smart urban regions of the future (surf)

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


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


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


Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Marcus Popkema, Dr. male

Date of PhD 2014


2

Position Lecturer

University/

Institute Windesheim University of Applied Sciences

Department Department of Technology Section School of Built Environment &

Transport

Address Campus 2-6 Zip/city 8017 CA Zwolle


Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Jacco Farla, Dr. male

Date of PhD 2000


University/


Department GeoSciences Section Copernicus Institute

Address Heidelberglaan 2 Zip/city 3584 CS Utrecht

Tel +31 30 253 7850 E-mail [email protected]

Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Erik Stam, Prof. Dr. male

Date of PhD 2003


University/


Department Law, Economics and Governance Section Utrecht University School of

Economics

Address Kriekenpitplein 21-22 Zip/city 3584 CS Utrecht


Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Martin Dijst, Prof. Dr. male

Date of PhD 1995


University/


Department GeoSciences Section Urban Geography

Address Heidelberglaan 2 Zip/city 3584 CS Utrecht


Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Pieter van Wesemael, Prof. Dr. Ir. male

Date of PhD 1997


3


University/


Department Built Environment Section Architectural Urban Design and

Engineering

Address Den Dolech 2 Zip/city 5600 MB Eindhoven


Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Frank Schipper, Dr. male

Date of PhD 2008


University/


Department Industrial Engineering and

Innovation Sciences Section Technology, Innovation & Society

Address Den Dolech 2 Zip/city 5600 MB


Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Sukanya Krishnamurthiy, Dr. female

Date of PhD 2012


University/


Department Built Environment Section Architectural Urban Design and

Engineering

Address Den Dolech 2 Zip/city 5600 MB


Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Linze Schaap, Dr. male

Date of PhD 1997

Position associate professor (UHD)

University/

Institute Tilburg University

Department Tilburg School of Politics and Public

Administration Section

Address PO Box 90153 Zip/city 5000 LE Tilburg


Co-applicant


4

Name, title(s) Luca Bertolini, Prof. Dr. male

Date of PhD 1995


University/

Institute University of Amsterdam

Department Social and Behavioural Sciences Section Urban Planning

Address Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 Zip/city 1018 WV Amsterdam


Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Willem Buunk, Dr. Ir. male

Date of PhD 2003

Position Professor (Lector)

University/


Department Research Centre for Technology Section Professorship Area Development


Tel 06 - 14361224 E-mail [email protected]

Co-applicant

Name, title(s) Friso de Vor, Dr. male

Date of PhD 2011

Position Researcher

University/


Department Research Centre For Technology Section Professorship Area Development


Tel 088 4696007 E-mail [email protected]

Co-applicant: non-academic (public and/or private partner)

Organisation Utrecht Municipality

Position

Department Milieu en Mobiliteit Section

Contact person Frans Jan van Rossem male

Address Postbus 8406 Zip/city 3503 RK Utrecht



Organisation Utrecht Province

Position


5

Department BRU, OV & Mobiliteit Section

Contact person Herbert Tiemens male

Address Archimedeslaan 6 Zip/city 3584 BA Utrecht

Tel +31 30-2862565 E-mail herbert.tiemens@provincie-

utrecht.nl


Organisation Amsterdam Municipality

Position

Department Verkeer en Openbare Ruimte Section

Contact person Stefan Verduin male

Address PO Box 95089 Zip/city 1090 HB Amsterdam

Tel 14020 E-mail [email protected]


Organisation Stadsregio Amsterdam

Position

Department Afdeling Ruimte & Mobiliteit Section

Contact person Martijn Sargentini male

Address Postbus 626 Zip/city 1000 AP Amsterdam

Tel 020-5273700 E-mail M.Sargentini@stadsregioamsterda

m.nl


Organisation Zwolle Municipality

Position

Department Ontwikkeling, Ruimte & Economie Section

Contact person Syb Tjepkema male

Address Lubeckplein 2 Zip/city 8000 GA Zwolle



Organisation Overijssel Province

Position

Department Ruimte en Bereikbaarheid Section

Contact person Ronald van Witzenburg male

Address Luttenbergstraat 2 Zip/city 8000 GB Zwolle



Organisation Eindhoven Municipality

Position


6

Department Verkeer en Milieu Section

Contact person Jan Willem Hommes male

Address PO Box 90150 Zip/city 5600 RB Eindhoven



Organisation Noord-Brabant Province

Position

Department Verkeer en Vervoer Section

Contact person Nathan Hooghof male

Address Brabantlaan 1 Zip/city 5200 MC Den Bosch



Organisation Knowledge Platform CROW “Fietsberaad”

