Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF) 1 REGISTRATION FORM (BASIC DATA) 1. Details of the applicants Principal Investigator (main applicant) Name, title(s) Rob Raven, Prof. Dr. Ir. male Date of PhD 2005 Position full professor End contract 31.08.2019. See attached university commitment to my appointment. University/ Institute Utrecht University Department Geosciences Section Copernicus Institute Postal Address Heidelberglaan 2 Zip/city 3584 CS Utrecht Tel 030-2537807 E-mail [email protected]Co-applicant Name, title(s) Ruth Oldenziel, Prof. Dr. female Date of PhD 1992 Position full professor University/ Institute Eindhoven University of Technology Department Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences Section Technology, Innovation & Society Address Den Dolech 2 Zip/city 5600 MB Eindhoven Tel 040-2478949 E-mail [email protected]Co-applicant Name, title(s) Marco te Brömmelstroet, Dr. male Date of PhD 2010 Position assistant professor (UD) University/ Institute University of Amsterdam Department Social and Behavioural Sciences Section Urban Planning Address Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 Zip/city 1018 WV Amsterdam Tel 020-5254149 E-mail [email protected]Co-applicant Name, title(s) Marcus Popkema, Dr. male Date of PhD 2014
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
1
REGISTRATION FORM (BASIC DATA)
1. Details of the applicants
Principal Investigator (main applicant)
Name, title(s) Rob Raven, Prof. Dr. Ir. male
Date of PhD 2005
Position full professor
End contract 31.08.2019. See attached university commitment to my appointment.
University/
Institute Utrecht University
Department Geosciences Section Copernicus Institute
Postal Address Heidelberglaan 2 Zip/city 3584 CS Utrecht
Dr. Sukanya Krishnamurthy PhD co-promoter sub-project 3 Urban studies; design
Dr. Frank Schipper PhD supervisor sub-project 3 History; mobility
Prof. Dr. Luca Bertolini PhD promoter sub-project 2 Transport and land use planning
Dr. Ir. Willem Buunk Supervision sub-project 5 Area development; impact
assessment; transport
Dr. Friso de Vor
Supervisor junior researcher
sub-project 5, synthesis of
research results
Regional economics
Frans Jan van Rossem
Coordinator living-lab projects in
Utrecht region, articulating
knowledge questions and
feedback into academic research
Cycling; urban governance;
human geography; environment
Herbert Tiemens
Coordinator living-lab projects in
Utrecht region, articulating
knowledge questions and
feedback into academic research
Cycling; regional governance;
urban design
Stefan Verduin
Coordinator living-lab projects in
Amsterdam region, articulating
knowledge questions and
feedback into academic research
Knowledge management;
transport studies; regional
governance
Martijn Sargentini
Coordinator living-lab projects in
Amsterdam region, articulating
knowledge questions and
feedback into academic research
Cycling; transport; urban
planning
Syb Tjepkema
Coordinator living-lab projects in
Zwolle/Overijssel region,
articulating knowledge questions
and feedback into academic
research
Transport studies; cycling; urban
governance
Ronald van Witzenburg
Coordinator living-lab projects in
Zwolle/Overijssel region,
articulating knowledge questions
and feedback into academic
research
Transport; regional governance
Jan Willem Hommes
Coordinator living-lab projects in
Eindhoven/Brabant region,
articulating knowledge questions
and feedback into academic
research
Transport studies; urban
governance
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
9
Nathan Hooghof
Coordinator living-lab projects in
Eindhoven/Brabant region,
articulating knowledge questions
and feedback into academic
research
Cycling; mobility management;
regional governance
Frans Bekhuis
Organizer knowledge
dissemination, mobilising wider
cycling community, co-
organizing annual cycling
conferences
Cycling; human geography
Lucas Harms
Organizer knowledge
dissemination, interaction with
national policy circles.
Urban and transportation
geography
5. Quality of the consortium
SCIENTIFIC APPLICANTS:
Prof. Dr. Ir. Rob Raven (Word count: 233)
Rob Raven is designated chair at the Utrecht University’s strategic theme Institutions and Full Professor
‘Institutions and Societal Transitions’ at the Copernicus Institute of Utrecht University. His research
interest is in sustainability transitions and socio-technical innovation. Raven made major contributions to
multi-level theories of transformative change; the notion of socio-technical experimentation; and the
governance perspective of strategic niche management. His empirical work includes energy and mobility
transition processes in both Europe and Asia. He published over 40 articles on these topics, resulting in
an h-index of 29 (Google Scholar), and was editor of special issues in Research Policy, Technological
Forecasting & Social Change and Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. He won the EASST
Chris Freeman award for a significant collective contribution to the interaction of science and technology
studies with the study of innovation. His current research agenda focuses on analysis of transformative
change in urban context such as eco-cities and smart cities. A key question is how socio-technical
experimentation, institutional change and incumbent urban regimes co-produce the future of cities
worldwide. Raven has coordinated various international research projects on these topics funded under
national and EU schemes, as well as contract research. Throughout his academic career, Raven has
continued to engage with practice in national and international post-doctoral trainings and advisory work.
In an earlier FP7 project, he actively worked with practitioners in living labs on social acceptance of
renewable energy projects.
Prof. Dr. Ruth Oldenziel (word count: 227)
Ruth Oldenziel is Full Professor at the History Division, Department of Technology, Innovation & Society,
Eindhoven University of Technology has been an internationally recognized research leader for many
years as well as a prolific writer of books bringing scholars together from many countries and disciplines.
Her co-authored book with M. Hård, Consumers, Tinkerers, Rebels (2013), was awarded Freeman Prize
as part of the Making Europe series. Her most recent work focuses on sustainable mobility as Project
Leader of the SHT/TUE of the research program A Century of Sustainable Mobility in Transnational
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
10
Perspective: Transitions and Tipping Points. She is PI of the NWO 3-year International Humanities
Research Network The Cultural Politics of Sustainable Urban Mobility, 1890-Present (CPSUM) (2015-
2018), in which 8 European, 3 Chinese, and 2 U.S. research groups collaborate on cycling and walking.
She is also PI for a study and public outreach program of 100 years policy and practice comparing 15
cycling cities in 9 countries. She was co-chair and co-founder with Johan Schot of ESF Scientific Network
Tensions of Europe: Technology in the Making of Twentieth-Century Europe, 2000-2006, which included
25 workshops, 3 conferences, over 250 scholars from U.S. and European countries. She has been
awarded many research fellowships, most recently at the LMU Rachel Carson Center for the Environment
and Society in Munich (2013-2015) for her project entitled, "Century of Cycling: Pathways towards
Sustainability".
Dr. Marco te Brömmelstroet (word count: 221)
Marco te Brömmelstroet is Assistant Professor in Urban Planning at the Center for Urban Studies of the
University of Amsterdam. His research track record has mainly focused on the implementation gap of
knowledge technologies for urban strategy making. In 2010, he defended his PhD dissertation on
improving the usability and usefulness of existing transportation models for integrated land use and
transport planning practices. He applied experiential research designs in which practitioners co-create
academic research. Similar research designs were consequently applied in large research projects around
microclimate models (NWO-CESAR) and, most recently, accessibility instruments across Europe (COST
TU1002). He published over 15 articles in ISI ranked academic journals that are frequently cited. He was
editor of special issues in Transport Reviews (on transport models) and Tijdschrift
Vervoerswetenschappen (on cycling). His current interests and empirical work focuses on social and
spatial dynamics of urban cycling. On this topic, he created an extensive network in planning practice
and academic research, securing two NWO research projects on cycling trends and policies in the
Netherlands. He is the first academic director of the Urban Cycling Institute of the University of
Amsterdam. He actively engages in public debates around cycling through regular- and social media,
attracting 6000 followers through his Twitter account. Next to these academic accomplishments, he also
runs a company that exports bicycles to Germany.
Dr. Marcus Popkema (word count: 100)
Marcus Popkema is Lecturer on Transportation Engineering at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences.
In 2014, he finished his PhD-project at Eindhoven University of Technology on the professionalization of
traffic engineering in the Netherlands. His research focuses on the innovative approaches in
transportation policy, the effectiveness of traffic enforcement, and the history of traffic engineering in the
Netherlands. He is interested in consolidating the social role of transportation engineers and in putting
cycling expertise on the agenda in the field of transportation engineering. He was editor of several
volumes of the Dutch journal Jaarboek Kennissamenleving (Annual on theme of Knowledge Society).
Jacco Farla (word count: 149)
Jacco Farla is Assistant Professor at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development (Innovation
Studies group) at Utrecht University. His research interests focuses on the intersection of innovation
studies and sustainable development in the transport and energy sectors. Over the years, he has
combined academic and policy-related work in the fields of sustainable development and energy/mobility
at Utrecht University (1991-1999), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Fulbright Scholarship, 1995),
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
11
Noord-Brabant Province (1997-2002), Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency PBL (2002-2006),
and Utrecht University (2006-present), resulting in a large number of research and advisory reports and
over 20 scientific publications. He has co-organized the 5th International Conference on Sustainability
Transitions (2014) and edited several special issues of the journals Technological Forecasting & Social
Change and Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. At Utrecht University, Jacco is a Teaching
Fellow; Director of the Honours College Geosciences; and program leader of the Bachelor’s Program
“Science and Innovation Management”.
Prof. Dr. Erik Stam (word count: 240)
Erik Stam is Full Professor at the Utrecht University, School of Economics, where he chairs Strategy,
Organisation and Entrepreneurship. He is co-founder and Academic Director of the Utrecht Center for
Entrepreneurship and leader of the research area “Innovation and Economic Growth” within the Utrecht
University Strategic Research Theme Institutions. He held positions at Erasmus University Rotterdam;
University of Cambridge; Max Planck Institute of Economics (Jena, Germany); and the Netherlands
Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR). At the WRR he was involved in projects on the future of
innovation policy and on public interests in the market society. He has been visiting scholar at multiple
institutes including Tel Aviv University (Israel); IFN Research Institute of Industrial Economics
(Stockholm, Sweden); Hitotsubashi University (Tokyo, Japan); and the Institute for Development
Strategies, Indiana University (Bloomington, USA). He is associate editor of Small Business Economics.
