独家专访 | Philipp Späth博士:如何让城市更“智慧”

   Philipp Späth博士

    德国弗莱堡大学环境社会科学和地理学学院高级研究员
    中-荷-法-英-德智慧生态城市管理国际联合研究德方负责人


Philipp Späth博士多年从事环境社会学、智慧生态城市等方面的相关研究及实践,他认为建设智慧城市只有在考虑了当地具体环境以及参与公众的优先权的前提下才有意义,因此最好让人们自己决定哪些因素能让所在地区或城市变得更加“智慧”。

采访记者:陈岑(大景观网 资深编辑)
图片提供:
Philipp Späth

 

Q: What’s the exact definition of “Smart City”? And what are the fundamental requirements to successfully build a smart city? 
 
智慧城市的准确定义是什么?要建造一个成功的智慧城市,需要哪些基础作为依托?

A:
 There are many definitions circulating. And I am certain there will never one scientific definition that will be widely accepted, because the objects at hand, Smart Cities, are very complex, multi-facetted entities, which you can be interested in for very many reasons. Furthermore, I am convinced that a Smart City initiative in a particular city can only be meaningful if locally specific circumstances and specific priorities of the people involved have been considered. So let the people in each place decide individually what they consider relevant for making their city or region “smart”. As a starting point of debates, I often refer to the shortest definition of them all: A smart city is one “in which ICT is merged with traditional infrastructures, coordinated and integrated using new digital technologies.” (Batty et al. 2012)
 
智慧城市的定义有很多,很难说其中有哪一个解释能广泛地被大部分人所接受,因为智慧城市是一个很复杂并且多元化的事物,人们可能因为很多原因而对此感兴趣。而且我确信,如果要在某一个特定的地方倡导智慧城市,只有在考虑了当地具体环境以及参与公众的优先权的前提下才有意义。所以最好是让每个地方的人们自己决定哪些因素能让他们所在的城市或地区变得更“智慧”。作为讨论智慧城市的引子,我通常参考的是最简短的定义:智慧城市是在城市中协同一体化地使用新型数字技术将ICT(信息和通讯技术)与传统基础设施进行融合(Batty et al. 2012)。


Q: What are the differences and relations between “Eco City” and “Smart City”?

请您谈谈生态城市与智慧城市的区别与关系。

A: The term Eco-City, just as the term Smart City, is used very widely today with many diverse meanings, most of which relate to urban developments with a view to marketing new flats, districts or cities in a competitive environment. They also depict broad guiding visions of urban development, which are strongly influencing professional debates (i.e. among planners and politicians) about urban development world-wide. Usage of the term Eco-City usually indicates an emphasis on material qualities (like energetic standards) of buildings in a new development or area of retrofits. The label Smart City, in contrast, usually hints to an emphasis on “software”, like the use of urban data. But we often see the terms used in combination. And for most Smart City initiatives, at least for most European ones, ecological benefits are announced to be the main drivers and sources of legitimation, too. 
 
生态城市,与智慧城市一样被广泛地提倡并具有很多不同的意思,其中大部分与城市发展有关,为在具有竞争力的环境中推广新的公寓、地区或城市。这些定义也广泛描述了城市发展的指导愿景,这很大程度地影响着全球范围内规划师和政治家之间关于城市发展的讨论。“生态城市”概念的使用通常强调的是在一个新的开发或者翻新的区域中建筑物材料的质量(例如能效的标准);相比之下,智慧城市强调的是“软件”,比如城市数据的使用。但是我们常常看到这两个概念的结合使用,对于大多数智慧城市,至少在大部分欧洲的智慧城市中,生态方面的利益是倡导智慧城市最主要的驱动以及使其合法化的原因。

 
Q: How to use the social science approach to build a smart city?

如何运用社会科学的方法来建设智慧城市?

A: Social sciences can help a lot when urban development is taken to different paths. The new ideal of a Smart City can have, for example, many implications with regard to the accessibility of infrastructures, goods and services in cities. These can be roughly anticipated in the sense of systematic technology assessments and policy analyses. Also the effects of new actor constellations, when e.g. city administrations partner with private technology providers, can be anticipated and put up for discussion with reference to concepts from governance and science & technology studies. In my view, any kind of urban planning should build on a thorough understanding of the (future) needs of the citizens, and this should include more than basic needs, acknowledging for example the need to meet neighbors and to communicate directly on a regular basis. For these subtler dimensions of “place making”, a sociological view is – in my view – indispensable. 
 
