The implementation of Smart Cities and Smart Regions is characterized by a high level of participation. While adults are often involved, children and young people tend to be underrepresented. In consequence, ideas and suggestions of children and young people are not considered. This article reports on participation of pupils in a Smart City project. The main contribution is a methodical approach to involve students in a participatory way by developing future scenarios for a smart city. The approach was tested in three different types of schools. A total of 730 pupils were involved. Through the participatory method, a total of 606 ideas for a smart city/smart region were derived.
Cities are currently facing several challenges, include changes such as the increasing resources scarcity, widespread climate, globalization and demographic change [1]. At the same time, the number of people living in the cities is increasing: By 2050, the urban population is expected to comprise nearly 68 % of the global population [2]. Also, the world population is expected to double [3]. As a result, services and resources in healthcare, to protect the environment, in mobility, and in education may become scarce [4], [5]. In order to cope with these dynamic changes and at the same time maintaining the quality of life in society, strategies and measures for better adaptability become increasingly important. In this context, many municipalities are striving to develop towards intelligent and networked cities, so-called smart cities, in which the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) and disruptive technologies is sought [6]–[9]. In the literature, smart cities are often characterized along different domains as put forward in [7]: smart people, smart governance, smart economy, smart mobility, smart environment and smart living.
Citizen participation is considered a key factor for the success of smart city/smart region initiatives. To ensure that the living conditions can be improved according to the needs of stakeholders, and that the smart city process is successful, it is important to involve them in the whole development process [10]–[13]. In general, stakeholder participation along the smart city context is limited due to the heterogeneity of stakeholder groups. In particular, young people, such as pupils, rarely participate in smart city processes [14].
This article explores the needs of young pupils to engage them into democratic processes like the smart city context. We first examine the necessary foundations for participation in Smart Cities and then address the specific pedagogical needs in involving schools. Based on research of participation in the context of the smart city/region project of Linz am Rhein in Germany, a participation method for involving schools was developed. In this way, children and young people of different ages from three different types of schools were able to develop visions for the future of their smart city/smart region. The method and the results from the three schools are presented in this paper. The research was by two research questions: (1) What are the preconditions to involve children and young people in the Smart City process? (2) How should a methodology for involving children and young people be designed? To answer the research questions, a literature review is conducted and the most important aspects of Smart City participation (section 2) and pupil participation (section 3) are analyzed. Based on these findings, the developed method for involving pupils in smart city design is presented in section 4. Section 5 integrates the method and derives future scenarios in three different types of schools. Section 6 discusses the derived results and the application of the developed method. The paper concludes with a summary and an outlook on future research questions.
The growing challenges and increasingly complex environments of cities and regions require new ways of working together. Municipalities are collaborating with citizens, business and academia. The aim is to effectively contribute and share knowledge and expertise in order to jointly develop new ideas for urban and regional development [12], [13]. Participation refers to the active involvement of various target groups in the development of Smart Cities or Smart Regions [15]. Engaged stakeholders develop concepts together in various participation formats [16]. The term participation refers to the different action structures, forms of participation and interactions within dialog structures, which refers to the interactive cooperation between speaking and listening actors [17]. Through active participation, the objectives of the project can be more closely aligned with the interests of the affected stakeholders (e.g. citizens, businesses). It enables democratical evaluation and helps improving acceptance and trust in the implementing bodies [18]–[21].
Different participation formats are possible: official consultation centers, participation in council meetings, actual decision-making in focus groups or citizen surveys. The specific objectives of citizen participation formats are individual, but follow the same basic principles: (1) Information about public decision-making processes, programs, projects, or services must be transparently available to the general public. (2) Change through active participation improves public acceptance and builds trust in policymaking [22], [23].
Citizens can be seen as experts on their city and therefore play an important role in proactively shaping their city through their own proposals [24]. Citizen participation along co-creation also holds potential for smart cities, as co-creation can lead to greater satisfaction and acceptance of the developed solutions tailored to the needs of citizens [25].
Digital participation opportunities allow citizens to express their opinions quickly and directly. A major advantage is the independence from time and space constraints. This makes participation easier and more attractive to stakeholders. Hence, citizen participation in smart cities can create general acceptance for the project, promote constructive dialogue and work on an equal footing between the administration and citizens, facilitate identification with the project and positively influence the quality of the entire process [26].
Learning about democracy is an important aspect of education in schools. Pupil participation in democratic processes has been a topic of discussion since the “United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” (CRC) in the early 2000s [27]. Pupil participation is an important criterion for successful and sustainable school development. School is seen as an important place for developing an understanding of democracy. Children and young people should be actively and self-determinedly involved in the decision-making processes of society [28], [29].