His research focuses on institutions, entrepreneurship, innovation and their relationships with economic
development at the micro and macro levels. He has (co-)authored seven books and over eighty book
chapters and articles in journals like Economic Geography, Industrial and Corporate Change, Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, Regional Studies, and Small Business Economics. He has been PI on 21
scientific research projects on innovation, entrepreneurship, economic organisation and economic
development. Next to his scientific work, he is often consulted by local, regional, national (Netherlands,
Belgium, UK, US) and supra-national (World Bank, OECD, EU) policy makers and private sector
organisations on innovation and entrepreneurship.
Prof. Dr. Martin Dijst (word count: 242)
Martin Dijst is full professor of Urban Development and Spatial Mobility, Department of Human
Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University. Originally, his research was
focused on analysing the impact of spatial configurations of land uses and transport infrastructures on
activity and travel behaviour and accessibility. This work was extended by analysing the impact of
Information and Communication Technologies, like e-shopping, use of mobile phones and telework on
the everyday life of people and interactions in public places. He has been coordinating as PI major
research projects such as the EU-framework project SELMA (2 MEuro), the Dutch research program
CESAR: Climate and Environmental change and Sustainable Accessibility of the Randstad (1 MEuro) and
the Dutch strategic research program (3.5 MEuro) Healthy Urban Living
(http://www.uu.nl/en/research/sustainability/research/healthy-urban-living). He is European chair of the
international research network Geospatial Health Research chaired by prof. Mei-Po Kwan. He is fellow of
the Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KIM) and an elected member of the
Telecommunications and Travel Behaviour Committee of the Transportation Research Board, which is a
division of the US National Research Council. He has published more than 100 scientific publications,
which have been published in high-ranked journals, and is European/African editor of the Journal of
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
12
Transport and Land Use and member of the editorial board of the Annals of the Association of American
Geographers. Finally, he is chair of the Department Human Geography and Spatial Planning at the
Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University.
Dr. Linze Schaap (Word count: 227)
Linze Schaap is Associate Professor Public Administration at the Tilburg School of Public Administration
and Politics, Tilburg University. His main research interests are multi-level governance; sub-national
government relations; democratic legitimacy of regional governance; closure in network governance,
local government performance; and mayoral leadership. Many of his research efforts have an
international comparative perspective. Schaap published books as well as articles (Local Government
Studies, Public Administration) and he is currently preparing (with professor Lidström) a special issue of
the Journal of Urban Affairs on citizenship in urban regions. He is a leading European expert in the field
of local and regional governance, resulting among other things in his position of co-founder and co-
director of the Permanent Study Group on Local Governance and Democracy within the EGPA over the
past years. Schaap is supervising a NWO-funded research project on “Smart Transformations in City-
regional Law and Governance,” addressing pertinent questions how, and to what extent, policy and
lawmakers may learn from experiences with hybrid governance in different contexts, and how democratic
legitimacy may be safeguarded in a context of hybrid governance. Throughout his academic career,
Schaap has engaged with practice in research projects, advisory work, and trainings. He has done
consultant work for municipalities, provinces and national government agencies for research (e.g. on
inter-municipal co-operation, amalgamation, and regionalization). He has been a practitioner as
Provincial Council member of South Holland.
Prof. Dr. Ir. Pieter van Wesemael (word count: 129)
Pieter van Wesemael is Full Professor of Urbanism and Urban Architecture at Eindhoven University of
Technology, where he received his Master. He was awarded his PhD with honour (cum laude) from the
Technical University of Delft. For two decades, he headed a consultancy and design office in the field of
urban design, area development, and spatial policy. He has published widely on topics related to
sustainable evolutionary urban development based on an integrated understanding of the development
logic of correlated economic-technological, socio-cultural, and spatial development. He recently
established the Urban Lab at the Eindhoven University of Technology as a platform for applied research
in which actors of the triple helix collaborate on policy research and case studies related to the
sustainable development of the city and the urbanised region.
Dr. Frank Schipper (word count: 161)
Frank Schipper is Assistant Professor at history of technology Division at the Technology, Innovation &
Society Department at Eindhoven University of Technology, where he defended his PhD thesis Driving
Europe in 2008. He is coordinator of a university-wide learning trajectory on “The Future of Mobility”
from the perspective of users, society, and enterprise. His work has dealt with transnational mobility,
infrastructure studies, and European integration. He was selected to stay at the German Historical
Institute in Washington DC as a research fellow during 2011-2012 to investigate the impact of changes
in the mobility of American tourists visiting Europe in the long 20th century on their experience of their
Grand Tour to Europe. As practitioner of interdisciplinary research, he has been a columnist for the
website of Next Generation Infrastructures and has won the Dr. C. Lely Prize for the best paper
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
13
combining history and policy at the annual conference of the International Association for the History of
Transport, Traffic & Mobility.
Dr. Sukanya Krishnamurthy (word count: 111)
Sukanya Krishnamurthy is Assistant Professor of Urbanism and Urban Architecture at the Eindhoven
University of Technology. Her main focus lies at the interface of urban, social and cultural geography,
where her scholarship focuses on the various narratives that can be read through architecture. Within
these fields, she has published on aggregated and individual socio-spatial practices; growth management
and the role of policy; and cultural heritage and place identity. She has been a PI and team member on
research projects in the EU, Canada, and India. Through her interdisciplinary research in the fields of
urban and socio-cultural studies, she analyses how cities can use their resources and values for better
sustainable development.
Prof. Dr. Luca Bertolini (word count: 243)
Luca Bertolini is Full Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Amsterdam. His
research focuses on the integration of transport and land use planning. He has authored over 70
international and 50 national publications. His research has often led to practice applications, including
the so-called node-place model – a method for assessing the development potential of station areas. He
has led several international and national research programs and projects, often in consortia with
practice. These include the NWO-SAR funded programs iTOD (implementing Transit Oriented
Development); The role of the bicycle as an egress and access mode for multimodal nodes and
Understanding social and spatial dynamics in bicycle use in the Randstad and its policy implications; the
NICIS funded programs KEI (Development of station areas in a corridor context: economic significance
and institutional incentives) and OBBRI (Design and assessment of regional spatial and infrastructure
visions); the EU COST Action Accessibility Instruments For Planning Practice In Europe; and individual
projects in the NWO-SAR funded programs SRMT (Strategy towards Sustainable and Reliable Multi-modal
Transport in the Randstad) and CESAR (Climate and Environmental change and Sustainable Accessibility
of the Randstad). He participates in a variety of international and national research and policy networks.
He is among others, member of the Urban Big Data Centre Advisory Group (UK); the Advisory Board of
the Planbureau voor de Leeefomgeving (PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency); and
fellow of the Kennis Instituut Mobiliteit (KiM, Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis).
Dr. Ir. Willem Buunk (word count: 231)
Willem Buunk is Full Professor of Area Development at the Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in
Zwolle (the Netherlands) since 2009. He concentrates on research practice-oriented research into
regional development, mobility and the role of technological innovation in urban design and land use. His
own research specialises in the social, cultural, and political backgrounds of spatial development issues.
The value-oriented research approach provides theoretical and practical breakthroughs, including
decision-support tools for urban and regional spatial planning commissioned by the Dutch government.
The professorship Area Development is part of the Research Centre for Technology in which major Dutch
Centres of Expertise for practice-oriented research participate. He has a leading role in the Centre of
Expertise for Logistics for the Northeast and has research projects in the Tech for Future-centre of
expertise for High Tech Systems & Materials (HTSM). Willem Buunk completed his PhD-research at the
Radboud University Nijmegen in 2003 and has worked as researcher and lecturer at the universities of
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
14
Wageningen and Utrecht. He currently chairs the Thematic Group on Values and Ethics of Association of
European Schools of Planning (AESOP). Next to his part-time professorship, Willem Buunk is member of
the Utrecht City Council and the General Board of the Utrecht City Region. Through his political work
bridges his academic work and the daily practice of decision-making processes and the wider social and
political debate on urban and regional development.
Dr. Friso de Vor (word count: 197)
Friso de Vor is as Researcher regional economics affiliated to the Area Development Research Group of
Windesheim University of Applied Sciences. In 2011, he obtained his Ph.D. in Spatial Economics from VU
University Amsterdam on the expanded empirical evidence on a series of topics involving current
planning practices of industrial sites. It addressed the economic performance of industrial sites, related
to the nature and scope of (positive and negative) external effects specifically associated with industrial
sites and the underlying factors of local industrial-site provision in the Netherlands. His current research
deals with issues of regional economic monitoring and regional development, especially in north-eastern
Netherlands. As a part of the Area Development Research Group, Friso de Vor has close ties with local
businesses for which he has carried out a wide range of applied research projects. For instance, he is
responsible for the annually published Regio Zwolle Monitor and Hanzelijn Monitor. His work is empirically
and practice oriented, drawing on a large network of research partners from practice to ensure that
research results are applied. Before his current position, he was coordinator and lecturer at the Real
Estate and Urban Development at the Amsterdam School of Real Estate.
CONSORTIUM PARTNERS:
Utrecht Municipality (word count: 249)
Utrecht is developing from a medium-sized provincial city into a regional capital of European importance.
The city's current expansion, more rapid than ever in the city's long history, combines physical expansion
with innovation, major economic opportunities and a new urban dynamism. These developments have
been accompanied by a focus on sustainable and non-motorized mobility. Every day, between 7 a.m. and
7 p.m., over 100,000 cyclists ride through the city centre. To make cycling even more attractive, it is
given priority in the municipal mobility policy. Hereby, city dwellers are invited to help in making Utrecht
the most bicycle-friendly city in the world. A notable example is the so-called City Discussion that took
place in January 2015, when 180 residents shared their ideas about the city’s bicycle friendly future.