社会科学能在城市发展面临着不同道路的时候发挥作用,新的智慧城市的目标可以有很多方面,比如可以与基础设施、商品和服务的可达性有关。这些方面可以通过系统的技术评估和政策分析而大体上被预先考虑到,同时新的行动者组织(比如城市管理者与民营技术提供商进行合作)的作用可以通过社会学的视角被预测及讨论。在我看来,任何种类的城市规划都应该建立在对(未来)市民需求的全面理解上,这不仅仅是基本需要,还有一些例如希望能遇到邻居并可以经常直接交流等需求。对于这些更微妙尺度的“场所营造”,我认为社会学的视角是不可或缺的。


Q: Can you please talk about the development process and status quo of smart city in Germany?

德国智慧城市的发展历程及现状是怎样的?

A: We have scrutinized the internet presentations of all 81 German cities, which are considered “large cities” because they accommodate more than 100,000 inhabitants. On the official websites, we found a declared will to develop into a smart (or intelligent, digital, ubiquitous etc.) city only in less than half of the cases. Multiple activities in more than one sector plus some coordination we find in only 19 of these large cities. This makes Germany one of the European countries least influenced by the idea of smart cities. Some cities are nevertheless actively promoted as frontrunners. The three biggest cities, Berlin, Hamburg and Munich are among them. Much depends on funding opportunities, though. Since national funding is usually limited to research and experimentation, most activities are also confined to experiments in delineated sites like newly developed districts. Calls in the EU Framework Program “Horizon 2020” are therefore quite important. Munich has won a bid together with Vienna and Lyon last year and has just started to implement a series of activities. 
 
我们有仔细看过德国81个城市在互联网上的汇报,这81个城市因为人口超过10万而被认为是“大城市”,在这些城市的官网上,其中有公告发展智慧城市(或智能城市、数字城市、数字化城市等)愿景的不到半数,而在多个领域有相关项目及合作的只有19个城市,这些数据显示德国是欧洲国家中受到智慧城市理念影响最小的国家之一。尽管如此,还是有些德国城市被看作是智慧城市的领跑者,比如德国前三大城市——柏林、汉堡和慕尼黑便位列其中(智慧城市的发展很大程度依赖于资金赞助),因为通常国家用于研究和实验方面的资金有限,所以很多项目也被限制于在某些圈定的场地(比如新开发区)范围内进行实验,因此欧盟基金项目“地平线2020”(Horizon 2020)就非常重要了。另外慕尼黑联合维也纳和里昂在去年赢得了一个投标,刚刚开始实施一系列活动方案。


Q: As a co-founder of housing cooperative “Genova” in Vauban, Freiburg, can you please talk about the development process of Vauban? What lessons can be learned from the case while building a smart city?

作为Vauban社区住房合作社的合作创建者,可否介绍一下Vauban社区的发展案例?这个案例对建设智慧生态城市有哪些可借鉴之处?

A: Vauban is a district of Freiburg in South-West Germany, which was developed since the1990s on a former military area at the southern fringe of the city. I find this development still very remarkable, and actually outstanding, because of the extent to which civil society actors were able to influence the planning process here and the emerging social live in the new district. Due to several factors, activists were able to fund and professionalize their work, forcing the city administration to follow their ambition of setting an example how a district can be planned in a participatory way and become a showcase of urban sustainability. What I find most striking is the effects that this engagement and participatory approach had: Many people who came to live in this new district were inspired to discover the dreams they had about their preferred urban environment. And they created themselves many opportunities to actually shape this environment. Some created a housing-cooperative to enable also lower income groups to live in the district; some founded another cooperative to establish an organic shop, which soon become a very successful retailer cum meeting place, some built and now care for a community oven, etc. Unfortunately, in Freiburg, key actors have not followed up on the lessons that can be drawn from this successful development in later and ongoing developments. But elsewhere, in Vienna, for example, it seems that the lessons that one can draw from this successful development have fallen on fruitful ground. 
 