In addition to traditional participation, it is important for pupils to be able to influence public decisions. Although participation is often sought in schools, it tends to be characterized by insufficient or symbolic participation. Inadequate participation means that children and young people are informed about decisions but cannot influence their actual implementation. Symbolic participation includes only approaches of pseudo-participation (pupils are consulted but their opinions are not integrated into the decision-making process) or uniform co-determination (pupils are not sufficiently informed but are allowed to have a say). However, neither of these two levels of intensity is sufficient for a general understanding of participation (see section 2). Sufficient participation through democratic co-determination, sufficient information about a situation and personal responsibility is also essential for children and young people [30].
However, participation in schools is not the same as that of adults in traditional workshop situations. Children and young people initially perceive participation differently. Similar to adults, there are pupils who participate in social issues out of their own interest. Others do not want to take responsibility and simply go about their daily school routine. What is needed, however, is a continuous, binding process in school life so that as many pupils as possible can participate in decision-making processes within their abilities. Participation initiatives must be inclusive and non-discriminatory [31]. For children and young people, three arguments for their participation in the school context are key [32]: • • •
Educational: Developing of self-confidence, a sense of responsibility and independence Social: School as a training ground for democratic thinking and behavior, learning about democracy
In particular, educational and social arguments need to be considered when designing participatory programs. Children and young people must first acquire competencies and skills in order to deal with social issues in a self-determined and responsible manner. By familiarizing themselves with a specific issue and participating in participatory activities, children and young people are empowered to deal with new realities as representatives of the younger generation. Democracy and participation go hand in hand. Children and young people are empowered to put democracy into practice through participatory measures in the classroom [27]. School becomes a training ground for acquiring the skills to act and think democratically [33]. Furthermore, the participation measures must be adapted to the age of the children and adolescents. According to Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children should be involved as soon as they are able to form their own opinions, taking into account their age and maturity [32].
However, scholars criticize the fact that it is always the adults who ultimately decide whether or not a child is capable of forming an opinion on social issues. Children can only develop skills if they are trusted with active participation and democracy. Information must therefore be prepared for the different age groups in such a way that all children and young people have a real opportunity to participate (i.e. to understand the information and thus be encouraged to take active action) [34], [35]. This means that key aspects for the integration of participation measures in schools have to be considered. The exchange with teachers is important in order to adapt the offers as much as possible to the heterogeneous target group. In the Smart City project Linz am Rhein, the pedagogical support by the teachers for the participation measures was also a central criterion. The next section therefore presents the method for involving children and young people in the Smart City.
In social and futures research, future workshops are used as a creative method of citizen participation in democratization processes. Futures workshops bring together different people and their competencies in order to develop visions of the future in a non-hierarchical space. A fixed process structure is defined for the realization of the concept of participatory futures design [36], [37]. Basic steps for the success of a futures workshop are [38]:
A future workshop consists of three phases, which are run separately: a. Complaint and Critique Phase: The concerns and problems of the current situation are critically analyzed to generate common understanding. b. Imagination and Utopia Phase: The current situation is to be overcome through vision and creativity. A vision for the future is developed. c. Realization and Practice Phase: The various visions and requirements are condensed into concrete options for action.
Future workshops are supported by the contributions and participation of the groups. A facilitator is responsible for methodological preparation and impulse. Future workshops include plenary presentations in an abbreviated form in order to share the results of the group phases with everyone. Fixed time slots
for presentations ensure equal and fair speaking time, so that dominant speakers and the less eloquent are recognized equally.
Abstractions in the visions are to be reduced to concrete examples.
Focus is put on the problem to be solved and not on side issues.
As part of the participation program along the “Smart City/Region Project Linz”, the aim was to provide several workshops to integrate different stakeholders and co-create the smart region vision and strategy for the future. The strategy phase of the Smart Region project in Linz covered various participatory measures such as surveys, interviews and workshops for joint implementation along the key themes of mobility, healthcare, citizen services and urban development. In total, over 700 citizens and entrepreneurs were reached. The workshops were mostly held in the evenings, where only few school children were involved.
To overcome this situation and to involve young people in this important process, the Futures Workshops were modified for schools. Three secondary schools in Linz am Rhein (Germany) were identified for participation. Together with the headmasters, the ideas for futures workshops in the schools were agreed upon, so that the children and young people could contribute to the Smart City project. The concept of the futures workshops was specifically adapted to the school types and pupils. Schools and number of students were: a) High School (Age 14-19): 380 students; b) Integrative secondary school (Age 14-18):270 students; c) Vocational school (Age 15+): 80 students.
