CITIZENET0 PROJECT

Dr. Jonas GomesLaboratory EurekaUFAM

START

WELCOME TO THE PROJECT

CITIZENET0

main REFERENCES

GLOSSARY

publications

logo+QUESTIONNAIRE

RESEARCH IMPORTANCE

CRITERIA TO SELECT five top CITIES

goal, question and target audience

THE LEADING EUROPEAN CITIES

RESEARCH PLAN

SMART & sUST.CITIES

INTERNATIONAL COOPETATION

opportunities

human global challenges

welcome

agenda

WELCOMEThis is a Project developed by Dr. Jonas Gomes da Silva (UFAM) under the guidance of Dr. Michael Hodson (The University of Manchester).All investments are financed by the personal savings of Professor Jonas Gomes.

More Infectious diseases (The Lancet, 2021)

Extreme Weather Events(Map with multiple authors)

See level rise(Strauss et al., 2021)

HUMAN GLOBAL CHALLENGES - IPPC Report (2022)Risks (2021 - 2040; 2041 a 2100)

% of People living at Urban Cities:(UN, 2018) 2018=55% 2050=68%

The point of no return: 2035 A 2042(Aengenheyster et al., 2018)

Crossed 7 Frontiers(Rockstrom et al., 2023)Criticals: Climate Change (CC) and Biosphere Integrity (BI)

Climate Change171 years:2500 bi ton CO2(Evans, 2021)

Nine Frontiers of the Planet Stability and Resilience(Rockstrom et al., 2009)

4) NetZero Cities

14) Net Zero Cities

12) ABNT Certifications

11) ITU-T Standards

10) OCDE Program on SC

15) Amazônia 4.0

13) Internacional Cooperation

9) Paris Agreement, COP26

8) Plataform with Courses: GBM/OLC

6) IDB Emerging and SCP

7) United 4 SSC (UN)

3) Global SC Partners and Programs

5) Global Platform for SC

2) Smart Cities

1) Agenda GovTech

OPPORTUNITIES

CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIONKey SectorsAgriculture, Steel, Energy, Road Transport and Hydrogen60% GEE Global emission (IEA, 2022)

Source: Author (2023)

POPULARITY OF SMART AND SUSTAINABLE CITIES IN PUBLICATIONS

EXAMPLE OF Smart Cities GOVERNMENTSEDEN STRATEGY INSTITUTE REPORT 2021

Access here

MAIN GOALTo assess the environmental concerns, awareness, and engagement of residents in top European smart and sustainable cities that are implementing initiatives to achieve their net zero emissions targets.

MAIN QUESTIONS1) Which are the top five European smart and sustainable (Leading) cities?2) How environmentally concerned, aware, and engaged are residents of top European smart and sustainable cities working toward net zero emissions targets?

MAIN PUBLIC TARGETPeople aged 18 years or older who live, work or study in top smart and sustainable cities.

c1) sources: global evaluation ranking of at least 20 citiesc2) ranking: available and published within the last three years (2021-2023)c3) 51 finalists from 235 cities: be in at least four rankingc4) five leading cities: determined by taking the average of all ranking score (in ascending order).

CRITERIA USED TO SELECT THE LEADING SMART and SUSTAINABLE CITIES

seven international ranking used

CRITERIA USED TO SELECT THE LEADING SMART and SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Rank7 - The Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index 2022

Rank6 - Global Smart City 2022

Rank5 - IMD Smart City Index 2023

Rank4 - Digital Cities Index 2022

Rank3 - 2022 Smart Cities Index Report

Rank2 - IESE Cities in Motion Index 2022

Rank1 - The Top 50 Smart Governments 2020/2021

5) HELSINKI

4) COPENHAGEN

3) OSLO

2) AMSTERDAM

THE FIVE LEADING EUROPEAN CITIES

1) LONDON

RESEARCH IMPORTANCE FOR POLICY MAKERSWill receive publication(s) on the general results of the researchWill provide the documents (policies, plans, strategies, roadmap etc) developed by top smart and sustainable cities to tackle climate change issues overtime.Can use these information to create, adopt, and change policies in their own areas to reach their targets. Provide feedback to policy makers in the top smart and sustainable cities on their citizens environmental concerns, awareness, participation, barries and incentives to reduce carbon emissions.

QUESTIONNAIRE HERE

LOGO + SURVEY INSTRUMENT

second semester/2024

PUBLICATIONS

COMING SOON

Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, [online] 35(4), pp.216–224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.

Belausteguigoitia, J., Alonso, I., Ane Chueca, Ane Elizegi, Hierro, S., Lucía Olavarri and Sanz, E. (2021). MEASURING PARTICIPATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES IN URBAN PLANNING. In: The Sustainable City XV. [online] Sustainable City 2022. Rome: WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, pp.279–291. doi:https://doi.org/10.2495/sc210241.