Moreover, to accommodate all these cyclists the city needs innovative solutions. In March 2014 the first
of three very big bicycle parkings opened near the Central Train station. As of April 2015, Utrecht is the
first city in the world with a ‘P route bicycle’, which is an innovative system to guide cyclists to free spots
in the bicycle parking. Moreover, to achieve innovation, the city of Utrecht collaborates frequently with
universities and other cities. Utrecht was one of the partner cities of the European program Civitas
MIMOSA (Making Innovation in MObility and Sustainable Actions). In this project, Bologna (Italy),
Funchal (Portual), Gdansk (Poland), Talinn (Estonia) and Utrecht collectively explored new solutions to
sustainable mobility with the support of scientific partners.
Utrecht Province (word count: 116)
Utrecht Province aims to double the number of bicycle trips in the province in 2030 (compared to 2011).
The province wants to reach this in cooperation with municipalities by investing in fast, convenient and
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
15
safe cycle routes to schools, stations and work locations. It acknowledges the increasing importance of
cycle paths for longer distances and the role of cycling in the cities. The mobility vision 2015-2028
allocates 80 million euro to improve cycling infrastructure in Utrecht Province. This includes expanding
cycle paths, building cycle tunnels and bridges and improving traffic lights. The senior cycling policy
advisor involved in the Smart Cycling Futures project, Herbert Tiemens, is also an active and
internationally well-known cycling ambassador and expert.
Amsterdam Municipality (word count: 123)
The City of Amsterdam is considered one of the world’s cycling capitals. The number of bikes in the city
centre is unprecedented compared to the rest of the world. The current policy challenge the city faces is
how to utilize the scarce urban space available in the city in the most optimal fashion. Since they take
up little space, the city considers bicycles a key instrument in its policy challenge to alleviate circulation
pressures. In addition, the City of Amsterdam is keen in encouraging cycling innovations, for instance
through apps and quantitative models. It considers the researchers in this area at knowledge institutes
like the University of Amsterdam, the Free University Amsterdam and the Amsterdam Institute for
Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (AMS) important collaborators.
Amsterdam City Region (word count: 71)
The Stadsregio Amsterdam ('Amsterdam City Region’) is a partnership between 16 municipalities in the
Amsterdam region, collaborating in the area of spatial development; traffic and transport; and economic
affairs. The Stadsregio focuses on direct results for participating municipalities in the form of
improvements to quality of life, accessibility, and economic development. Most recently, the Region has
committed €250M euros to cycling infrastructures to knit the region together for the year 2025.
Zwolle Municipality (word count: 229)
Zwolle was awarded Bicycle city of the Netherlands of 2014. Zwolle is widely recognised for its
comprehensive and innovative approach to cycling. The municipality cooperates with research institutes,
consultants, and the private sector to expand the effectiveness its cycling policy approach. The creation
of the world’s first Bicycle Roundabout, prioritising cyclists over motorised traffic, attests to this
innovative approach. This iconic new design resulted from the municipality’s designer cooperating closely
with knowledge institutes like CROW and civil-society organisations like traffic safety association VVN and
cycling union Fietsersbond. In search of improving bike parking, the municipality cooperated closely with
CrOW/KPVV, Goudappel Coffeng consultancy, and Erasmus University in Rotterdam in setting up pilots
and contributing to publications. To implement the Hanzelijn monitor, the municipality cooperates with
Windesheim University of Applied Sciences. Together with other European cities and agencies, Zwolle
municipality worked on the development of BYPAD–the audit for municipal cycling policy. In recent years
Zwolle municipality also cooperated in the European project Mobile 2020 – a project to increase cycling in
11 European cities through knowledge sharing, which resulted in the Handboek Fiets (Bicycle manual), a
website with initiatives, and project to increase cycling suitable for local cultural preferences. Zwolle was
also a key player in developing recent bicycle innovations like the traffic light waiting-time predictor
(wachttijdvoorpeller, developed in cooperation with Goudappel) and a cyclists’ rain sensor (in cooperation
with Vialis).
Overijssel Province (word count: 82)
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
16
Overijssel considers cycling as a critical mode of transportation. In its Direction document bike (2014),
the Province acknowledges the importance to continue investing in cycling infrastructure. Moreover, the
document specifically points at the importance of chain mobility – the bike as part of a combination of
transportation mode – as well as of recreational cycling because of the region’s strong tourism sector. In
achieving these cycling policy aims, Overijssel collaborates with municipalities like Zwolle and knowledge
institutes like the Windesheim University of Applied Sciences.
Eindhoven Municipality (word count: 211)
The Brabant region with Eindhoven at its heart, known as the Brainport of the Netherlands, has become
Europe’s high-tech region in recent years. The Brainport philosophy is based on encouraging
collaboration with knowledge institutes and private companies to create the foundation for open
innovation: sharing knowledge to multiply knowledge. Many innovations in traffic and transport take
place in Eindhoven and its surrounding cities. Eindhoven’s strategic objectives in transport policy are to
provide a sustainable, safe, and attractive environment for all ‘mobilists’. Using modern technology and
innovative approaches, Eindhoven’s strategic mobility policy plan entitled Eindhoven en Route
(Eindhoven op weg) embraces a number of innovative measures. Since creating space in public space for
active modes like pedestrians and bicyclists are prioritised above other modes, Eindhoven offers the
possibility for innovative urban experiments. Examples of successful cooperation with external partners:
the iconic floating cycling roundabout Hovenring; the bicycle path “Slowlane”, linking industrial areas to
green surroundings; and the Van Gogh-Roosegaarde bicycle path (“Glowing in the dark”). The City of
Eindhoven representatives in the project are Bas Braakman (coordinator cycling policy) and Jan-Willem
Hommes (advisor transport policy), both of whom have extensive experience in multi-disciplinary
processes in collaboration with external partners to ensure that results are innovative as well as social
and governmentally achievable.
Noord-Brabant Province (word count: 86)
The southern Noord-Brabant Province has been recognized as an enterprising, innovative, and successful
Dutch region in Europe, in which high tech is socially well embedded. The close collaboration between the
Brabant partners in national and international networks encourages the development of innovation and
entrepreneurship. The Province has articulated a policy aim to be the country’s most cycle friendly region
by encouraging cycling innovations in particular. In projects, the Province focuses on policy effectiveness
with the generating of data to facilitate data-driven understanding of cycling in Brabant.
CROW (word count: 64)
CROW is the Dutch technology platform for disseminating (practical) expertise in transport,
infrastructure, and public space. CROW is a not-for-profit organisation, in which the government and
businesses collaborate through road design, construction, and management and other traffic and
transport related facilities. Active in conducting research and issuing regulations, CROW focuses on
disseminating knowledge to target groups. One of the parts of CROW is “CROW-Fietsberaad”.
Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (word count: 127)
The Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KiM) performs research in the area of mobility.
Through exploratory studies and policy analyses, the institute lays the basis for government mobility
policy. The institute’s products are independent of policy-based and political steering. The policy
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
17
Directorates-General of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the Inspectorate for
Transport, Public Works and Water Management (ILT) are involved in drawing up the research program
of the KiM. KiM conducts analyses of mobility, which is subsequently incorporated in policy. KiM uses the
analyses to strengthen and broaden the strategic knowledge base for mobility policy to enhance the
quality of mobility policy through 'evidence-based policy': policy choices based on relevant facts,
comprehensive analyses, and reliable risk estimates in the context of (inter)nationally available research.
6. Management of the consortium (word count: 225)
SMART CYCLING FUTURES (SCF) brings together knowledge institutes, urban partners and CROW to
serve its stakeholder community. The governance structure, to be detailed in the Consortium Agreement,
is summarised below.
Figure 1: Schematic depiction of the governance structure
The Project Coordinator, assisted by a process manager and post-doctoral researcher, carries out central
management. The coordinator is overall responsible for SCF and chairs the Steering Committee (SC) and
General Assembly (GA).
In the GA, each project partner has one representative. The GA advises the SC on the research strategy
and rearrangements of tasks and budget. The GA convenes three times per year.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
18
The SC is responsible for operational decisions and for monitoring the work plan and budget and consists
of all sub-project-leaders. The SC meets at least 4 times per year.
The SC and GA are advised by an International Advisory Board (IAB). Members of the IAB are key
representatives from the international academic community and the stakeholder community. The IAB
interacts with the consortium annually.
To maximise SCF’s impact, the project engages with the Larger Stakeholder Community. This community
includes Fietscommunity 2.0; Fietsforce (VNG, IPO); Nederland Fietsland; De Fietsersbond; VERDUS;
and Platform31. Crucially important to the project are the livings labs and the annual cycling conferences
organised by the consortium. CROW, with its extensive network in the cycling community, are
instrumental in this out-reach program.