While several futures workshops had been held with adults from different target groups based on the steps according to Müllert (2009), specific challenges for pupils and pedagogical aspects needed to be addressed in the structure and implementation of the workshops. The workshops were planned together with the participating headmasters and teachers. The whole process and the respective roles of teachers, project leaders and researchers were defined. In preparatory steps, the objectives of the workshops were first agreed. In the workshops, pupils should develop their own future visions for an intelligent region in the areas of health, citizen services, mobility, urban development and participation. This involved identifying key technologies and implementation measures.
To make it as easy as possible for children and young people to understand the basics of Smart Cities and Smart Regions, simple and easily accessible materials are needed. We developed a two-page handout (see Figure 1), which had at the front page short, easy-tounderstand definitions of smart regions and smart cities. The five topic areas of the Smart City project were also briefly described. On the back, the planned tasks were described. This included a brief description in simple language so that pupils could work through the tasks as intuitively as possible during the project day. The tasks and schedules were explained at the beginning. Together with the teachers of the three schools, the tasks and the entire handout were checked for comprehensibility from the pupils’ point of view and wording. The handout was made available to the pupils a few days before the project day via the respective digital pupil information systems.
The teachers were essential for the project days, as they can provide pedagogical support to the pupils, while the researchers were responsible for the content aspects of the workshop. However, this required the development of a common understanding when working with pupils. Therefore, a videoconference was held with the teachers beforehand to discuss the main objectives and timetable. A presentation was prepared for the joint discussion and introduction to participation, which was also used during the project days. In addition, a choreography has been developed that defines the exact times for each project day. The necessary utensils and equipment for the rooms were also described. In addition, the timetables were defined with the respective contents, the necessary material resources and personal responsibility.
On the project days, the pupils were guided through the choreography step by step. Table 2 shows the respective steps and time sequences on the project days for the development of future scenarios. Together with the teachers, care was taken to ensure that the content of the time sequences was adapted as far as possible to the needs of the pupils. This included alternating periods of concentrated work with targeted breaks. The project day was designed around the regular class periods and breaks so that the pupils could work at their usual pace. An important goal at the end of the project day was for the groups of pupils to present the results to their respective classes. This allowed all classmates to understand the future visions of all pupils in a class and the intentions behind them. The future scenarios were photographed and then made available to all participating pupils. This allowed pupils to look beyond the class group for more results.
The results of the posters were documented and quantitatively evaluated. 700 pupils from the three schools submitted a total of 606 ideas, of which 363 were individual ideas for improving their living environment. Figure 2 shows an example of the visions of the future developed by the schools. The pupils’ presentations and the evaluation of the posters made it possible to gradually bundle the visions developed.
Along the action areas of the Smart City/Region, 20 ideas were related to participation, 75 to citizen services, 236 to mobility, 29 to health and 293 to urban development, whereby some proposals could be allocated to more than one action areas. Table 3 shows the collected actions. Across all school types, project ideas in the areas of intelligent mobility, revitalization of the city center, climate adaptation and climate protection were frequently mentioned.
In particular, the improvement of existing and sustainable mobility options was discussed as a priority by pupils. Supporting all areas of action through digital technologies and intergenerational participation was also discussed intensively, and many ideas for solutions were developed. Although the three types of schools and the pupils involved come from different educational and age groups, similar visions were ultimately brought together. In particular, mobility was identified as a major Figure 2: Example posters from the challenge impacting themselves between their school classes homes and their schools, and many approaches for improvement were derived. Although the schools are located in the city center of the region, many of the children and young people live in the surrounding rural area. Many approaches also included the use of digital technologies to improve services in the city and the region. After processing and sorting the visions of the futures, these were assigned to the topic areas and integrated with the results from the adult engagements. The participation program of pupils provided additional insights, particularly in the three topic areas of mobility, urban development and citizen services. Among other things, the previous participation offers of the Smart City/Region project did not include measures for the modernization and digitalization of schools.
This research proposed a methodological approach for pupils’ participation in different schools. The focus for the method and approach came from a Smart City/Smart Region research, where different participation approaches have already been carried out with different actors. While different target groups have been reached, the number of young people participating was very low. Therefore, the school project days were executed.
