文明和特定的方面，如过度城市化、人口增长、陆地或水生生态系统的退化、气候变化的多种后果（城市热岛、干旱、降水模式、洪水等）、资源稀缺（能源、水、材料、食物和清洁的土壤）、地下水枯竭、城市、农业和工业对合理清洁水的更高需求、向可再生能源转变以及全球向水、能源和资源密集型生活方式和饮食的转变。如今的人类对地球的生物、地质和水文过程都产生了巨大的影响，以至于当前的地质时代被称为人类世。在过去的30年中，每隔5年，联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC）的报告在确定谁是罪魁祸首（人类）时变得更加一致，对未来的预测（危机）更加清醒，对我们应该何时解决这个问题（现在）更加明确。

AMS研究所负责以一种方法论和创新的方式解决这一问题。但是，面对这些相互交织的危机，调整城市社区将是这个时代最大的挑战。为此，对于能源、食品、废物和交通这些方面的基本流程和基础设施，城市必须确保其安全和“绿色化”。但最重要的是，需要帮助改变公民的行为模式和参与方式，从而使他们成为这些解决方案不可或缺的支持部分（图6）。

当前，这些问题的答案很有限，并且目前影响大都市解决方案的框架不能始终确保问责制。随着这些系统的普遍性、复杂性和规模的增长，缺乏经过验证、可靠且因而能够迅速实施的解决方案是一个日益紧迫的问题，有意义的（集成的）解决方案必须包括尽责、负责和正当程序的基本保障。一些人（例如“智慧城市”的拥护者）认为，人类唯一的出路是加快工业化进程，并像从前那样创新以摆脱稀缺性。其他人则声称，为了拯救地球，工业文明必须被制止，这就像在比赛中跳出超速赛车一样荒谬。不管坚持哪种意识形态，事实是，确保我们的物种和地球生存的任何途径都意味着人类圈必须经历彻底和大规模转变——也许这种转变比从农业人（类）到工业人（类）的转变还要剧烈。最重要的是要意识到没有什么是一夜之间发生的。使用智能传感器对城市进行改造、安装新的能源系统和碳固存技术、测试可以挽救数百万生命的转基因作物新品系，这些都需要时间和资金。这也意味着我们需要以不同的方式来组织和规划城市。跨越专业领域的边界，同时也跨越物理甚至法律边界，以实现系统性变革（图7）。

2 城市和腹地的互惠互利是智能解决方案的摇篮

如今，城市已成为现代性的舞台。大数据革命，个人赋权以及自组织的社区和技术，这些变革将培育未来的城市环境。与地理相关的数据成为重要的信息，因为这些数据的反馈回路（feedback-loops）为市政当局提供了更多选择，以使决策更快、更有效。正如全世界对美国国家安全局（National Security Agency, NSA）窃听丑闻的强烈担忧所表明的那样，大数据不应该与侵犯个人隐私有关，而应在公民与政府之间建立有用的联系，从而促进赋权和场所营造。总而言之，大数据的新兴趋势，个人、基础设施和自然界产生的数据点轨迹有望从根本上改变我们的城市（图8）。

然而，重要的是要认识到，尽管大数据可以更好地识别离群值和处理数据分层，信息泛滥引发了有关数据质量以及谁拥有访问权限的问题。大数据不仅将使建筑物和城市区域变得更智能，而且作为次级效应，建筑物或社区将成为能源市场等领域的积极参与者。有些建筑物或社区已经参与了需求响应计划（Demand-Response Programs），该计划重视“负电量”（即用户向电网供电）。随着法规政策的变化，更多的建筑所有者将发现以自己的条件——小规模，“产消合一者”（prosumer），即所谓的“千瓦”（kilowatt）——参与能源市场在财务上是可行的，使得他们能够向电网传输电力或将其存储在本地。由于建筑物或区域在能源市场中充当“产消合一者”，因此产生的能源是否来源于可再生方式变得不再明显，并且无论产生的能源是否可持续，它们都可能破坏现有的商业模式和已有的系统，这些系统被设计来应对单方向的电流传输——来自集中式的电源。零能耗建筑和城市区域等雄心勃勃的目标将改变城市中实体结构的关系，进而改变使用者（全时或非全时）与建筑物、城市以及彼此之间的关系（图9）。它可以充当促进者，降低参与的障碍，并增加交换的速度和频率，这个特征可以带来积极或消极的结果。 AMS研究所的“空间能源”（Spacergy）、“智慧电网”（DC Smart Grids）和“URSUS+”等项目是此类研究的先行者（图10）。这些原则也适用于其他由于城市环境和生活中的信息通信技术（Information and Communication Technologies, ICT）的集成而受到智能化影响的方面。