Position

Department Section

Contact person Frans Bekhuis male

Address Galvanistraat 1 Zip/city 6170 BA Ede

Tel 031 8595300 E-mail [email protected]


Organisation Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

Position

Department Kennisinstituut voor

Mobiliteitsbeleid Section

Contact person Lucas Harms male

Address Plesmanweg 1-6 Zip/city 2597 JG Den Haag


2. Title of the proposal

SMART CYCLING FUTURES

3. Publishable summary of the proposed research (word count: 247)

Cycling booms in many Dutch cities. While smart cycling innovations promise to increase cycling’s modal

share in the (peri-)urban transport system even further, little is understood of their impact or cost and

benefit. The “Smart Cycling Futures (SCF)” program investigates how smart cycling innovations ─

including ICT-enabled cycling innovations, infrastructures, and social innovations like new business

models ─ contribute to more resilient and liveable Dutch urban regions. Cycling innovations benefit urban

regions in terms of accessibility, equality, health, liveability, and decreasing CO2-emissions when socially


7

well embedded. To facilitate a transition to a sustainable future that respond to pressing issues, the SCF

research project runs urban living labs in close collaboration with key stakeholders to develop

transdisciplinary insights in the conditions needed for upscaling smart-cycling initiatives. Each living lab

involving real-world experiments responds to the urgent challenges that urban regions and their

stakeholders face today. The proposed research sub-programs focus on institutional dynamics,

entrepreneurial strategies, governance and the socio-spatial conditions for smart cycling. Going beyond

analysis, we also assess the economic, social, and spatial impacts of cycling on urban regions. The

research program brings together four Dutch regions through academic institutions (three general and

one applied-science universities); governmental authorities (urban and regional); and market players

(innovative entrepreneurs). Together, they answer practice-based questions in a transdisciplinary and

problem-oriented fashion. Research in the four regions generates both region-specific and universally

applicable findings. Finally, SCF uses its strong research-practice network around cycling to co-create the

research and run an outreach program.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONSORTIUM

4. Composition of the consortium

Consortium Member Involvement in the project Expertise

Prof. Dr. Ir. Rob Raven

General consortium leadership,

PhD (co-)promoter sub-project 1

and 3, post-doc supervisor sub-

project 4

Transitions; institutional change;

living labs; smart cities

Prof. Dr. Ruth Oldenziel PhD promoter sub-project 3, co-

promoter sub-project 1

Innovation and users;

comparative cycling history;

sustainable mobility

Dr. Marco te Brömmelstroet

PhD supervisor sub-projects 2

and 3, post-doc supervisor sub-

project 4

Urban planning; cycling

Dr. Marcus Popkema

Supervisor junior researcher

sub-project 5; alignment

between sub-project 5 and other

sub-projects

Transport studies

Dr. Jacco Farla

PhD supervisor sub-project 1

and 3, supporting consortium

leadership

Transitions; mobility; innovation

systems; actor strategies

Prof. Dr. Erik Stam PhD promoter sub-project 1 Entrepreneurship; institutions;

economics; business models

Prof. Dr. Martin Dijst

Facilitate interaction with related

UU SURF proposal “TULP:

Toward healthy Urban Labour

Practices”

Urban geography; mobility;

cycling


8

Dr. Linze Schaap PhD co-promoter sub-project 3 Governance & Public

Administration

Prof. Dr. Ir. Pieter van

Wesemael

PhD promoter sub-project 3, co-

promoter PhD Sub-project 2. Urban design; spatial planning

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


Utrecht region, articulating



Cycling; regional governance;

urban design

Stefan Verduin


Amsterdam region, articulating



Knowledge management;

transport studies; regional

governance

Martijn Sargentini


Amsterdam region, articulating



Cycling; transport; urban

planning

Syb Tjepkema


Zwolle/Overijssel region,

articulating knowledge questions

and feedback into academic

research

Transport studies; cycling; urban

governance

Ronald van Witzenburg


Zwolle/Overijssel region,



research

Transport; regional governance

Jan Willem Hommes


Eindhoven/Brabant region,



research

Transport studies; urban

governance


9

Nathan Hooghof


Eindhoven/Brabant region,



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


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),


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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.