7. List of key publications
Te Brömmelstroet, M., Bertolini, L. (2008). Developing Land use and Transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transport Policy 15 (4): 251-259. Buunk, W.W., van der Weide, L.M.C., 2014. A value-oriented approach to discursive analysis of urban and regional planning. In Silva, E.A., et al (eds.). The Routledge handbook of planning research methods chapter 3.8, 213-224. London: Routledge. Van den Dool, L., Hendriks, F., Schaap, L., Gianoli, A. eds. (2015). The Quest for Good Urban Governance. Theoretical Reflections and Practical Challenges. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Evans, J., Karvonen, A., Raven, R.P.J.M. eds. (2016 forthcoming). The Experimental City. New York: Routledge. Farla, J., Alkemade, F., Suurs, R.A.A. (2010). Analysis of barriers in the transition toward sustainable mobility in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77 (8): 1260-1269. Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R., Coenen, L. (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (6): 991-998. Harms, L., Bertolini, L., Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2014). Spatial and social variations in cycling patterns in a mature cycling country: exploring differences and trends. Journal of Transport and Health 1(4): 232-242. Harms, L., Bertolini, L., te Brömmelstroet, M. (2015). Performance of Municipal Cycling Policies in Medium-Sized Cities in the Netherlands since 2000. Transport Reviews, Transport Reviews, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1059380 Oldenziel, Ruth, Albert de la Bruhèze, A., 2012. Cycling in a Global World: Introduction to Special Section. Transfers 2 (2): 22-30. Oldenziel, A. Albert de la Bruhèze, Veraart, F. eds. (2016 forthcoming). Hundred Years of Cycling Policy and Practice in Urban Europe. Oldenziel, R., Trischler, H. eds. (2015). Cycling and Recycling: Histories of Sustainable Practices. New York: Berghahn. Popkema, M. (2014). Tussen Techniek en Planning. De opkomst van het vak Verkeerskunde in Nederland 1950-1975. (diss) Amsterdam: AUP. (On traffic engineering and integrated planning. Development of the Transportation Engineering discipline in the Netherlands (1950–1975). Popkema, M., Elzen, B. (2001). The Living Laboratory. Introducing electric transit in Chattanooga. In: Elzen, B. (ed). Towards an interactive technology policy. Tackling Transportation Problems around the world. Case-studies used in the INTEPOL project. Enschede: Universiteit Twente, 333-347.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
19
Popkema, M., van Schagen, I. (2006). Modifying behavior by smart design: the example of the Dutch sustainable safe road system. In P.P. Verbeek and A. Slob (eds.). User behavior and Technology Development. Shaping Sustainable relations between Consumers and Technologies. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Raven, R.P.J.M., Kern, F., Smith, A., Jacobsson, S., Verhees, B. (2015 forthcoming). The politics of innovation spaces. Environmental Innovation and Social Transitions. Raven, R.P.J.M., Schot, J.W., Berkhout, F. (2012). Space and scale in socio-technical transitions. Environmental Innovation and Social Transitions 4: 63-78 van Rijnsoever, F., Farla, J., Dijst, M.J. (2009). Consumer car preferences and information search channels. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14 (5): 334-342. Schaap, L. Daemen, H.H.F.M. eds. (2012). Renewal in European Local Democracies, Puzzles, Dilemmas and Options. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Scheepers, E., Wendel-Vos, W., van Kempen, E., Int Panis, L., Maas, J., Stipdonk, H., Moerman, M., den Hertog, F., Staatsen, B., van Wesemael, P.J.V., Schuit, J. (2013). Personal and environmental characteristics associated with choice of active transport modes versus car use for different trip purposes of trips up to 7.5 kilometers in the Netherlands. PLoS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073105 Scheepers, E., Wendel-Vos, W., den Broeder, J.M., van Kempen, E., van Wesemael, P.J.V., Schuit, A. (2014). Shifting from car to active transport: a systemic review of effectiveness of interventions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 70: 264-280. Schot, J., Schipper, F. (2011). Experts and European Transport Integration 1945-1958. Journal of European Public Policy 18 (2): 274-293. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique. European Planning Studies 23: 1759-1769. Stam, E. (2007). Why Butterflies Don’t Leave. Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography 83: 27-50. De Vor, F., Buunk, W.W. (2014). Regio Zwolle Monitor 2014. Zwolle: Stichting Metropool Zwolle. De Vor, F., De Groot, H.L.F. (2011). The impact of industrial sites on residential property values: a hedonic pricing analysis from the Netherlands. Regional Studies 45: 609–623.
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
8a. Description of the proposed research (word count: 1473)
Introduction
There is a growing consensus that cycling has a positive impact on social and ecological sustainability.
For this reason, most cities and urban regions have articulated ambitious cycling policies to encourage
growth. This project explores how cycling innovations may help build the foundations for vital, more
resilient and liveable urban regions. We believe the answer lies in introducing socially embedded
“smartness” into the cycling system. Examples of innovative smart cycling projects include e-bike, bike
sharing schemes, bike-traffic light communication systems creating green wave for cyclists, smartphone
apps monetizing cycling kilometres, and micro-design interventions improving cycling experience. These
socially embedded innovations promise to deliver substantial benefits to urban areas in terms of
accessibility, social equality, health, liveability, and greenhouse gas emission reductions. The project
defines smart innovations as socially embedded innovations, combining ICT-based solutions with social
innovations like novel governance arrangements, new business models, user-friendly solutions, and
innovative use of the functioning urban environments.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
20
Thus far, a host of smart cycling innovations have not been fully realized because they are not yet
embedded in existing urban environments, infrastructures, and institutions. Indeed, we lack an
understanding to what extent these innovations have either positive or negative social, economic, and
environmental impacts. How may various innovative projects be governed with new potential roles for
public and private partners? How may such projects be scaled-up to help urban regions transition more
rapidly towards a more resilient and pleasant living environment? To investigate – and to help realize –
these smart cycling futures, we:
• Develop transdisciplinary insights into conditions and pathways for upscaling smart city cycling
initiatives;
• Closely interact with regional and urban stakeholders in smart cycling living labs in 4 Dutch urban
regions;
• Understand and assess impacts of smart cycling for resilient and liveable urban regions.
Social and policy relevance Cycling offers relatively simple solutions for a host of complex and persistent social and urban challenges
(De Hartog et al. 2010; Pucher et al. 2010). While Dutch urban residents already make more trips by
bicycle compared to other transit modes, policy makers are articulating even larger ambitions to increase
this share to deal with contemporary urban challenges. Somewhat surprisingly, there is a fundamental
lack of policy-relevant knowledge in anticipating how changing mobility patterns and introducing smart
technologies and new governance arrangements are shaping the future of cycling. This is problematic
because these innovations have the potential to solving several pressing social and environmental
problems. Urban, regional, and provincial authorities acknowledge their lack of understanding and the
policy challenges they face. Because the proposed research project promises to provide concrete answers
to the policy issues, the following regional and city authorities are fully committed to participating in this
project:
• Eindhoven municipality and North-Brabant Province. The research project relates to various
policy ambitions: Eindhoven op Weg (2015); Gebiedsvisie Brainport City (2020-2040);
Coalitieakkoord Expeditie Eindhoven 2014-2018; Fiets in de Versnelling (2010-2020); and
Samenwerkingsagenda Brabantstad Fiets 2015-2018;
• Zwolle municipality and Overijssel Province. The research project relates to various policy
ambitions: Mobiliteitsvisie Zwolle; Actieplan Bereikbaarheid Zwolle; Coalitieakkoord Gemeente
Objective 3: business models for smart cycling futures
Introduction
Objective 3 connects findings from objectives 1 and 2 with the business model literature. We compare
and design smart cycling business model innovations that explicitly take variety in spatial contexts into
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
27
account.
Methods
Analytically objective 3 draws on business model literature – in particular the business model canvas
approach developed by Oosterwalder (2010). We use the business model approach as a means to better
understand how ventures in specific local contexts can successfully impact the transition towards smart
cycling urban futures.
The transition towards smart cycling futures requires new business models spanning conventional
boundaries in mobility services. A transition to smart cycling, for instance, may lead to new combinations
with existing mobility services (e.g. train-bike combinations), a more active role of users (e.g. in the
case of peer-to-peer bike sharing), or an increase of public values like cleaner air and a healthier
population. Business models for smart cycling futures need to enable capturing this “multiple value
creation” process (Zott et al., 2001). To develop such insights, we carry out:
1. desk research of existing smart cycling business models in the Netherlands as well as abroad like
in Copenhagen, Toulouse, and Portland;
2. comparative, in-depth analysis of the business models applied in the living labs in the urban
regions.
Expected results
A critical overview of business models for smart cycling initiatives, including their spatial variation in
relation to various urban institutional logics.
Scientific relevance
The scientific relevance of this sub-project lies in bringing together recent institutional theory with socio-
technical transitions literature to contribute to a much-improved understanding about the interplay
between urban and institutional transformative change.
The socio-technical transitions literature witnessed a strong rise in interest to study spatial patterns in
transition processes (Coenen et al., 2012), and deepened its understanding of transitions in urban
contexts (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Hodson and Marvin, 2012). The most recent discussions in the
transitions literature relate to the inclusion of institutional theory to better understand inertia of existing
socio-technical systems (such as the bicycle system) and the mechanisms that may lead to overcoming
these forces of inertia. So far only a few contributions have made this their core interest (Fuenfschilling
and Truffer, 2014).
Recent sociological approaches in institutional theory are promising to combine fruitfully with transition
theory. They charter ways in which entrepreneurs and other social change agents collaborate in
reconfiguring institutional contexts (c.f. Garud et al., 2007). However, this literature neither explains how
institutional transitions occur within specific places (e.g. urban region) nor engages with the materiality
of institutional change. This sub-project fills this gap.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
28
Sub-project 2: Social and spatial conditions (1 PhD student)
WORD COUNT: 1274
Project leader
The Center for Urban Studies of the University of Amsterdam has an outstanding track record in studying
relations between spatial and social characteristics of the urban-regional environment and mobility
behaviour of citizens and companies. This project applies, tests, and advances this knowledge in the case
of smart cycling futures.
Objectives and research questions
Introduction
Spatial and social environments mutually shape the mobility-related choices that people make. In one
direction, such contexts may severely constrain people’s choices: e.g. high status of car ownership or
long distances between urban functions making active forms of mobility less attractive. In the opposite
direction, socio-spatial environments are also affected by these mobility choices: e.g. high cycling shares
increase pressure for more finely grained location strategies for retailers or cycling role models may
change specific pre-descriptive cultural norms. These empirical and conceptual relations between spatial
arrangements and mobility choices have been captured under the heading of “mobility environments”
(Bertolini and le Clercq, 2003). Van Acker et al. (2010) suggest similar relations between social
arrangements and mobility choices.
So far, these studies systematically ignore or severely underestimate the specifics of the bicycle (i.e. its
distinct speed, range, flexibility, agility, interactivity, links with other modes). If the bicycle is mentioned,
it is aggregated into ‘active modes’. The mature and long standing cycling tradition in the Netherlands
provides a fertile base to add much-needed knowledge on this unsystematic state of affairs.
This sub-project identifies how spatial and social environments interact with individual mobility choices
for or against (smart) cycling. It builds on recent cycling studies and tests more general theories on
relations between mobility choices and socio-spatial characteristics. The multidisciplinary approach allows
us to make use of methodological and epistemological triangulation.