3 从智慧城市到智慧公民

今天，我们充分意识到，现状是无法维持的。我们拥有的技术能力可以满足所有人的基本需求，但是我们的技术和经济体系被架构成规避风险和实现利润最大化的模式。我们必须认识到，仅凭技术并不能拯救我们。如果我们的生活方式以及社会和政治制度没有做出重大的改变，激进的技术创新将陷入困境。

真正的社会变革只有在我们意识到创新不只是简单地改变新陈代谢的机制，或重新布置城市的组成部分（建筑物、基础设施及其管理方式），或者认为已经拥有所有的“拼图块”时发生。我们需要实现并支持智慧公民和用户的增长[4]。我们应该学习拥抱城市（或社会总体）的风险与复杂性，不论是其最低微的部分还是最光辉的部分，而不是通过简化复杂性和使用截断算法来最大限度地降低风险和维持现状。我们对我们的星球和宇宙有很多了解，但是无论我们的计算机多么先进，我们都无法创建真正反映现实的模型。设计先进的技术和基础设施来支持城市生活是远远不够的。我们需要同样精巧且令人信服的故事，以使思想从犬儒主义和虚无主义中解放出来（这两种主义普遍存在于当今文化中，并改变了我们对彼此之间以及与地球的关系的思考方式），朝着更美好的未来前进，在这个未来中，技术创新能够满足人和自然需要，与伦理和理性相调和，而不是相反。

（未来）城市的专业人员通过应用ICT，能够借助算法软件来分析“大”数据，这些数据来源于整个城市环境中部署的传感器，这个过程构成了经常被称为“智慧城市”都市构想的一部分。面对当今的多重危机，“智慧城市”的构想时常被认为是使城市更具响应力、更敏捷和更有韧性的下一个关键城市基础设施范式。AMS研究所也致力于实现这一目标，然而，它从一开始就采用了一种创新的方式，来应对对全球现行的“智慧城市”措施的普遍批评。据称，这些措施通过强调专有软件来遏制创新，这种软件通常具有非民主和垄断性质，以市场为主导，而不是以公民为中心，通过追踪来削弱个人的自主性。与此相反，对于AMS研究所而言，一个城市如果要变得智慧，只有能够集成和分类从每种类型的传感器收集的数据，并使公民和企业能够应用新的ICT技术来节省时间，提升个人流动性，促进信息和服务的可达性，节省能源和资源，帮助他们适应变化以及参与城市营造（和决策）的过程。只有这样，才能提高大都市区和其市民与使用者的持久效率、公平性、可持续性以及生活质量（图11）。

一般而言，大都市解决方案和生活实验室中与城市新陈代谢相关的所有主题均与城市的各种流动相关，并且需要数据（包括大数据）分析。在这种背景下，AMS研究所的价值平台不仅是数字城市网络生成数据的中立主机，这个主机使这些数据的处理以及它们的交换成为可能；而且是一处集市，创造交叉点或币值。为此，AMS研究所的关键工作是创建支持合理使用和公民共同增长的社会、政治和经济基础设施。因此，公正和可持续的转型应理解为既包括分配要素，即与投资预期的和已实现的社会、经济和环境成果的分配有关的要素；又包括程序性要素，即由谁参与创造（决策）都市环境相关的要素。

这种基于共生和互惠的替代途径，可以看作是一种以生物为导向，以资源为基础的社会。在ICT的帮助下，这样的社会能够振兴并赋权地方经济，鼓励城市新陈代谢的多中心发展，并维护城市、环都市和农村腹地的尊严——这三者之间的相互关系定义了如今的文明。我们必须树立一种新的精神：重视社区、自组织以及个人及其社区的赋权，无论是在本地还是全球范围内。定义了现代社会的城市集群必须超越仅基于技术、运输和贸易的连通性，而转向其周边腹地、农村社区和自然环境的界限，以促进动态的平衡。

4 智慧公民是（城市）韧性的关键条件

随着城市复杂性的增长和基础设施的愈发网络化，它们不可避免地越来越成为城市居民日常生活的组成部分，最重要的是，面对颠覆性的系统性变革，它们十分脆弱。因此，其形式和服务的规划必须适应当前和未来城市居民的需求以及环境基准条件的预期变化。在城市化和智慧城市中应用的系统思维是“城市复杂性理论”[5]和“城市新科学”[6]的重要分支。系统思维的方法不再将复杂性问题呈现为效率问题或最明显的因果关系，并将其重构为关系、结构、元过程甚至人文关怀的语言。