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.


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.


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

Zwolle 2014-2017; Koersdocument Fiets Overijssel 2015;

• Utrecht municipality and Utrecht province. The research project relates to various policy

ambitions: Utrecht Aantrekkelijk en Bereikbaar; Fietsvisie BRU 2015-2018; Actieprogramma

Fiets 2015-2018;

• Amsterdam municipality and Amsterdam City Region. The research project relates to various

policy ambitions: Investeringsagenda Fiets; Meerjarenplan Fietsen; Uitvoeringsprogramma

Balans in de Stad.


21

Figure 2: Four regions in this study

Scientific quality

Academic attention for cycling by transport planners, geographers, and historians has boomed in recent

years. Studies focused on long-term effects of cycling policies, cycling’s social and geographical

determinants of cycling, and its environmental impacts (Heinen et al., 2010; Pucher, 2010), but the

impact of smart innovations on the larger cycling system, urban resilience, and liveability has yet to be

studied systematically.

Cycling can be conceptualized as a “socio-technical system in transition” (Rotmans et al. 2001; Geels

2002; Shove 2012; Gössling 2013). Such a concept focuses on the transformative change in urban

mobility structures by looking beyond the bicycle as a technological artefact and its supporting physical

infrastructures. Instead, it highlights cycling practices in everyday life as embedded in spatial, historical,

social, cultural, economic, and political structures. These socially embedded structures provide stability to

cycling as a “system”. At the same time, such structures may also impede efforts towards more radical

change and substantial cycling improvements. From innovation studies we know that novelties paving

the way toward these alternative futures are generally first introduced on a smaller scale as pilot projects

in an experimental environment (Hoogma et al. 2002; Brown et al. 2003; Bulkeley et al. 2015).

Therefore, to engage with the process of transition through experimentation, this project emphasizes the

role of so-called urban living labs (Karvonen and Van Heur, 2014). Living labs constitute a partnership-

based mode of governance that delivers valuable outcomes by bringing together different stakeholders.


22

Social actors from industry, knowledge institutes, civil-society organisations, and various levels of

government team up to co-produce innovative arrangements in strategically selected real-world settings

by conducting hands-on experiments. In this project, we consider Living labs as both an arena (i.e. a

geographically or institutionally bounded space within which experiments take place) and an approach (a

formal collaboration between different types of stakeholders with the intent to experiment).

Our main research question we address in this project is the following:

Under what conditions can the socio-technical system of cycling serve as a foundation for resilient and

liveable urban regions and how can transition pathways toward these smart cycling futures be

accelerated?

To address this research question, we distinguish three dimensions to study smart cycling futures, which

are addressed in five sub-projects (see figure 3):

• Urban conditions explaining the current and potential factors influencing smart cycling futures,

consisting of four types: institutional, spatial, socio-cultural, and economic;

• Transition strategies to be deployed to achieve smart cycling futures, honing in on

entrepreneurial strategies and public governance;

• Impacts of smart cycling futures on the liveability and resilience of regions.

Figure 3: Overview of interrelationships between the different sub-projects.

Methods

Methodologically, the living labs are at the heart of the proposed research. Each living lab consists of one

or more real-world experiments to be carried out based on shared goals of city and regional actors as

well as the participating innovators. The living labs in the four urban regions are based on the interests

and relevance for each region (see table 1). The consortium’s ambition is to provide living lab


23

environments in Utrecht, Amsterdam, Zwolle, and Eindhoven for at least two promising and locally

selected bicycle innovations. A final selection of living labs and innovations is made during project

execution, taking into account 1) relevance to evolving policy agenda’s; 2) scientific relevance in terms

of maximum variation; 3) entrepreneurial opportunities.