Objectives:
1. Identify reciprocal relations between spatial environments and differences in aggregated cycling
dynamics;
2. Identify reciprocal relations between individual cycling choices and social environmental
characteristics;
3. Assess the influence of spatial and social environments on smart cycling behaviour.
Research questions:
1. How do spatial environments and aggregated cycling dynamics influence each other?
2. How do social environments and individual cycling choices influence each other?
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
29
3. How does socio-spatial environments influence smart cycling behaviour?
Objective 1: Spatial characteristics and aggregated cycling dynamics
Introduction
27% of all trips in the Netherlands are made by bicycle. However, recent studies show that spectacular
differences exist between spatial contexts (Harms et al. 2014b). The Land Use Transport Feedback Cycle
(Wegener and Fürst 1999) provides a theoretical understanding of how spatial environments and
individual mobility choices are related. In using this framework, empirical studies (e.g. Kenworthy and
Laube, 1999) discovered distinct spatial contexts around cars, public transit, and walking. While cycling
is mentioned, it is grouped together with walking. This severely limits our understanding of the unique
relations that cycling has with its spatial surroundings. Its speed is higher and its range larger than
pedestrianism; it is more flexible, agile and interactive than public transit and automobility; and it
creates synergetic characteristics when combined with other modes. Among others, these unique
dimensions suggest specific reciprocal relations with the spatial environment.
Approach
Working closely together with experts from Kennis Instituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid (KiM), we use
innovative data sources with a higher spatial resolution than used heretofore. OVIN mobility diaries
(CBS) are combined with Mezuro data (origin-destination based on mobile phone data) and local mobility
surveys from the four urban regions to map mobility behaviour. This is linked to fine-grained spatial and
social information on a 6-postal code level (CBS) to identify correlations between cycling behaviour and
spatial characteristics, while controlling for social composition effects. Longitudinal datasets provide the
opportunity to disentangle causalities in both directions.
Expected results
A richer understanding of how spatial conditions shape (and are shaped by) the choice for cycling as a
transportation mode. This leads to policy recommendations about where and how to invest in cycling
infrastructure/spatial configurations to obtain the highest impact.
Objective 2: Social environments and individual smart cycling choices
Introduction
There are strong indications that next to spatial characteristics, individual mobility choices are severely
influenced by social environments (e.g. Schwanen and Mokhtarian, 2005). Studies increasingly go
beyond socio-economic variables in revealing the importance of lifestyles, status, descriptive norms,
habits, and attitudes for individual mobility choices. These social arrangements are not only independent
variables, but are in turn subjective to continuous change through “life events,” socialization, and the
mobility choices themselves (e.g. Albrecht et al., 2015). Studies on these “social mobility arrangements”
continue to systematically underestimate cycling’s unique characteristics.
We disentangle these interacting influences on choices around smart cycling by applying theories from
sociology and human geography. Our analyses build on exploratory work by our own team and other
colleagues (e.g. Heinen and Handy 2012).
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
30
Approach
Based on findings of objective 1, we select eight extreme environments: one with increasing- and one
with declining cycling rates within each of the four regions. These are used to deepen our understanding
how social arrangements interact with individual choices regarding smart cycling. We combine
quantitative event history analysis, using a stratified sample from TNS-NIPO Mobility Panel, with rich
ethnographic work aimed at understanding a) how and why historical and current choices regarding
cycling are influenced by social arrangements; and b) how these choices in turn affect these social
arrangements.
Expected results
Deeper understanding of why and how individuals make choices for or against smart cycling, and how
these choices interact with social arrangements. It provides policy makers with a richer understanding of
how to influence mobility choices for or against smart cycling and how social arrangements constrain or
support this.
Objective 3: Socio-spatial influence on smart cycling behaviour
Introduction
To understand interactions between smart cycling interventions and spatial and social environments, we
use the living lab method as a hands-on research design. Studies on the effectiveness of generic cycling
interventions have applied only historical, large-N analysis (e.g. Forsyth and Krizek, 2010). The living
labs combine several smart cycling technologies (see Appendices). This allows us to perform ex-ante,
during, and ex-post evaluations to map these interventions’ effectiveness. Moreover, we focus on how
spatial and social conditions play a role and how the effects are distributed over different social groups
and spatial environments.
Approach
In each of the four urban regions, we use on-street selection methods to recruit participants. A random
half use smart cycling solutions, for which we assess effects on conscious and unconscious behaviour.
The other half is used as control group. We use a longitudinal design in which respondents receive 3
surveys while their behaviour is tracked during 1 month. This combination between active and passive
measurement creates a complete picture of how smart cycling innovations affect cycling behaviour.
Expected results
The unique evaluation material adds important knowledge to debates on the influence of smart
interventions on mobility choices and behaviour.
Scientific relevance
This sub-project contributes relevant empirical and conceptual understanding of the specifics of cycling in
urban planning debates. In particular, breakthroughs are expected around how to disentangle the
relationships between spatial-social characteristics and mobility choices. In addition, it adds specific
insights in individual decisions for or against cycling by merging insights from sociology and transport-
and urban geography. Although there has been quite some attention for social and spatial relations with
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
31
individual mobility choices of car drivers and public transport riders, there is hardly any systematic
attention to cyclists. Even in the Netherlands, where 27% of all trips are made by bicycle, there is only
limited and very dispersed understanding of why people chose cycling as mode of transport, what
(un)reasoned factors influences them, what routes they take and how the choice–in turn–shapes the
spatial and social environment. This sub-project adds ground-breaking insights to all of these themes.
Sub-project 3: Innovation in the design and governance of urban forms for smart cycling (2
PhD students)
WORD COUNT: 1271
Project leader
The School of Innovation Sciences at Eindhoven University of Technology is an international research
leader in long-term cycling policies and practice nationally and globally; the Urban Design and Planning
Faculty specializes in developing concepts and strategies for sustainable and evolutionary urban
development. Smart Mobility is a strategic research area of this University. The PhD students are
partially based at Utrecht University and the University of Amsterdam to exploit synergies. An expert
from Tilburg School of Politics and Public Administration also participates in the supervision.
Objectives and research questions
Introduction People’s mobility patterns – and cycling in particular – challenge traditional urban forms and governance
arrangements. Although Jane Jacobs famously critiqued already many decades ago, the way urban
development planned around automobility, the walkable and cyclable city has only been developed in fits
and starts, if at all (Jacobs 1961). In terms of governance, both cycling and pedestrianism have had little
to no institutional champions within the city, the region, or the nation state in Europe, which had a
severe impact on urban forms (De la Bruhèze and Veraart, 1999).
Urban forms and governance arrangements are relatively fixed and cause severe path dependency. The
call for more sustainable, smart urban futures (Hodson and Marvin, 2014) needs to engage with
questions on how relations between urban infrastructures and governance can be adapted to cater for
smart cycling initiatives (Bulkeley et al., 2014).
This sub-project links empirical and conceptual understanding from urban planning, public
administration, governance studies, and urban history. It explores relationships between the built
environment and governance when it comes to sustainable mobility. Within urban planning, socio-
technical experimentations (smart-cities, eco-cities, green cities etc.) and sustainable development are
booming (de Jong et al., 2015; Echenique et al., 2012) but without systematic attention to cycling.
Within public administration research on sustainable urban transit, governance has been an important
research theme, revealing numerous stakeholders at multiple geographic scales that defy traditional
governance mandates. There is still a lack of insights in effective ways to adapt existing infrastructures
and policies involving (organized and unorganized) users.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
32
Sub-project 3 identifies how typical Dutch polynuclear spatial arrangements can transition towards smart
cycling futures by building on existing (and adapting) urban forms and governance arrangements, and
tests strategic interventions.
Objectives:
1. To compare historically developed planning and policy instruments and their design concepts for
bikeability and walkability;
2. To understand effectiveness of governance concepts and strategies applied, with particular focus
on the relation between city and regional public actors;
3. To develop new, and adapt existing, concepts and strategies to meet socio-economic challenges
for smart cycling urban futures.
These objectives are addressed in two PhD projects. The first PhD focuses on innovation in the design of
urban forms, supervised by both Eindhoven University of Technology and University of Amsterdam. The
second PhD focuses on innovation in governance, supervised by both Eindhoven University of Technology
and Utrecht University in collaboration with Tilburg.
PhD 1: innovation in the design of urban forms
Planning ideologies and shifts in urban forms in the four urban regions have left a legacy of infrastructure
both constraining and enabling the creation of sustainable urban regions for the future. Fundamental
questions on the presence of various scales of infrastructure are answered through qualitative empirical
research methods.
Research questions:
1. How can urban planning and design strategies support the transition from urban and regional
infrastructures (including tertiary and green networks) from auto mobility towards smart cycling
futures?
2. What are long-term urban design challenges that need to be overcome to better integrate
smart cycling infrastructures with the needs and lifestyles of its users?
Approach
This research contrasts and combines quantitative data (morphological analysis, archival map research,
spatial policy, and satellite imagery analysis where available) and qualitative data (semi-structured
interviews with community residents, leaders, local officials, and experts) in the four participating urban
regions to identify constraining material factors, historic and contemporary challenges, and enabling
strategies for change. We cover different geographical scales from regional to local. Lastly, the proposed
urban design interventions are tested in living lab experiments in the four urban regions in key locations
such as train stations, inner city circulation, and interurban fast-lane connections.
Expected results
We create a systematic overview on spatial urban concepts and strategies that shape bikeability. As the
long-term legacy of current spatial arrangements is powerful, establishing an empirical monitoring
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
33
system to evaluate their effectiveness is necessary. The analysis aids researchers and policymakers to
redefine the legacy of the built environment and urban concepts for more sustainable redevelopment.
PhD 2: innovation in governance
Multi-level governance analysis and innovation have been popular within European policy making
(Hooghe and Marks 2001), but not applied to smart and sustainable mobility. Understanding the multi-
level governance challenges is crucial since the shift to smart cycling futures requires parallel innovation
in governance. Change depends on cooperation and consensus with cities-regions and provincial-
national governmental mandates as well as with non-governmental actors. Each contributes to the
overall framework for sustainable and robust urban regions.