尽管系统思维有助于理解复杂（城市）系统的形式结构特征，但它本身很少考虑网络化对环境的影响以及数据驱动变革的角色和使用。作为结果，有人可能会辩称，建成环境与自然是截然相反的实体这一主流观点极大地增加了城市环境在面对不可预知的冲击时的脆弱性[7]。然而，挑战并不是停止颠覆性变革（这一任务已被反复证明是不可能的），而是要在发生变化时对其进行理解，最终以处于动态平衡的“城市—自然”系统的结合来提高城市环境适应和吸收破坏的能力[4]。这表明，随着城市环境的复杂性不断增长，行动驱动型战略的有效性似乎不断下降（图12）。

应对这些挑战，有3种替代方法：1）不作为策略；2）减法策略；3）刺激效应策略，即让主体（城市、邻里、社区等）承受较小、可控制且连续的压力，目的是强化它，以防将来可能会面临的相同类型的大冲击。如果不作为策略或减法策略导致了匮乏，则最后一个策略可以根植于前两个策略，比如，可以有意识地使生活水平的舒适度，相对地低于正常水平[7]。尤其是结合了刺激效应的减法策略，引起了广泛的兴趣，因为它建立在系统性学习的基础上，并且有机会引入基于组合技术和基于自然措施（nature-based solutions, NBS）的方法。其中更深层的原理是在城市环境中应用此类策略将提高“社会—生态”的韧性。这“需要理解包含本地用户知识的生态系统”[8]，还要理解社会过程如何通过有计划和有针对性的不作为来最大限度地减少其影响，最终目标是提高城市环境应对颠覆性变革的能力。社会过程需要拥抱变化，并让生态过程来帮助应对变化[7]。社会、城市和AMS研究所研究的解决方案所面临的主要挑战是如何在（环境）技术、用户（市民）参与和自然（生态过程）之间找到平衡。

城市基础设施不仅构成城市的物质结构，还具有城市和都市的永久性功能，但就目前的形式而言，它既不灵敏也不适合于空间、社会、技术、政治和生态变化的新视角。关于网络的新科学被称为复杂性理论。过去20年的发展中，复杂的系统被描绘为相互连接的节点。对复杂网络的大多数研究都倾向于关注其节点不是动态代理的网络。相对而言，人类网络的节点（例如城市）是动态的认知主体，每个主体都是嵌套的复杂系统。人类活动和城市网络是代理之间多次互动的结果，至少在理论上，它们“在全局上思考并在局部上采取行动”。通过这种方式，代理的局部活动和互动导致了多个城市社会网络和实体城市网络之间的相互依存关系，反过来又影响了代理在循环因果关系中的认知、行为、运动和行动。

5 中荷城市解决方案的对等（P2P）学习观

由于气候变化、城市扩张导致的天气扰动增加，我们对能源、水和物质资源的需求不断增加，对地球正在进入稀缺期的预测。在这些因素下，应对颠覆性变革、脆弱性、复杂性和依赖性对规划未来城市的发展至关重要[7]。19—20世纪，人口的大量增长和城市化速度的提高导致当今城市环境遇到的生态、经济和社会冲击的频率和规模不断增加。即使到今天，这些冲击所带来的后果的程度也难以确定。生活中主要的压力和焦虑的来源，是不可控制和不可预测的[9]（图13）。

可以肯定的是，尽管许多城市的基础设施似乎表面上可以通过技术进行管理，但我们面临的最重要的城市问题实际上是社会和经济问题，也称为“棘手问题”。棘手的问题是那些无法由中央计划委员会（board of central planners）或自上而下的控制机制解决的情形[10]。AMS研究所的大多数项目中所包含的新通信技术在改善城市环境的可持续性和整体质量方面的主要优势在于，能够使人们与其他技术一同协作，这些技术可以提高舒适度、效率、响应能力、灵活性并减少开支。如果以正确的方式建立起来，信息通信技术将为具有相似目标和抱负（例如韧性、宜居性和可持续性）的机构、公司、社区和个人提供分享思想、进行对话和组织的相应途径。重要的是，任何新的制度安排都应与所有参与方（特别是公民）密切同步[11]。如果这些系统不具有包容性，人们可能会开始觉得采取行动或采用建议或实施的解决方案是徒劳的。没有包容性，当今以技术为主导的文化将缩小留给人类影响自己的生活条件的范围。在这种前景下，需要采取新的体制来应对信息通信技术的使用以及与物质环境相关的问题。实际上，新的体制更加强调采用另一种方法来组织基础设施和建筑。应对大都市挑战和通常相关的基础设施投资的解决方案是那些能够反映、重现和改变城市空间中社会、经济和环境关系的变革推动者。