However, the participation of pupils is not the same as that of adults. The age groups in the schools are very different and, accordingly, the background knowledge or general knowledge on topics such as Smart City/Smart Region is significantly lower than that of the participating adults. At the same time, however, it is important that such background information on a project such as Smart City/Region is made available to pupils in a way that is appropriate to the target group and in an appropriate language. According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, participation is an important aspect of learning about democracy at school. Through targeted and children-oriented participation approaches, pupils can learn about democracy and participation while making an important contribution to society [27]–[29], [34].
We put forward a methodological approach for participation activities in schools. The approach was used to develop future scenarios of a smart city/region. Pupils were given a first and simple introduction to the Smart City concept. The method was implemented in three different types of schools and age groups. It turned out that the method can be used equally well with younger pupils from a high school and a middle school as well as with young people from vocational classes. The two-page handout summarized the essential background information and made it accessible to the students. In this way, the pupils’ focus was on the participatory activity rather than on learning technical terms and background knowledge. A choreography structured the schedule and was available to all organizing actors. Essentially, the methodical approach ensured that, in addition to providing information tailored to the target group, the working hours of the project days were precisely adapted to typical school hours. The breaks were determined and the work phases were planned around these times. The subsequent joint presentations in the classrooms allowed the pupils to present and discuss their ideas together. In this way, further additions could be integrated and thinking outside the box was encouraged. The 606 ideas were then evaluated and grouped by the research team along the smart city areas participation, citizen services, health, mobility and urban development. Urban development and mobility were particularly prominent, which can be attributed to the behavior and attitudes of the young generation towards sustainability and environmental protection through smart technologies [39].
The methodological approach of developing future scenarios represents a starting point for the preparation and implementation of research and practice-oriented project days in schools. In the further course of the Smart City/ Smart Region project, various participation opportunities such as real-world laboratories are planned in the five specific measures. These will include the co-creative implementation of the selected future visions (for an example of a co-creative approach to an application, see [40]). The modification of the method and the future use of the participatory method will also be researched and tested in other schools and in focus groups with children.
While this approach cannot alone increase ad hoc participation in schools and thus the involvement of pupils in democratic decision-making [14], the results of the workshops can be integrated into the Smart Region project step by step. Further research will evaluate the method in other participation programs with schools. Since community projects such as Smart City/Smart Region are designed to increase the democratic participation of all citizens and since such sustainable solutions affect children and young people, this stakeholder group should therefore be substantially involved in smart city / region actions.
smart city,” Inf. Polity, vol. 21, no. 1, 2015. [7] R. Giffinger, C. Fertner, H. Kramar, and E. Meijers, “Smart cities Ranking of European medium-sized cities,” 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.smartcities.com/download/city_ranking_final.pdf [8] J. R. Gil-Garcia, T. A. Pardo, and T. Nam, “What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization,” Inf. Polity, vol. 20, no. 1, 2015, doi: 10.3233/IP-150354. [9] R. Antoschin and M. A. Wimmer, “Smart Cities: Practitioners’ Understanding and
Expectations,” in Proceedings of DG.O, ACM, 2021, pp. 406–413. [10] D. Bastos, A. Fernández-Caballero, A. Pereira, and N. P. Rocha, “Smart City Applications to Promote Citizen Participation in City Management and Governance: A Systematic Review,” Informatics, 9, 4. 2022. doi: 10.3390/informatics9040089. [11] P. Cardullo and R. Kitchin, “Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland,” GeoJournal, vol. 84, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10708-018-9845-8. [12] A. Simonofski, E. S. Asensio, J. De Smedt, and M. Snoeck, “Citizen participation in smart cities: Evaluation framework proposal,” in Proceedings - 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics, CBI 2017, 2017. doi: 10.1109/CBI.2017.21. [13] J. Tadili and H. Fasly, “Citizen participation in smart cities: A survey,” in ACM
International Conference Proceeding Series, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3368756.3368976. [14] J. E. Montalvan Castilla and A. Riel Müller, “A smart city for all citizens: an exploration of children’s participation in Norway’s smartest city,” Int. Plan. Stud., 29, 1, 2024. [15] A. Simonofski, T. Vallé, E. Serral, and Y. Wautelet, “Investigating context factors in citizen participation strategies: A comparative analysis of Swedish and Belgian smart cities,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 56, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.007. [16] B. Granier and H. Kudo, “How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese ‘smart Communities,’” Inf. Polity, 21, 1, 2016. [17] C. Goodwin and M. H. Goodwin, “Participation.,” in A companion to linguistic anthropology, Alessandro Duranti, Ed., Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. [18] S. R. Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.,” J. Am. Inst. Planners, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 216–24, 1969. [19] R. A. Irvin and J. Stansbury, “Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2004. [20] C. S. King, K. M. Feltey, and B. O. Susel, “The Question of Participation: Toward Authen-tic Public Participation in Public Administration.,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 317–26, 1998. [21] R. D. Putnam, “America’s DecliningSocial Capital.,” J. Democarcy, 6, 1, pp. 65–78, 1995. [22] M. E. Milakovich, “The Internet and Increased Citizen Participation in Government,”
JeDEM-eJournal eDemocracy open Gov., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2010. [23] F. Qaed, “The Value of Design Thinking for Smart Cities,” in IET Conference
Proceedings, 2020. doi: 10.1049/icp.2021.0934.