Automobility and public transit have been institutionally and politically well-embedded (Walks 2015), but
cycling has been an institutional stepchild. By default, national policymakers left utilitarian cycling to
cities on the premise that cycling is only of interest for distances below 5 kilometres. They have
overlooked exponential developments in access- and egress trips, ICT, and e-bike developments, leaving
users of these innovations mostly to their own device. We examine multi-level governance barriers and
opportunities for more robust smart cycling futures within overall mobility arrangements. The research
compares and contrasts multi-governance challenges from perspectives of policymakers as well as
(organized and unorganized) users.
Research questions:
1. How can governance innovation be developed to bridge the needs of policymakers and users?
2. What is the role of multi-level governance structure in supporting the new technologies and ICT
of smart cycling futures?
Approach
Theory of multi-level governance shapes our stakeholder analysis around institutional and political
dimensions of cycling policy and practices. Our methodological approach is qualitative and conceptual.
We examine long-term traffic-count methodologies, policy papers, current cycling innovations, cycling
organisational archives, ethnographic sources to analyse relationships between multi-level state- (city,
inter-urban, region, national) and non-state actors (e.g. cycling activists, employers, and unorganized
users) since the 1990s when Masterplan Fiets was launched to analyse the constraining and enabling
factors shaping policies and practices. We identify points of multi-level political negotiations and
bottlenecks as well as opportunities in implementing selected cycling innovations. Interventions for this
are tested in several living lab experiments around the four urban regions through observational analysis
on infrastructural hubs such as train stations, key inner city intersections, and interurban fast-lane
connections.
Expected results
Findings on multi-level governance challenges and opportunities allow policymakers to plan for an
institutionally more robust transition to smart cycling futures. We extend the multi-level governance
analysis to non-governmental actors by testing strategies to involve organized and unorganized mobility
users in the cycling innovations.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
34
Relevance
Metropolitan and urban regions are confronted with historically established urban forms and governance
structures in their ambitions to change. Calls for new urbanism, compact urban development, and smart
growth (Flint, 2006) beg the question for smart mobility choices. In such new visions, government
planners, private developers, and ngo’s offer cycling as both as symbol and fact of a sustainable built
environment for the future by (Gibbs et al., 2013). Lack of fundamental research into how urban
networks and governance structures should adapt to meet the mobility needs of contemporary urban
regions, however, impends both knowledge and policy transfers (nationally and globally). The subproject
offers an integrated analysis of the built environment and policy to provide spatial and governance
arrangements that account for local and regional differences thus far lacking.
Sub-project 4: Synergy and synthesis (1 post-doc)
WORD COUNT: 1195
Project leader
Utrecht University (Copernicus Institute) is leading this sub-project. The post-doc is based 50% at
Utrecht University and 50% at the University of Amsterdam.
Objectives and research questions
Introduction
This sub-project theorizes on the role of living labs in smart cycling transitions, ensures conceptual and
empirical synthesis between the sub-projects, and engages in international comparisons with selected
cities elsewhere. This is based on a review of relevant academic literature about cycling, living labs, and
long-term sociotechnical transitions; an international comparison of smart cycling technologies and
innovations and their context in six front-running cities across the world; engagement with living labs in
a transdisciplinary approach; and continuous coordination of alignment between the sub-projects and
interaction with the cycling community.
Objectives:
1. Develop a conceptual framework about the role of living labs in enabling smart cycling futures;
2. Map international conditions for smart cycling futures to be applied in the living labs (‘best
practices’);
3. Engage with the living labs by pro-actively suggesting the implementation of insights gathered
from objective 1, 2 and with research findings from the other sub-projects in living labs.
Research questions:
1. How can the role of living labs in smart cycling transitions be understood?
2. What conditions and mechanisms support/hinder smart cycling futures?
3. How can the Dutch context be compared with and learn from international best practices?
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
35
Objective 1: Develop a conceptual framework on living labs in smart cycling transitions
Introduction
In order to effectively study the smart innovations in the living labs, we synthesize relevant literature on
the most important conditions for smart cycling future in an overarching framework. This framework is
applied and tested in an international best practice comparison and, subsequently, in the living labs.
Approach
The literature review focuses on three strands of literature. Recent “urban living lab” literature (e.g.
Karvonen and Van Heur, 2014) describes how cities can serve as breeding grounds for innovation
through collaboration of stakeholders with different backgrounds. Sociotechnical transitions literature
provides insights on how sociotechnical systems change. Recent contributions on how already existing
technologies like the bicycle resurge (e.g. Shove 2012) and on how spatial dimensions impact (e.g.
Coenen et al. 2012) are particularly relevant here. The third strand of literature is transport planning and
geography, which shows an increasing interest in cycling. From this perspective and in close collaboration
with sub-project 2 it is particularly relevant to understand how spatial circumstances affect cycling in
living labs, both in terms of different scales like neighbourhoods, cities, and regions (Harms et al. 2014)
and in terms of the role that policies play (Pucher et al. 2010).
Expected results
A conceptual framework about conditions and mechanisms for the effectiveness of smart innovations in
the cycling system and how living labs can play an intermediary role. This framework is applied and
tested under objective 2 and 3.
Objective 2: Conditions and mechanisms from international best practices
Introduction
Cycling innovations occur in many different contexts. We apply the conceptual framework in an
international comparison of best practices. This provides more insight in the conditions and mechanisms
that affected the effectiveness of different cycling innovations. Furthermore, it helps refine the
conceptual framework.
Approach
The conceptual framework developed under objective 1 serves as the basis for the international
comparison. The research object is the urban region that often encompasses a number of related cycling
innovations. The comparative case study applies desk research (e.g. policy documents, secondary data)
and interviews with key experts and stakeholders. The six cases are selected for having innovative
cycling developments and policies. The case selection aims to a wide variety of possible innovations,
cycling policies and national contexts (Gerring 2007). The following table presents the case study cities
and the rationale behind selecting them. During the research we remain open for new relevant cases that
emerge.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
36
Case cities to be included in the international comparison
City Rationale
London (UK) Large bike-sharing scheme and various technological
innovations in a dense mobility landscape with several other
modes.
Copenhagen (Denmark) Internationally regarded as a long-time frontrunner in
innovative cycling policies and micro-design.
Munich (Germany) Innovative and active marketing and education policies (e.g.
Radlhauptstadt). Pro-active in increasing cycling in a context
where it has already a relative large modal share.
Portland (USA) Frontrunner in the United States, famous for its bottom-up
approach and spatial planning. Situated in a strong
automobility-dominated cultural landscape.
Toulouse (France) Active cycling policies including a bike-sharing scheme.
Representing a context where the bicycle is actively re-
introduced.
Hangzhou (China) One of the world’s largest bike-sharing systems, representing
a national context where cycling is part of its recent political
heritage.
Expected results
This part (objective 2) produces an overview of conditions and mechanisms that affect the effectiveness
of cycling conditions. It also generates a refined conceptual framework.
Objective 3: Living-labs and project management support
Introduction
The researcher pro-actively links the living labs with emerging insights from sub-projects and vice versa.
Project management support involves both collaboration among the researchers in the four sub-projects
and between the academic researchers and stakeholders from practice. The post-doc works side-by-side
with the project coordinator and with a dedicated process manager. As a team, they support critical
phases of the project, including the start-up phase, annual cycling conferences, and dissemination,
engagement, and outreach activities.
Approach
While the innovators and local actors primarily drive the living labs, the research engages in them by
providing insights from other contexts and by ‘reflecting-in-action’ on the developments during the
process. This so-called action research ensures that scientific insights find their way to practice in a
timely manner (and vice versa) rather than when the process has already ended (e.g. Rotmans et al.,
2001; Straatemeier et al., 2010). The collaboration with academics from different fields, civil servants,
and entrepreneurs provides the research project a transdisciplinary character, in which local and
experience-based knowledge is taken into account (e.g. Nowotny, 2004).
The researcher organizes regular meetings between the sub-projects to safeguard the central focus of
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
37
the project. In addition every 4-6 month, a workshop is organized in which academic researchers and
practitioners exchange experiences. These meetings have a strong interactive character and include
innovative meeting approaches like group model building (e.g. Andersen et al., 2007). The post-doc
reflects on this transdisciplinary approach in a publishable paper.
Expected results
The pro-active role in coordination and alignment ensures that the proposed project Smart Cycling
Futures functions as an integrated whole, in which the sum is larger than its parts. The living labs
generate lessons for future living labs, both with regards to the success factors as well as the potential
barriers. The transdisciplinary and interactive character of this sub-project, ensures social learning
among academics and practitioners. Objective 3 leads to a final version of the conceptual framework on
conditions and mechanisms that affect the effectiveness of cycling innovations
Scientific relevance
This sub-project develops and empirically assesses a conceptual framework about smart urban cycling
futures, a topic that has hitherto not been addressed academically. Particularly the novel approach of
studying the smartification of cycling from a combination of transport planning and sociotechnical
transition studies perspective fills an important gap in the academic debate. We also reflect on
transdisciplinary approaches in science and contribute to the academic debates on the topic.
Part B: Sub-project University of Applied Sciences
Sub-project 5: Impacts and Vitality (2 junior researchers)
WORD COUNT: 1114
Project leader
At the Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, professorship Area Development has a track
record on lateral impact studies on the relation between investments in regional transportation
infrastructure and their economic performance (De Vor and Buunk, 2014; De Vor and Buunk, 2015).
Objectives and research questions
Introduction
We enrich insights into how and to what extent smart cycling transitions affect cities and urban regions.
Increased cycling in urban and regional mobility is believed to contribute to the ‘vitality’ of urban regions
in terms of social, economic, and environmental benefits. We develop a framework to measure potential
effects associated with implementation smart cycling innovations. To do so, the concept of ‘vitality’ is
operationalized.
The policy makers’ call for structural changes of transport systems benefitting cyclists is motivated by
direct and indirect policy benefits associated with cycling (e.g. improving health, solving congestion, and
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
38
decreasing air pollution). However, most gains policy goals promise lack solid empirical evidence. Faced
with financial constraints, policy makers and planners need such empirical knowledge to better decide
how to spend public funds effectively and wisely.