技术进步可能并不是我们仅有的优点。在大都市的社会背景中提高技术效率和功效的不太理智的驱动可能会使一些考虑变得模棱两可，比如历史位次以及古典和古代社会用来应对不断变化的环境条件的实用知识和技术。AMS研究所的方法与它的西方社会背景相关，也与它通常在生活实验室环境中进行的一些研究项目相关。它旨在呼吁互惠互利的中荷对等学习合作，这种合作着重于2个古老的社会和文化，同时学习彼此的方法和都市解决方案，且最好在类似的基于四螺旋的背景下。这种对等的学习以及共同寻找解决方案和相关的系统变化的前景既迫切又充满希望。实现过渡到维持某种正常状态的“后稀缺”（post-scarcity）社会这个任务需要一种跨学科的方法，并且需要将我们最优秀的工程师、物理学家、医生、设计师、社区组织者、艺术家、农民、教师，尤其是个人和社区都纳入其中（图14）。

图片来源：

图1、4、5、7、8、10由AMS研究所提供；图2由creative commons pinterest提供；图3由Leif Niemczik拍摄；图6由AMS研究所和MIT共同提供；图9由代尔夫特理工大学环境技术与设计部提供；图11由Daniela Maiullari绘制；图12由Waag Society提供；图13由Ge Dubbelman拍摄；图14由Dimitri Houtteman拍摄。

（编辑/王亚莺）

Towards Sustainable, Just and Livable Smart Cities: A Dutch Perspective

Until recently, academic research that compared cities in different countries has been marked by a rigid divide between either“the west” and“the east”, or more frequently stated, “the global north” and“the global south”, reflecting embedded assumptions about the incommensurability of cities in more or less developed parts of the world. These assumptions are now being challenged because comparisons between cities of the south with those of the north are usually based on the transfer of policies or“lessons” from the latter to the former[1-2]. Comparisons should be based on equal terms with regard to what can be learned from the experience of each and the potential for“policy and technology mobility”[3]in any direction between them. In this context this article presents the work of a thriving new institute in The Netherlands: the AMS Institute(the Amsterdam based Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions) in the hope it will enrich the Sino-Dutch collaboration, reciprocal learnings and projects. The focus of this article be on finding, developing and realising new, better and more exciting solutions for our future cities— based on excellent academic research and the dynamic interaction of vision, public administration and implementation by innovative companies.

The three basic ingredients for“smarter cities” are: city+ people+ technology, each with its own pace of change and development. The city itself, the built environment and infrastructure, changes very slowly and often with major investment costs. The heritage of cities however often provides the city’s charm and attractiveness. Information Technology develops very rapidly, thus causing major changes for society. People’s behavioral patterns adapt and change faster than the physical environment but slower than Information Technology. However, in all cases, people should be the leading perspective.

To resolve these competing ingredients, innovation cannot be imposed on cities but needs to be generated and tested within“living labs” — inclusive design spaces, test-beds where citizens, academia, government, civil society and entrepreneurs(a quadruple helix) can come together to co-create bespoke technological solutions and policy that can make the cities we love even better places to live.

AMS is a young scientific organization that addresses together with its public and private partners todays’ and future’s metropolitan challenges with cutting edge research using the city of Amsterdam as a Living Laboratory(Fig. 1). At AMS Institute, metropolitan solutions are responses to the urban challenges of sustainability and quality of life, including energy, resource and food security, mobility and logistics, water and waste management, and its effects on health and wellbeing. Besides of the research projects, at the AMS Institute’s newly developed methods and tools are taught to a rising amount of young excellent students at all levels of expertise around the world, through MOOCs, but also in a proper MSc“MADE” (Metropolitan Analysis and Design Engineering). As the general aim of the AMS Institute is to address metropolitan challenges related to processes of urbanization and(related) aspects of change, e.g. climate change, the activities of AMS Institute also have a challenging international outlook. To implement solutions in metropolitan areas elsewhere, where(similar) challenges are(even more) disruptive.

The AMS Institute was founded in 2014 by Delft University of Technology(TUD), Wageningen University(WUR) and Boston based Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT), after winning the international tender by the City of Amsterdam. Background of this tender was the aim of the City of Amsterdam to introduce more technology into the ecosystem of the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area(AMA), addressing new“windows of opportunities” in science and by doing so, creating all kinds of value and business opportunities(Fig. 2). To do so the city and its surroundings had been put forward as a“Living Laboratory”: a valuable context for experiments that would help develop advanced solutions for challenges in a rising amount of urbanized metropolitan areas around the globe.

In this, the AMS Institute intends to work as a networking organization, initiating platforms with local and international partners, private and public, and above all with citizens and users. AMS Institute brings the field’s brightest minds together to create innovations for metropolitan solutions, tested and demonstrated in pilot projects and experiments in and with the city that will have a positive impact on the life of citizens(Fig. 3).