沃邦是位于德国西南部的弗莱堡市的一个区,在弗莱堡市的南部,这片地方曾作为军事区域。20世纪90年代起,沃邦开始在曾经的军事区上发展起来。我认为这个项目仍然非常值得注意,也是很杰出的案例,因为公民社会行动者得以很大程度上影响了规划过程以及新地区的社会生活。由于某一些因素,这些行动者能够为他们的工作提供资金并且使他们的工作专业化,促使城市管理者跟随着他们的目标,树立起一个地区发展的标杆,展示出如何以公众参与的方式来进行规划,并且成为城市可持续发展的范例。令我感到惊讶的是,通过这样的参与方式,很多入住的人被激发起曾经对理想的城市环境的憧憬,从而通过自己的努力真正去改变这个地区:有一些人创立了住宅合作社为低收入人群提供入住机会;有的找到了其他合作企业在这个地区建立了一个有机商店,这个商店后来非常成功,同时也成为了人们经常会面的地方;有的人为社区建造了一个公共烤箱并对其进行维护,等等。但遗憾的是,弗莱堡市的关键行动者在当时正在进行的其他项目以及之后的发展项目中,并没有吸收沃邦这个成功案例的经验,但是在其他地方,比如维也纳,这些经验看来有被借鉴并取得了丰硕的成果。 



The key lesson of Vauban is for me that you should not aim to plan for the people but to enable them to themselves shape an urban environment that is suitable for them. The same I would apply to Smart Cities. A lot of people care for their environment and for their community, if they get an opportunity and are encouraged to do so. Some people e.g. develop technological means for doing things together, for sharing stuff and for sharing information. Why not supporting such initiatives? Key to successful urban development is, in my view, that people are heard and encouraged to explore and freely express their needs and that they are enabled to form communities and to realize their dreams together - in mutual support with the public services. 
 
对于我来说,沃邦案例最主要的经验是:不应该以“为人们规划”为目标,而应该使居民得以自己去塑造适合他们的环境。这也是我认为在建设智慧城市时应该运用的理念。很多人都会在乎他们的生活和社区环境,如果他们能有机会被鼓励去塑造他们生活的环境,他们会很用心地去做,比如有的人会开发科技手段使大家可以共同做某些事情,或者相互分享一些物品和信息,所以,为什么不去鼓励居民的主动性呢?在我看来,城市发展能成功的关键是:人们能被告知并且被鼓励自发地去探索以及自由地表达他们的需要,从而通过互相帮助以及公共服务的支持来实现梦想、共同塑造他们的社区。


Q: How is the research project “Smart Eco-Cities” going? And how will this project influence the development of smart cities?
 
您目前参与的“智慧生态城市”国际研究项目进展如何?这项研究对智慧城市的发展将有怎样的意义?

A: We have just met after the first of three project years. We have already done a lot of preparatory and conceptual work and are now starting in-depth research of some selected cases in China, UK, the Netherlands, France and Germany. The national teams will develop these cases in close cooperation with each other since we aim to learn a lot also from comparisons across the cases. We hope this will provide us and all interested practitioners with a better understanding of what drives such initiatives, what effects can be achieved with what kind of means (considering very diverse contexts), how conflicts are resolved, what barriers have to be overcome etc. Our learning will then hopefully inform the identification of opportunities and pathways for shaping national and collaborative international urban and economic policy responses, potentially engaging the state, the business sector and communities in delivering 'smart eco-city' initiatives that are successful from the perspective of the professionals and of the citizens. 
 
我们刚刚在为期三年的项目推进一年之后进行了会面,目前已经做了许多筹备和概念方面的工作,现在开始在中国、英国、荷兰、法国和德国对一些经过挑选的案例进行深入的研究,未来我们将密切合作,期待从不同案例的对比中了解更多。我们希望这个研究将为我们以及感兴趣的从业者们带来对此项目更好的理解:是什么驱使这样的倡导?(在不同背景下)用什么方法能达到什么作用?冲突是怎样解决的?需要克服哪些困难等等。希望我们的研究能为国家及国际合作项目中的城市、经济发展政策提供参考,来判断其中的机遇与方向,从而在提倡“智慧生态城市”的过程中潜在地将专业人士和市民的视角传递给国家、商业机构以及社区。


Q: Finally, can you please introduce the international courses provided by Freiburg University, which are related to “Green City” or sustainable developments?
 
最后请您介绍一下弗莱堡大学关于“绿色城市”或可持续方向的国际课程。

A: I am personally involved in a “M.Sc. in Environmental Governance”, where I teach e.g. a module called “Urban Sustainability Transitions”. The classes of this 2-years course bring together around 37 students from literally all over the world. The course “M.Sc. in Geography of Global Change” is also taught in English and covers, among other sustainability related issues, also urbanization and urban planning. 
 
我个人参与了弗莱堡大学环境管理硕士专业的教学,我在其中教的一门课是“城市可持续转变”,这个两年制的硕士专业有着大约37个来自世界各地的学生。除此之外,“全球变化地理学”也是英语授课,并且涵盖了其他可持续方面的问题以及城市化和城市规划。
 

 
特别提示:请尊重原创版权,转载请注明原出处。