In operationalizing ‘vitality’, we collaborate with Sub-project 1, in which institutional logics of the cycling
system are mapped. For the impact analysis, we collaborate with Sub-project 2, which maps the socio-
spatial dynamics of mobility.
Objectives:
1. Developing a framework for assessing the impact of (smart) cycling on the economic, social and
environmental vitality of a urban regions;
2. Measuring and explaining variety in the impact of smart cycling innovations on the vitality of
urban regions;
3. Estimating potential effects of upscaling smart cycling innovations.
Research questions:
1. How do smart and innovative improvements of cycling facilities affect the vitality of urban
regions?
2. How do these effects vary across spatial contexts and why?
3. What are social costs and benefits of upscaling bicycle innovations as part of cycling
infrastructure in urban regions?
Objective 1: developing a conceptual framework for impact measurement
Introduction
Many cities seek to change their transport systems to encourage cycling as a means to accommodate
growing mobility and congestion. The numbers of cyclists has rapidly increased; so has the networks of
dedicated cycling lanes and a range of services created to promote intermodal connections between
cycling and public/private transit. Both functioning and novel innovations may further reinforce this
cycling infrastructure that may structurally shift urban mobility patterns and urban life. Yet, we have
limited insight into how these cycling infrastructural improvements contribute to creating economically,
socially and environmentally resilient and liveable cities.
Approach
We combine an empirical approach with developing a conceptual framework to operationalize the vitality
of urban regions. This framework is grounded in economic theory (e.g. economic growth, labour
productivity, rate of employment, sector structure, and business climate); social theory (e.g. healthy
living, working environments, and social interactions), and environmental theory (e.g. air quality, traffic
safety, and social equity) (Olde-Kalter, 2008; Rojas-Rueda, 2011; Pen et al., 2012).
The empirical research starts with describing and characterizing existing mobility patterns and systems of
the participating urban regions. We apply regression analysis to develop and test vitality indicators. We
use the resulting framework to describe and map the relation between transportation system and the
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
39
vitality of the four urban regions. Developments in modal split, network connectivity, range, and user
preferences are central topics in this research objective.
Expected results
We produce an analytical framework that assesses the effect of cycling on the vitality of urban regions.
The comparative analysis of the urban regions generates empirical evidence for policy-making regarding
cycling investments.
Objective 2: measuring spatial variation in the impact of smart cycling innovations
Introduction
Cycling is said to benefit job creation, boost regional economic activity, encourage workers’ economic
activity, and help saving social costs like of health care. Empirical evidence for these effects is scarce at
best (Flusche, 2012). Empirical data on the impact of cycling innovations regarding cities’ vitality is
paramount. We assess cycling innovations’ impact on urban regions with the framework developed under
objective 1. The concept of ‘bikenomics’ (Blue, 2013), mapping bicycle-related social and economic costs
and benefits, is used as a starting point.
Approach
The impact of selected bicycle innovations on the vitality of urban regions is empirically analysed. We pay
specific attention to quantifying and understanding the sources of variations regarding performance of
cycling innovations’ and possible economic spin-offs. Our analysis maps social and economic costs-
benefits both on a business as well as on a regional scale using the framework developed under objective
1. The innovations tested in Living Labs are the empirical basis for our analysis. To disentangle the
impact, we do not only measure effects (like in transport, health, and environment), but also the factors
that can explain regional variation in these impacts.
Expected results:
The research provides an overview of impacts of selected cycling innovation cases and their contribution
to vitality of urban regions. It generates crucial insight in dynamics and performance of individual cases
of bicycle innovations in terms of specific micro economic and regional economic effects, and their
regional variation.
Objective 3: potential for upscaling of bicycle innovations
Introduction
Smart cycling futures (e.g. cycling innovations in facilities, smart mobility solutions, and novel
infrastructure) typically start as pilot projects. In this objective, we predict the social cost-and-benefit of
upscaling such innovations to network or urban region levels.
Approach
We use the outcomes of case study research into selected cycling innovations (sub-project 4) as input in
scenario analysis in order to predict potential social costs and benefits of upscaling. We apply expert
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
40
judgment and the Delphi method to identify success factors for possible broader application of the cycling
innovations. In combination with Sub-projects 1 and 2, the differences in institutional and socio-spatial
patterns of bicycle innovations in each of the urban regions are taken into account.
We develop a business case framework (Gossling & Choi 2015) to investigate social cost-and-benefit
analysis of upscaling smart cycling innovations. This framework takes costs and benefits for an urban
region into account. We use the living labs as input for probabilistic scenario analyses (e.g. Monte Carlo
simulations). An adaptation of the renewed WLO scenario’s (Janssen et al., 2006, to be renewed 2015 by
CPB and PBL) are used as a basis for urban region scenario’s that are sensitive to a city’s regional
strategy.
Expected results
A framework to assess the potential costs and benefits of upscaling bicycle innovations.
Scientific relevance
This sub-project fills gaps in planning, transportation engineering, regional economics and scenario
studies. The concept of vitality is developed into a framework allowing scientific analysis of mobility
patterns and regional development, as well as policy evaluation in practice. The concept of bikenomics is
further refined for the Dutch context to enable linkages between business-case approaches and regional
economic approaches.
8b. Description of the proposed knowledge dissemination and valorisation
WORD COUNT: 477
The Living Labs central to this proposal ensure active and reciprocal interaction between the participating
cities and regions on the one hand and the academic researchers involved on the other. During the five-
year project, we also seek to actively engage with a wider community. To do this, we structure our
dissemination and outreach program along three dedicated efforts.
Figure 5.Transdisciplinary approach.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
41
1. First circle: Participating cities and regions
The sub-projects are all designed with high levels of interactions with the involved cities and regions. In
addition to the Living Labs, the sub-project researchers provide us with on-going access to existing local
data sources and longstanding governmental bodies experienced in planning for cycling. These
experienced practitioners and institutional actors participate as members of the project management
team. These on-going daily interactions are enriched and systematized by a consortium meeting every
four months where intermediate results and on-going developments are discussed.
2. Second circle: Community of Research and Practice
The main importance for this research stems from the real policy challenges in the daily practices of
Dutch cycling planning. Due to the combined expertise and track record of the consortium partners, we
are well positioned in working closely with Dutch and international practitioners. This cooperation goes
well beyond informing the policy community about academic progress. We give practitioners an active
role in research decisions in the course of the proposed five-year project. We are well experienced in
managing such an experiential learning cycle and have played active roles in the first NWO
Fietscommunity with this goal. The academic consortium partners are
• playing a leading role in developing an online community where cycling researchers and
practitioners meet and debate progress. This is already under construction under the umbrella
Dutch Cycling Academy;
• organising newsletters and physical meetings, linked to the Nationaal Fietscongres in
collaboration with CROW and the Fietsersbond;
• engaging actively with the Fietscommunity 2.0, recently launched by Platform31
• using our existing Twitter accounts (with 6.000 international followers) and blogs to engage with
practice.
3. Third circle: Academic interaction
The PhD’s develop article-based dissertations. This guarantees an on-going knowledge exchange with the
respective international academic communities. This exchange ensures the academic quality of our work
and a quick dissemination of findings in relevant academic debates. Researchers and Postdoc produce a
number of academic publications. The overlapping parts of the sub-projects are ideal for co-authoring of
many of these articles and the project’s overall synergy.
• The project produces a minimum 20-25 articles in top-ranked academic journals and 4 academic
dissertations.
• Individual researchers present preliminary findings at relevant international scientific
conferences.
• Participating research teams play a leading role in international academic networks, such as
NWO Cultural Politics of Sustainable Urban Mobility (History); STRN (transitions), T2M &
Cosmobilities (mobility), AESOP Transport Planning group, ECF’s Cycling Academic Network,
allowing the organisation of thematic tracks and sessions during international research
conferences.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
42
9. Time plan
9a. Duration of the project
Envisaged start date: 01.4.2016
Envisaged end date: 30.03.2021
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
43
9b. Timetable
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
44
10. Literature references
References main text (TOTAL: 10): Brown, H.S., P.J. Vergragt, K. Green, Berchicci, L., (2003). Learning for sustainability transition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15: 291–315 Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., Edwards, G.A.S., (2015). An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-Technical Transitions. Routledge: London and New York. De Hartog, J. J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., & Hoek, G. (2010). Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks? Environmental Health Perspectives 1109-1116. Geels, F.W., (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective case-study. Research Policy 31 (8/9): 1257-1274. Gössling, S., 2013. Urban transport transitions: Copenhagen, City of Cyclists. Journal of Transport Geography 33: 196–206. Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2010). Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the literature. Transport Reviews 30(1), 59-96. Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., Truffer, B., (2002). Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. Spon Press: London Karvonen, A., Van Heur, B., (2014). Urban laboratories: experiments in reworking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (2): 379–92. Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Bassett, D. R., & Dannenberg, A. L. (2010a). Walking and cycling to health: A comparative analysis of city, state, and international data. American Journal of Public Health 100 (10): 1986-1992. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3: 15–31. Shove, E. (2012) The shadowy side of innovation: unmaking and sustainability. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Innovation, Consumption, and Environmental Sustainability 24 (4): 363-375. References sub-project 1 (TOTAL: 10) Battilana, J., Leca, B., Boxenbaum, E., (2009). How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals. 3: 65-107. Bulkeley, H., Castan Broto, V., Maassen, A., (2014). Low-carbon transitions and the reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. Urban Studies. 51: 1471-1486. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., Truffer, B., (2012). Towards a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy 41: 968-979. Fuenfschilling, L., Truffer, B., (2014). The structuration of socio-technical regimes – conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Research Policy 43: 772-791. Garud, R., Hardy, C., Maguire, S., (2002). Institutional Entrepreneurship as embedded agency: an introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies 28: 957-969.