The general approach to projects and research of AMS Institute is based on: 1) Scientific rigor and a fundamental“re-think”; 2) Development, design, implementation and assessment of technology and interfaces for people, infrastructures and buildings within the metropolitan context; 3) Participative development and use strategy connected to social capital and social learning; 4) Multi-disciplinary and cross-sectoral approach(multi domain and multi-actor processes), based on the quadruple helix approach that forms the DNA of the AMS Institute; 5) Co-evolutionary(both incorporating the niche level on which individual actors operate, as incorporating regime players); 6) Scalefree thinking, with fundamental research based solutions, applied and tested in-, and through a Living Lab way of working; 7) Urban fabric based on reciprocity of both buildings and infrastructures and use(rs) with(in) dynamic(urban) systems; 8) Integralness in approach.

The multidisciplinary nature of working makes that it is important to include a step in between fundamental, either theory based, laboratory based or modeling based research at our founding universities Delft University of Technology, Wageningen University and Research and MIT Boston, and society wide implementation(Fig. 4). To explain this, we bring up the analogy of the Triple-Jump(“Hop-Step-Jump”): Based on discerned societal challenges, focusing on metropolitan contexts, together with key-stakeholders, problem analyses are made and research questions formulated. This is the starting point for the“Hop” in this“Triple Jump analogy”: fundamental science, including modeling and laboratory research within conditioned environments, will still mostly take place at the three founding father universities, assuring creation of cutting-edge science leading to solutions which aim for true paradigm shifts. Next, as an innovative, newly introduced in-between“Step” in this analogy of Triple-Jump, outcomes of this first phase of the research activities(“Hop”) will be implemented and validated in dedicated living environments inside the AMA, within partially conditioned settings, while involving all(public and private) key stakeholders. This unique in-between“Step” forms the important“in between step” of reallife research with its multiple stakeholders, in a coinnovating inclusive setting. It thus will help achieve prosperous living environments: more liveable, sustainable, resilient and just, capable to be scaled up. It forms the basis of solutions which are better tuned to the so-called“double complexity” of real life and urban environments, and thus in the end faster society-wide implementation(“Jump”): faster science-to-implementation trajectories, and above all, with higher impact and faster, more secured and successful transitions to more sustainable, just and resilient futures in this increasingly urbanizing and challenged world.

In this, the Living Lab approach forms an important in between step to achieve more impact, and faster and above all better society wide implementation. AMS Institute’s focus addresses this directly, basing its approach on systems thinking to urbanism, codified as Complexity Theories of Cities(CTC), evolving in the last two decades. Complexity Theory of Cities assumes cities as multilevel systems of several interconnected subsystems, as buildings, blocks, networks of streams and transport, social structures. Because of the multiplicity of subsystems involved, the interactions among several dynamic agents and their nestedness, the boundaries of cities as complex systems are fuzzy. Furthermore, a city is composed of“interactive components that may change their roles over time in unpredictable ways”: ecosystems contain coevolving species and systems and follow unique evolution trajectories. Beside the assessment of cities as“complex systems” unfamiliarity, the AMS Institute’s CTC based approach recognizes benefits entailed in their complexity: firstly, a complex urban system produces perceptual richness and offers more functional capacity. Furthermore, in a complex environment, synergies arise, creating an added value, which is more than the sum of the parts.

Within this context of urban challenges and systems thinking, metropolitan regions are often considered from the concept of urban metabolism: a framework for modeling complex urban systems’ material and energy flows as if the city were an ecosystem. AMS Institute introduces the essential component of integration of both technical as well as social perspective within this urban metabolism approach, as it addresses it as“the sum total of the technical and socio-economical processes that occur in cities, resulting in growth, production of(renewable) energy, and elimination of waste, for the improvement of equity, sustainability and livability” (Fig. 5).

1 Our“Joint Challenges”

The alarming realties of climate change, biodiversity loss, resource scarcity and challenges related to livability might at this point seem quite banal to reiterate for even the somewhat news literate, but it cannot be stressed enough. Presently, we are facing a number of concurrent and increasingly intractable global crises that pose a serious threat to the named aspects and to civilization as we know it: hyper urbanization, population growth, the degradation or terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, the multitudinous consequences of climate change(urban heat island, drought, precipitation patterns, flooding, etc.), resource scarcity(energy, water, materials, food and clean soil), groundwater depletion, the increased demands from cities, agriculture and industry for reasonably clean water, renewable energy(transition) and the global shift toward increasingly water, energy and resource intensive lifestyles and diets. Humanity now exerts such a tremendous influence on earth’s biological, geological and hydrological processes that the current geologic epoch is dubbed the Anthropocene. Every five years for the last three decades, IPCC reports(ao) have only become more universal in their certainty of who is the culprit(human beings), more lucid in their predictions of the future to come(dire) and more unequivocal of when we ought to deal the problem(now).