In a preparatory workshop, the consortium identified promising innovations that members believed to be

relevant to current urban policy agenda’s (see also appendix):

• Smart sharing: Cycleswap for providing cyclists with a way to share their own bikes with

strangers assisted by smart phone apps (p2p) and Hopperpoint for turn-key solutions to share

bicycles and e-bikes assisted by various new technologies like e-parking, GPS tracking, and

smart phone-based locks;

• Smart infrastructure: Evergreen, The Light Companion, and Go-Light Avenue for interacting

between cyclists and new kinds of physical infrastructure like cycling highways and responsive

traffic lights;

• Smart nudging: RingRing and Copenhagenize for subtly encouraging cyclists and enhancing

their cycling experience by monetizing cycling kilometres.

Figure 4: Interest expressed by the four regions for seven smart-cycling innovations during

August 18, 2015 workshop

The project is open to additional living labs like existing programs “Beter Benutten” and “Stimulering

Fietscommunity”. The researchers and other project partners co-create and participate in these living

labs. This action-research method offers a unique opportunity to follow closely how cycling is being

innovated and shapes the future of urban regions. For more details of the (qualitative and quantitative)

scientific methods in this project, see sub-project descriptions.

Connection with the SURF program

The research fits well within the Smart Urban Regions of the Future program because it is:


24

• Problem-oriented. Researchers, the knowledge users (policy makers and stakeholders in the four

urban regions), and innovative entrepreneurs closely interact. The living labs serve as meeting

places where tri-partite knowledge co-creation is situated based on actual policy questions.

• Region specific and comparative. Research in the four urban regions generates region-specific as

well as universally applicable success for cycling system innovations that is foundational to each

urban region.

• Smart co-operation. In the proposed project, researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds,

entrepreneurs, and policy makers collaborate in a transdisciplinary manner, resulting in novel

alliances cutting through the public and private sphere.

• Smart technologies. In the living labs the existing and proven bicycle technology are combined

with innovations focusing on sharing, nudging, and infrastructure.

• The social challenges of accessibility, governance, economics and space are addressed in the

research project to provide useful knowledge and concrete initiatives in the four regions.

Part A: Sub-projects universities

Sub-project 1: Institutional dynamics and business model innovation (1 PhD student)

WORD COUNT: 1368

Project leader

The Copernicus Institute of Utrecht University leads this sub-project. ‘Institutions’ is one of four strategic

themes of Utrecht University. Copernicus Institute, GeoSciences Faculty, is an internationally leading

organisation on sustainability transitions. With its expertise on social and institutional entrepreneurship,

the Utrecht School of Economics (USE) co-supervises the PhD student.

Objectives and research questions

Introduction

Smart cycling innovations face major challenges when it comes to deployment and upscaling because of

their mismatch with existing urban contexts. For instance, smart cycling innovations may require high-

speed cycling lanes crossing municipal borders, new planning procedures for incorporating long-distance

e-bike cycling patterns, different user behaviour for participating in GPS-enabled bike-sharing schemes,

and more generally, new policy priorities and financing models for cycling compared to other modes of

transportation. Therefore, smart cycling futures require institutional change before wide-scale diffusion

can be realized.

This sub-project identifies institutional constraints and opportunities in the transition towards smart

cycling futures. It builds on sociological approaches in institutional theory, socio-technical transitions

theory, and business model literature. We expect major scientific contributions by demonstrating and

explaining spatial variability in institutional strategies and business models.


25

Objectives:

1. To map and compare the historically developed institutional logics for urban mobility in four

urban regions in the Netherlands;

2. To develop insights in the spatial variability and strategies for successful institutional

entrepreneurship in urban contexts;

3. To create new knowledge for enabling business models for a transition towards smart cycling

urban futures, taking into account divergent urban contexts.

Research questions:

1. What are the institutional logics for urban mobility in four Dutch urban regions and how are they

similar or different?