UN-Habitat (2007). A guide for Municipalities: Inclusive and Sustainable Urban Development Planning , Volume 1 | UN-Habitat. [online] unhabitat.org. Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/a-guide-for-municipalities-inclusive-and-sustainable-urban-development-planning-volume-1.

OGP (2017). Participation & Co-Creation Standards. [online] Washington DC, USA: Open Government Partnership. Available at: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-participation-co-creation-standards-2017/.

Macdonald, B., Thrift, C., Swanson, D.A. and Thrift, C. (2012). Measuring the Performance and Impact of Community Indicators Systems: Insights on frameworks and examples of key performance indicators. [online] International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development, pp.1–15. Available at: https://www.iisd.org/publications/report/measuring-performance-and-impact-community-indicators-systems-insights [Accessed 30 Jun. 2023].

Parés, M. and March, H. (2013). Guide to Evaluating Participatory Processes. [online] Barcelona: Government of Catalonia Department of Governance and Institutional Relations Innovation and Democratic Quality Programme. Available at: http://www.gencat.cat/governacio/pub/sum/qdem/guiesbreus_3_ang.pdf.

Scottish Government (2016). National Standards for Community Engagement. [online] SCDC - We believe communities matter. Scotland: Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.scdc.org.uk/what/national-standards.

IAP2 (n.d.). Core Values, Ethics, Spectrum – The 3 Pillars of Public Participation - International Association for Public Participation. [online] www.iap2.org. Available at: https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars [Accessed 30 Jun. 2023].

MAIN REFERENCES (citizen engagement models)

OCDE (2023). Government at a Glance 2023. [online] OCDE iLibrary, Paris: OCDE, pp.1–234. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-a-glance-2023_3d5c5d31-en.

Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Garcia-Perez, A. and Moreno-Cegarra, J.L. (2014). Technology knowledge and governance: Empowering citizen engagement and participation. Government Information Quarterly, [online] 31(4), pp.660–668. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.001.

Falco, E. and Kleinhans, R. (2018). Beyond technology: Identifying local government challenges for using digital platforms for citizen engagement. International Journal of Information Management, [online] 40, pp.17–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.007.

Wagenet, L.P. and Pfeffer, M.J. (2007). Organizing Citizen Engagement for Democratic Environmental Planning. Society & Natural Resources, [online] 20(9), pp.801–813. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701216578.

Choo, M., Yeon Woo Choi, Yoon, H., Sung Bin Bae and Dong Keun Yoon (2023). Citizen Engagement in Smart City Planning: The Case of Living Labs in South Korea. Urban Planning, [online] 8(2), pp.32–43. doi:https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i2.6416.

Wamsler, C., Alkan-Olsson, J., Björn, H., Falck, H., Hanson, H., Oskarsson, T., Simonsson, E. and Zelmerlow, F. (2019). Beyond participation: when citizen engagement leads to undesirable outcomes for nature-based solutions and climate change adaptation. Climatic Change, [online] 158, pp.235–254. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02557-9.

Jasińska-Biliczak, A. (2022). Smart-City Citizen Engagement: The Answer to Energy Savings in an Economic Crisis? Energies, [online] 15(23), p.8828. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238828.

Denhardt, J., Terry, L., Delacruz, E.R. and Andonoska, L. (2009). Barriers to Citizen Engagement in Developing Countries. International Journal of Public Administration, [online] 32(14), pp.1268–1288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690903344726.

Hanif, A., Khakpoor, B.A., Kharazmi, O.A. and Loodin, N. (2022). Identifying barriers affecting citizen participation in community‐driven development projects in Afghanistan: A case study of Herat city. International Social Science Journal, 72, pp.561–576. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12347.

Persson, L., Carney Almroth, B.M., Collins, C.D., Cornell, S., de Wit, C.A., Diamond, M.L., Fantke, P., Hassellöv, M., MacLeod, M., Ryberg, M.W., Søgaard Jørgensen, P., Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Wang, Z. and Hauschild, M.Z. (2022). Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158.

IPCC (2022) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. IPCC. 27 February. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (accessed 14 March 2022).

IEA, IRENA and UN Climate Change High-Level Champions, (2022). Breakthrough Agenda Report 2022 – Analysis. [online] IEA, pp.1–183. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/breakthrough-agenda-report-2022 [Accessed 20 Apr. 2023].

Dameri, R.P. (2013). Searching fo r Smart City definition: a comprehensive proposal. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS & TECHNOLOGY, 11(5), pp.2544–2551. Doi:10.24297/ijct.v11i5.1142.

MAIN REFERENCES (uNDER UPDATING)

THANK YOU VERY MUCHdr. jonas gomes DA SILVAufam/UoM/AMBS/MIOIR/SCIJGSILVA@UFAM.EDU.BRJGSILVA.ORG