AMS Institute takes up the responsibility to address this in a methodological and innovative way. But still, adapting our urban communities in the face of these intertwined crises will be the greatest challenge of our time. To do this, cities must secure and“greenify” their essential flows and infrastructures for energy, food, waste and transportation. But foremost they need to help change citizens behavior and involvement, and thus make them an integral and supportive part of these solutions(Fig. 6).

Currently there are few answers to the questions, and the frameworks presently governing metropolitan solutions are not at all times capable of ensuring accountability. As the pervasiveness, complexity, and scale of these systems grow, the lack of meaningful(integrated) solutions, which are tested, accountable and thus able to be implemented rapidly— including basic safeguards of responsibility, liability, and due process— is an increasingly urgent concern. Some have argued(e.g proponents of“smart cities”) that the only way forward is to ramp up industrialization and innovate our way out of scarcity as we have done before. Others claim that in order to save the planet industrial civilization must be halted full stop— something as ludicrous as jumping out of speeding race car in the middle of a race. Whatever ideology you adhere to, the truth is that the any path that ensures the survival of both our species and the planet means that the anthroposphere must undergo radical and large-scale transformation— perhaps a transformation even more drastic than the shift from agrarian to industrial(hu)man. The key thing to realize is that nothing happens overnight. Retrofitting our cities with smart sensors, installing new energy systems and carbon sequestration technology, or testing new strains of genetically modified crops that can save millions of lives will take time and— most dauntingly— money, and a lot of it. But it will also imply that we need to organize and plan our cities in a different way. Crossing borders of specialisms, but also crossing physical and even legal borders towards systemic change(Fig. 7).

2 Reciprocities of Cities and Hinterlands as the Cradles of Smart Solutions

Nowadays, cities have become the stage of modernity. The revolutions of big data, empowerment of individuals and self-organized communities and technologies will foster the urban environments of the future. Data tied to geography becomes important information, as feedback-loops giving municipalities greater options for faster, more efficient decision making. As exemplified by the worldwide fervor over the NSA wire-tapping scandals, big data should not be about infringing on the privacy of individuals but creating useful connections between citizens and government that can potentially lead to empowerment and place making. In general, the emerging trends of big data, the trail of data points generated by individuals, infrastructure, and the natural world are what promises to fundamentally change our cities(Fig. 8). However, it is important to realize that while big data allows for better identification of outlier values and a finer stratification of data, the flood of information raises issues about the quality of the data and who has access to it. Big data will not only make buildings and urban areas smarter, but as a second order effect, buildings or communities will become active participants in for instance energy markets. Some are already participating in demand-response programs that put a value on“negawatts”. As regulatory policies change, more building owners will find it financially feasible to participate in energy markets on their own terms(smaller-, prosumer, so-called kilowatt), allowing them to upload electricity generated or store it onsite. As buildings or areas operate as“prosumers” in energy markets it is not that obvious that energy produced will be renewably sourced, and whether the energy produced is sustainable or not, they can disrupt existing business models and the systems in place that are designed for electricity flow in one direction— from centralized sources. Ambitious goals such as zero net energy buildings and urban areas will change the relationships that physical structures have within cities, and in turn change the relationships that occupants(full or part-time) have with buildings, cities and one another(Fig. 9). It may act as a facilitator, lowering barriers to participation, and increasing the speed and frequency of exchange, a characteristic that could lead to positive or negative outcomes. AMS Institute’s projects like“Spacergy”, “DC Smart Grids” and“URSUS+” are pioneering examples of research related to this(Fig. 10). The same will hold for several other aspects which will be influenced by smartness due to ICT integration in urban environments and life.

3 From Smart Cities Towards Intelligent Citizens

Today, we are completely aware that the status quo is untenable and have the technological capacity meet the basic needs of all human beings, yet our technological and economic systems are geared toward risk aversion and profit maximization. We must recognize that technology alone will not save us. Radical technological innovation without equally radical changes to our lifestyles and social and political institutions would render the former moot.

True societal transformation can only occur once we realize that innovation is not a matter of simply changing the metabolism, rearranging the components(buildings, infrastructures and the way they are managed) of a city, or thinking that we already have all the puzzle pieces on the table. We need to achieve and support the growth of intelligent citizens and users[4]. Instead of simplifying complexity and using algorithmic truncation to minimize risk and maintain the status quo, we must learn embrace risk and complexity of cities, or our societies in general, in all its obscurity and splendor. We understand a great deal about our planet and our universe, but no matter how advanced our computers get, we could never create a model that truly mirrors reality. Designing advanced technologies and infrastructures to support urban life is not enough. We need equally sophisticated and cogent narratives that immunize the mind from the cynicism and nihilism that is pervasive in today’s culture and changes the way we think about our relationship with one another other and the planet itself— towards possible futures where technological innovation, tempered by ethics and reason, meets the needs of both man and nature and not the other way around.