[24] C. Peters and M. Billert, “Government-as-a-Platform im Kontext Bürgerbeteiligung:
Konzeption, Entwicklung und Integration am Beispiel einer deutschen Smart City,”
in Kommunales Open Government - Grundlagen, Praxis, Perspektiven, Marburg:
Büchner Verlag, 2021, pp. 52–64.
[25] A. Simonofski, M. Snoeck, and B. Vanderose, “Co-creating e-Government Services: An
Empirical Analysis of Participation Methods in Belgium,” in Setting Foundations for
the Creation of Public Value in Smart Cities. Public Administration and Information
Technology, 35th ed., M. P. R. Bolivar, Ed., Springer, 2019, pp. 225–245.
[26] E. Przeybilovicz et al., “Citizen participation in the smart city: findings from an
international comparative study,” Local Gov. Stud., vol. 48, no. 1, 2022.
[27] J. Gunzenreiner, J. Reitinger, and M. Rombach, “Relevanz von Demokratielernen und
Partizipation im Kontext von Schule und Unterricht,” in Demokratie und Partizipation
in Hochschullernwerkstätten., V. S. Franz, J. K. Langhof, J. Simon, and E.-K. Franz, Eds.,
Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt, 2024, pp. 148–161.
[28] M. Gamsjäger and D. Wetzelhütter, “Zwischen Scheinpartizipation und tatsächlicher
Einflussnahme – Die Bedeutung von Partizipation für das Engagement von
SchülerInnen,” in P
Analysis of Unfolding Data Based on Hart’s Ladder of Participation,” methods, data,
Anal., vol. 9, no. 1, 2015.
[31] S. Reitz, “Kinder und Jugendliche haben ein Recht auf Partizipation: was aus
menschenrechtlicher Sicht im Bildungsbereich getan werden muss,” Policy Pap. /
Dtsch. Inst. für Menschenrechte, vol. 31, p. 16, 2015.
[32] C. Reisenauer, “Kinder- und Jugendpartizipation im schulischen Feld – 7 Facetten
eines vielversprechenden Begriffs,” in P
Ein Lehr- und Studienbuch., 4th ed. Frankfurt a
Allgemeine Qualitätsstandards und Empfehlungen für die Praxisfelder Kindertageseinrichtungen, Schule, Kommune, Kinder- und Jugendarbeit und Erzieherische Hilfen,” Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. [35] L. Lundy, “‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Br. Educ. Res. J., vol. 33, no. 6, 2007, doi: 10.1080/01411920701657033. [36] R. Popp, “Partizipative Zukunftsforschung in der Praxisfalle? Zukünfte wissenschaftlich erforschen – Zukunft partizipativ gestalten,” in Zukunftsforschung und Zukunftsgestaltung, R. Popp and E. Schüll, Eds., Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp. 131–143. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78564-4. [37] O. G. Schrot, J. Traxler, A. Weifner, and M. M. Kretzer, “Potential of ‘future workshop’ method for educating adolescents about climate change mitigation and adaptation: a case from Freistadt, Upper Austria,” Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, 2021, doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2020.1816515. [38] N. R. Müllert, “Zukunftswerkstätten Über Chancen demokratischer Zukunftsgestaltung,” in Zukunftsforschung und Zukunftsgestaltung, R. Popp and E.
Schüll, Eds., Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, pp. 269–276. [39] M. Wawer, K. Grzesiuk, and D. Jegorow, “Smart Mobility in a Smart City in the Context of Generation Z Sustainability, Use of ICT, and Participation,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 13, 2022, doi: 10.3390/en15134651. [40] V. Spitzer and M. A. Wimmer, “Conception of a digital mobility platform for citizens in rural areas,” in Proceedings of DG.O 2021, pp. 414–421.