2. How do urban institutional entrepreneurship for smart cycling attempt to challenge these logics,

and how can spatial variation in these strategies be explained?

3. Which relevant business model innovations for smart cycling futures can be identified?

Objective 1: mapping and comparing institutional logics for urban mobility

Introduction

A key feature of cities is that their material and institutional forms are closely linked to past decisions on

mobility provision and use. Various modes of mobility co-exist including individual car-ownership, (semi-)

public transport services, cycling, and walking. Together these spin a web of travel patterns within a city

and between its centre and periphery. As a result urban forms and institutional contexts differ across

cities. Both the ways in which smart cycling futures are shaped in each city and the opportunities for

strategic interventions differ.

Approach

To identify urban institutional conditions for change, this sub-project starts with mapping and comparing

the ‘institutional logics’ for urban mobility in participating urban regions. The concept of institutional

logics has recently been proposed in transitions theory to improve analyses of the structural conditions,

enabling and constraining radical innovations (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014). The concept originates

from institutional theory and refers to foundational rationalities underpinning a given organisational field.

Thornton and Ocasio (1999) define institutional logics as “the socially constructed, historical patterns of

material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce

their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality”.

We follow Fuenfschilling and Truffer's approach to map institutional logics. This implies that our approach

consists of a discourse analysis (Hajer, 2006) of urban decision-making processes around the provision

of urban mobility infrastructures. We use three data sources available in each urban region:

1. historical records of public inquires about urban mobility infrastructures of the past 10-15 years;

2. local and regional news paper articles on urban mobility;

3. publically available grey literature and policy documents on urban mobility.

The analysis combines quantitative counting techniques (on the basis of coding different logics in the


26

primary data) and software assisted discourse analysis through the use of T-lab with qualitative pattern

matching through developing and comparing case study narratives.

Expected results

A systematic overview of the various degrees at which different modes of mobility are institutionalized

within and across the urban regions.

Objective 2: institutional entrepreneurship in transitions to smart cycling futures

Introduction

Given that “institutional logics” for urban mobility are likely to differ across urban regions, objective 2

identifies the spatial variety in, and strategies for, challenging these logics. While objective 1 focuses on

all forms of mobility, objective 2 zooms in on strategies for institutionalizing smart cycling innovations.

Approach

Analytically this objective draws on institutional entrepreneurship literature, which deals with identifying

the ways in which actors attempt to change institutional contexts. Battilana et al. (2009) found that

institutional change depends on 1) enabling conditions for institutional entrepreneurship and; 2) the

process of divergent change implementation.

Enabling conditions are divided in field-level characteristics and social positions of institutional

entrepreneurs. The process of divergent change implementation depends on creating an encompassing

vision for change and on whether the institutional entrepreneur is able to mobilize allies. This model is a

starting point for coding the empirical material.

Each urban region develops one or two living labs. We closely trace ways in which smart cycling

advocates strategically position themselves within existing institutional logics and the ways in which

other coalitions try to counter-act or modify their strategic attempts. Data is collected through:

1. longitudinal ethnographic research through active participation in the living labs like preparatory

meetings, public events ,and as a ‘mobile participant’;

2. interviews with 10-15 living labs stakeholders representing the different institutional logics

identified under objective 1.

Expected results

A typology of institutional entrepreneurship strategies for smart cycling and the spatial variety in

conditions and processes through which these come about. We expect to extend current institutional

theory through comparative analysis across the urban regions by including the ways in which spatially

differentiated institutional logics influence entrepreneurial strategies.

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


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.


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.


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?


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).


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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?


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


42

9. Time plan

9a. Duration of the project

Envisaged start date: 01.4.2016

Envisaged end date: 30.03.2021


43

9b. Timetable


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


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.


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.


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


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)


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.