The use of ICTs to guide(future) urban professionals via the use of algorithmic software to analyse“big” data obtained from sensors deployed throughout the urban environment is often made part of the so-called“Smart City” urban imaginary, which is frequently considered as the next key urban infrastructure paradigm to make our cities more responsive, agile and resilient in the face of the concurrent crises we now face. AMS Institute aims to achieve this too, however, does so by applying from the very beginning an innovative response to general criticism to actual“Smart Cities” approaches around the globe; which are stated to be stifling innovation by emphasizing proprietary software, being too often non-democratic and monopolistic in character, market-led instead of citizen focused and reducing individual autonomy through indiscriminate tracking. Opposed to this, for AMS Institute a city can be smart only if it is able to integrate and sort data gathered from each type of sensor, while it enables citizens and enterprises to apply new ICTs to economise time, improve individual mobility, facilitate access to information and services, save energy and resources, assists them to adapt to change, and foremost to participate in urban(decision-)making processes. Only then, it will help to increase enduring efficiency, equity, sustainability and quality of life of metropolitan areas, its citizens and users(Fig. 11).

In principle, all themes in metropolitan solutions and Living Labs related to the metabolism of cities relate to urban flows and require data(including big data) analytics. The AMS Institute’s value platform in this context, is a neutral host for data generated by digital urban networks, enabling the handling of these data as well as their exchange and a possible marketplace to create cross overs or coin values. Key for AMS Institute in this, is the creation of social, political and economic infrastructures that support the growth of intelligent use and citizens. Just and sustainable transformations are therefore understood to include both distributive components, relating to the investment’s anticipated and realised distribution of social, economic and environmental outcomes, and procedural elements relating to who is involved in the(decision) making of metropolitan environments.

This alternative path, based on symbiosis and reciprocity, can be seen as a biologically oriented, resource-based society that, with help of ICT, revitalizes and empowers local economies, encourages polycentric development of urban metabolisms and vindicates the sanctity of city, peri-urban and rural hinterland, whose reciprocal relationship has defined our civilization thus far. We must foster a new ethos that values community, self-organization and the empowerment of the individual and their communities at a both local and global scales. The menagerie of polies(cities) that define modern society must look beyond connectivity based solely on technology, transportation and trade toward their surrounding hinterlands, their rural communities and the bounds of the natural environment, promoting a dynamic equilibrium.

4 Intelligent Citizens as a Key-Condition to(Urban) Resilience

As cities grow in complexity and infrastructures become more networked they invariably become increasingly integral to the functioning of daily life of city dwellers and, most importantly, fragile to disruptive systemic changes. Therefore, the planning of their forms and services must adapt to the needs of present and future urban dwellers as well as predicted shifts in environmental baseline conditions. Systems thinking as it is applied in urbanism and smart cities is considerable branch of what has been called the“Complexity Theories of Cities”[5]and the“new science of cities”[6]. The systems thinking approach presents problems of complexity as more than issues of efficiency or their most obvious causes and effects and reframes it into the language of relations, structures, meta processes, and even humanistic concerns.

While thinking in systems is useful in understanding the formal structural characteristics of complex(urban) systems, by itself it holds little regard for the environmental implications of networks and the role and use of data driven change. As a consequence, it may be argued that the predominant view that the built environment and nature are diametrically opposed entities drastically increases the vulnerability of urban environments in face of unforeseen shocks[7]. The challenge, however, is not in stopping disruptive change— a task that has repeatedly proven to be impossible— but in understanding them as they occur and, ultimately, improving the capacity of urban environments to adapt and assimilate disruptions as a combined urban-natural system in dynamic equilibrium[4]. It addresses the fact that while the complexity of urban environments is growing, at the same time the effectiveness of action-driven strategies appears to be decreasing(Fig. 12).