Hajer, M.,( 2006). Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: van den Brink, M., Metze, T. (Eds.). Words matter in policy and planning. Discourse theory and method in the social sciences Utrecht. Hodson, M., Marvin, S., (2012). Mediating low-carbon urban transitions? Forms of organization, knowledge and action. European Planning Studies 20: 421-439. Osterwalder, A., (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers and
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
45
challengers. John Wiley & Sons. Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., Lounsbury, M., (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective. A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford University Press. Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of Management 37: 1019-1042. References sub-project 2 (TOTAL: 10) Albrecht, J., Döring, L., Holz-Rau, C. and Scheiner, J., (2015). The Relevance of the Place of Childhood and Adolescence for Residential Choice in Later Life: A Life-Course and Intergenerational Approach, Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting 2015. Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F. and de Niet, (2000). Towards a methodology for developing sustainable regional transport systems, Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk 2000. Forsyth, A. and Krizek, K.J., (2010). Promoting walking and bicycling: assessing the evidence to assist planners. Built Environment 36 (4): 429-446. Harms, L., Bertolini, L. and Te Brömmelstroet, M., (2014b). Spatial and social variations in cycling patterns in a mature cycling country: exploring differences and trends. Journal of Transport and Health 1 (4), 232-242. Heinen, E. and Handy, S., (2012). Similarities in attitudes and norms and the effect on bicycle commuting: Evidence from the bicycle cities Davis and Delft. International journal of sustainable transportation 6 (5): 257-281. Kenworthy, J.R. and Laube, F.B., (1999). Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 33 (7): 691-723. Schwanen, T. and Mokhtarian, P.L., (2005). What affects commute mode choice: neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods? Journal of Transport Geography 13(1): 83-99. Van Acker, V., Van Wee, B. and Witlox, F., (2010). When Transport Geography Meets Social Psychology: Toward a Conceptual Model of Travel Behaviour. Transport Reviews 30 (2): 219-240. Wegener, M. and Fürst, F., (1999). Land-use transport interaction: State of the Art. Dortmund: Institut für Raumplanung. References sub-project 3 (TOTAL: 10) Bruhèze, A. A. de la, and F. C.A. Veraart (1999). Fietsen en verkeersbeleid. Het fietsgebruik in negen West-Europese steden in de twintigste eeuw. NEHA-jaarboek 62: 138-170. Bulkeley, H., Castan Broto, V., Maassen, A. (2014). Low carbon transitions and the reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. Urban Studies 51: 1471-1486. Echenique M.H., Hargreaves A.J., Mitchell G., et al., (2012). Growing Cities Sustainably. Does Urban Form Really Matter? Journal of the American Planning Association 78: 121-137. Gibbs, D., and Krueger R. and MacLeod G. (2013). Grappling with smart city politics in an era of market triumphalism. Urban Studies 50: 2151-2157. Hodson, M., Marvin, S. (2014). After sustainable cities? New York: Routledge. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks, (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Routledge. Jong, M. de, 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 urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
46
Stead, D. (2013). Dimensions of territorial governance. Planning, Theory, & Practice 14: 142-147 Walks, A. ed., (2015). Urban Political Economy and Ecology of Automobility: Driving Cities, Driving Inequality, Driving Politics. New York: Routledge. References sub-project 4 (TOTAL: 10): Andersen, D. F., Vennix, J. A., Richardson, G. P., & Rouwette, E. A., (2007). Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. Journal of the Operational Research Society 691-694. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., Truffer, B., (2012). Towards a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy 41: 968-979. Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harms, L., Bertolini, L., Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2014). Spatial and social variations in cycling patterns in a mature cycling country exploring differences and trends. Journal of Transport & Health 1(4): 232-242. Karvonen, A., Van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: experiments in reworking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (2): 379–92. Nowotny, H. (2004). The potential of transdisciplinarity. H. Dunin-Woyseth, H. and M. Nielsen, Discussing Transdisciplinarity: Making Professions and the New Mode of Knowledge Production, the Nordic Reader, Oslo School of Architecture, Oslo, Norway, 10-19. Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase cycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine 50: 106–125. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3 (1): 15-31. Shove, E. (2012). The shadowy side of innovation: unmaking and sustainability. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 24 (4): 363-375. Straatemeier, T., Bertolini, L., Brömmelstroet, M. te and Hoetjes, P. (2010). An experiential approach to research in planning. Environment & Planning B 37 (4): 578-591. References sub-project 5 (TOTAL: 4) Blue, E. (2013). Bikenomics; How Cycling can save the Economy. Portland: Microcosm Publishing. Flusche, D., 2012. Cycling Means Business: The economic benefits of bicycle infrastructure. League of American Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking & Walking. Gossling, S., Choi, A.S. (2015). Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars and bicycles. Ecological Economics 113: 106–113. Janssen, L.H.J.M., Okker, V.R., Schuur, J. (2006). Welvaart en leefomgeving. Een scenariostudie voor Nederland in 2040. Den Haag: CPB/PBL
Olde-Kalter, M. (2008). Vaker op de fiets? Effecten van overheidsmaatregelen. Den Haag: KiM. Pen C.J., Dorenbos, R., Hoogerbrugge, M. (2012). A Strategic Knowledge and Research Agenda on Economic Vitality of European Metropolitan Areas. Den Haag: EMI. Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., Tainio, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2011). The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. British Medical Journal. 343, 4521.
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
47
De Vor, F. en W.W. Buunk (2014). Regio Zwolle Monitor 2014. Zwolle: Stichting Metropool Zwolle. De Vor, F. en W.W. Buunk (2015). De Hanzelijn Monitor 2014; de tweede staat van de Hanzelijn. Zwolle: Windesheim.
FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS
11a. Requested funding part A: Budget table A
12. Motivation for the requested budget
The financial resources for the research team for part A consist of personal costs, bench fees and
material costs. These are elaborated below.
Personnel costs
Costs for personnel consist of salary costs for 4 PhD students and 1 post-doctoral researcher. Salary
costs are fixed by NWO in salary tables (http://bit.ly/1KOyu0V). The PhD students and post-doc will each
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
48
be linked to a specific sub-project and employed by the three universities, but with several overlapping
positions and supervision mechanisms to ensure continuous interaction throughout the project:
• PhD 1 (sub-project 1). 4 years, 1 fte at UU (supervised by UU and TUe): €204.474
• PhD 2 (sub-project 2). 4 years, 1 fte at UvA (supervised by UvA and TUe): €204.474
• PhD 3 (sub-project 3). 4 years, 0.8 fte at TUe and 0.2 fte at UvA (supervised by TUe and UvA):
€204474
• PhD 4 (sub-project 3). 4 years, 0.8 fte at TUe and 0.2 fte at UU (supervised by TUe and UU):
€204.474
• Post doc (sub-project 4). 4 years, 0.5 fte at UU and 0.5 fte at UvA (supervised by UU and UvA):
€271.971
TOTAL PERSONEL COSTS: €1.089.867
These costs are partially covered by in-cash contributions from external partners:
• Utrecht Province (€20.000) and Utrecht Municipality (€40.000) provide in-cash funding to PhD 1
• Amsterdam City Region (€40.000) provides in-cash funding to PhD 2
• Noord-Brabant Province (€20.000) and Eindhoven Municipality (€20.000) provide in-cash
funding to PhD 3
• Overijssel Province (€14.075) and Zwolle Municipality (€14.075) provide in-cash funding to PhD
4
• CROW (€20.000) provides in-cash funding to the post-doc project.
TOTAL IN-CASH CO-FUNDING: €188.150
Bench fees
The bench fee is a standard, personal budget from NWO for each PhD and post-doc.
• 4 PhDs: €20.000
• 1 post-doc: €5000
TOTAL BENCH FEE COSTS: €25.000
Material costs
The budget for material costs is broken down into fieldwork and datasets (€82.500), management
project consortium (€51.000) and dissemination (€52.500).
Fieldwork and datasets consists of €12.500 for each university, which is expected to cover costs for:
• Interviews, questionnaires (50 x €30 = €1500)
• Software licenses for data analysis (€1000)
• Access to additional archival records, statistics material and other data sources (€2500)
• Costs for GPS devices, smartphone apps, and other forms of data collection in living labs
(€7500)
Smart Urban Regions of the Future (SURF)
49
Additionally, the University of Amsterdam will use data from the existing extensive mobility panel of
TNS-NIPO to assess the external validity of relations we find between mobility choices for or against
smart cycling and (un)reasoned influences in the detailed case studies. TNS-NIPO provides access the
current panel data, allows asking specific questions and supports us in analyzing this data (€45.000).
TOTAL FIELDWORK AND DATASETS: €82.500
Management project consortium consists of €45.000 for process management. A dedicated process
manager will be hired at the start of the project. We aim for a high-level manager, experienced to work
in complex network settings. The process manager will be active in particular during the start of the
project, around annual cycling conferences, and towards the end of the project, so as to ensure
interaction within the consortium and between the consortium and the wider stakeholder community
throughout the project.
Additionally, the consortium will meet at least 15 times during the entire project (€6.000), covering
venue, lunch, and coffee breaks.
TOTAL FIELDWORK AND DATASETS: €51.000
Dissemination consists of:
• Organization of annual national cycling conferences (3): €30.000
• 3 intermediary high-quality booklets and 1 final high-quality end-product (each 200 printed)
targeting the wider cycling community (in close collaboration with CROW): €5000
• ‘On-demand’ dissemination and small consultancy projects such as participating in public events
in other regions, and lecturing/trainings in the wider (inter)national cycling community: €16.000
• Website, newsletters and other general dissemination activities: €1500
TOTAL DISSEMINATION: €52.500
External partners provide in-kind contributions to the project in terms of salary costs of partners’ staff for
facilitating, and participating in the living labs and in consortia meetings and engage in dissemination
activities of results emerging from the project. Details about in-kind contributions are in the attached
Letters of Commitment of City Region Amsterdam, the Zwolle Municipality, Overijssel Province, Noord-
Brabant Province, Eindhoven Municipality, Utrecht Province, Utrecht Municipality and CROW.
In-kind In-kind clarification
Amsterdam City Region €40.000 400 hours (€100/hr)
Zwolle Municipality €14.075 141 hours (€100/hr)
Overijssel Province €14.075 141 hours (€100/hr)
Noord-Brabant Province €20.000 200 hours (€100/hr)