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)

Eindhoven Municipality €20.000 200 hours (€100/hr)

Utrecht Province €20.000 200 hours (€100/hr)


50

Utrecht Municipality €40.000 400 hours (€100/hr)

CROW €15.000 150 hours (€100/hr)

Additionally, Amsterdam Municipality and the Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy (KiM) have

expressed commitment to SMART CYCLING FUTURES without financial details (see attached Letters of

Commitment)

TOTAL IN-KIND MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION: €183.150

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET: €1.484.017

13. Requested funding part B: Budget Table B

Name applicant University of Applied Sciences:

Windesheim University of Applied Sciences

Duration of the project: 3 years

14. Motivation for the requested budget

The financial resources for the research team for part B consist of salary costs, material costs and costs

for dissemination of results. The following table provides a breakdown of the total project budget into

these cost categories. Each of them will be elaborated below.

Personnel costs

Costs for personnel in part B consist of salary costs for three senior researchers, two junior researchers,

one person for administrative support and two policy advisors.

• Senior Researcher 1, 3 years, 0,02 fte at Windesheim (supervision of subproject 5), €8.110

• Senior Researcher 2, 3 years, 0,05 fte at Windesheim, (supervision of Junior 1, alignment with

other subprojects), €16.835

• Senior Researcher 3, 3 years, 0,2 fte at Windesheim, (supervision of Junior 2, synthesis of

results), €67.340

• Junior Researcher 1, 3 years, 0,4 fte at Windesheim, €117.035

• Junior Researcher 2, 3 years, 0,45 fte at Windesheim, €111.813

• Administrative Support, 3 years, 0,05 fte at Windesheim, €9.174

• Policy Advisor 1, 3 years, 0,06 fte at City of Zwolle, €25.925

• Policy Advisor 2, 3 years, 0,06 fte at Overijssel Province, €25.925


51

TOTAL PERSONEL COSTS: € 382.157

Material costs

The budget for material costs is broken down into fieldwork and datasets (€15.000) and dissemination

(€12.500).

Please note that in the budget overview for part B the amounts differ slightly (€17.500 for fieldwork and

datasets, €10.000 for dissemination), the sum for Materials is nevertheless the same (€27.500). This is

the result of an accidental inconsistency.

Fieldwork and datasets consists of €15.000 (€5000 annually), which is expected to cover costs for:

• Interviews, questionnaires (100 x €30 = €3000)

• Software licenses for data analysis (€1500)

• Access to archival records, statistics material and other data sources (€3000)

• Costs for GPS devices, smartphone apps and other forms of data collection in living labs (€7500)


Dissemination consists of:

• Organization of one of the annual national cycling conferences: €10.000

• ‘On-demand’ dissemination, website, newsletters and other general dissemination activities:

€2500

TOTAL DISSEMINATION: €12.500

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS €409.657

These costs are partially covered by contributions from external partners:

! €25.925 by City of Zwolle (in cash)

! €25.925 by Overijssel Province (in cash)

! €2.978 by Windesheim University of Applied Sciences (in cash)

! €25.925 by City of Zwolle (in kind)

! €25.925 by Overijssel Province (in kind)

! €2.978 by Windesheim University of Applied Sciences (in kind)

TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS €109.657

Thus, total funding for the project requested from SIA is €300.000.

15. Sum of Budget table A and Budget table B:

€1.893.674

16. Other grant applications


52

If one of the applicants has submitted a similar proposal to another funding source, please provide the

requested information in the table below.

Please add a new table for each proposal.

NOT APPLICABLE

Title proposal:

Applicant(s):

Funding agency / budget applied for:

Date of submission / date of decision:

17. Statement regarding obligatory letter of commitment from external partner(s)

Please tick the appropriate box.

The obligatory letter(s) of commitment has/have been attached to this application in IRIS.

� YES

�

18. Statements by the main applicant

YES I have informed the host institution on this application and the institution has agreed to

provide all necessary support if this project is funded.

YES I have completed this form truthfully.

Name: Rob Raven

Place: Utrecht

Date: 07-09-2015

Deadline for submitting this form: 8 September 2015, at 13.59 hours CET.

Please submit the application to NWO in electronic form (pdf format is required!) using the Iris system,

which can be accessed via the NWO website http://www.iris.nwo.nl. The application must be submitted

from the account of the main applicant. For any technical questions regarding submission, please contact

the IRIS helpdesk ([email protected]).

smart urban regions of the future (surf)

Documents