There are three alternative approaches which can be determined in response to this: 1) strategies of inaction; 2) strategies of subtraction; 3) strategies of hormesis, that keep their subject(cities, neighborhoods, communities, etc.) under a small, controlled and continuous dosage of stress, with the purpose of strengthening it for the eventuality of a possible future large shock of the same kind. The last strategy may be rooted in the first two if inaction or subtraction causes deprivation, especially when, say, consciously inducing lower-than-usual levels in relative comfort of living[7]. In particular the latter, that of hormesis is of interest, as it builds upon systems-learning and opportunities to include a combined technology based and nature-based solutions(NBS) approach. Background idea is that applying such strategies in urban environments will improve socialecological resilience. This“requires understanding of ecosystems that incorporates the knowledge of local users”[8], but also the understanding of how social processes can minimize their impact through calculated and targeted inaction, with the ultimate goal of improving the capacity of our urban environments to face disruptive change. Social processes need to embrace change and let ecological processes help in responding to it[7]. Key challenge to our societies, cities and AMS Institute’s solutions investigated is how to find a balance between(environmental) technology, engagement of users(citizens) and nature(ecological processes).

Urban infrastructure constitutes the physical structure as well as the urban and metropolitan functions of greatest permanency in cities and yet, in its current form, it is neither sensitive nor suitable to new perspectives on spatial, social, technological, political, and ecological change. The new science of networks is called complexity theory. Evolving in the last two decades, it portrays complex systems in terms of connected nodes. Most studies of complex networks tend to focus on networks whose nodes are not dynamic agents. The nodes of human networks(e.g. cities), per contra, are dynamic cognitive agents, each of which are nested complex systems. Human activity and urban networks are the outcome of multiple interactions between agents that, at least in theory, “think globally and act locally”. In this way, the local activities and interaction of agents gives rise to the interdependencies between multiple social and physical urban networks that in turn affects the agents’ cognition, behavior, movement, and actions in circular causality.

5 Sino-Dutch Outlook of Peer-to-peer Learning on Metropolitan Solutions

Considering the increase in weather perturbations resulting from climate change, urban growth, our constantly increasing demand for energy, water, and material resources and predictions that the planet is entering a period of scarcity, responses to disruptive change, vulnerability, complexity and dependence are essential to planning future urban growth[7]. Massive population growth and increased rates of urbanization over the past two centuries have contributed to the increased frequency and magnitude of ecological, economic and social shocks encountered by today’s urban environments. The full extent of the consequences of these shocks is even today difficult to determine. The major stressors in life, especially in anxiogenic situations, are uncontrollability and unpredictability[9](Fig. 13).

To be sure, while many of infrastructural aspects of cities seem superficially manageable through technology, the most important urban problems facing are in fact social and economic, also known as“wicked problems”. Wicked problems are situations that cannot be solved by a board of central planners or top-down mechanisms of control[10]. The key benefit of new communication technologies as included in most of AMS Institute’s projects in improving the sustainability and overall quality of urban environments is their ability to allow people to be more social in tandem with other technologies that improve comfort, efficiency, responsiveness, flexibility and reduce costs. If set up in the right way, ICTs will give institutions, companies, communities, and individuals with similar goals and aspirations(e.g. resilience, livability and sustainability) the means of sharing ideas, having conversations and organizing accordingly. It is important that any new institutional arrangements should be made in close agreement with all actors— especially citizens— involved[11]. If such systems are not inclusive, people might start to feel that it is useless to take action or adopt solutions proposed or implemented. If not, the scope that is left for them to affect their own living conditions will be reduced by the dominant technology driven culture of today. Within such an outlook, new institutional arrangements are required to cope with the use of ICT and physical environment related problems. In fact, it puts a greater emphasis on another way of organizing infrastructure and architecture. Solutions for metropolitan challenges and often related infrastructure investments are agents of change that reflect, reproduce and alter social, economic and environmental relations in urban space.

Technological progress might not be our saving grace. The pathological drive to increase the efficiency and efficacy of technology in metropolitan societal contexts might obfuscate considerations of historical precedence, pragmatic knowledge and techniques used by classical and ancient societies to cope with shifts environmental conditions. Through this article the approach of AMS Institute has been explained and illustrated related to its Western societal context and several of its research projects, often in a setting of Living Labs. It aims to call for a reciprocal Sino-Dutch peer-to-peer learning collaboration, which emphasizes two ancient societies and cultures while learning from each other’s approaches and metropolitan solutions, preferably in similar quadruple-helix based settings. The outlook of such peer-to-peer learning and joint finding of solutions and related systemic change is both urgent and promising. The task of transitioning to a postscarcity society that maintains some semblance of normalcy will require an interdisciplinary approach that includes our finest engineers, physicists, doctors, designers, community organizers, artists, farmers, teachers and above all, individuals and communities(Fig. 14).

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 © AMS Institute; Fig. 2 © creative commons pinterest; Fig. 3 © Leif Niemczik; Fig. 6 © AMS Institute and MIT; Fig. 9 © TU Delft/ Environmental Technology& Design; Fig. 11 © Daniela Maiullari; Fig. 12 © Waag Society; Fig. 13 © Ge Dubbelman; Fig. 14 © Dimitri Houtteman.