Blockchain Papers

Fatemeh Esmaeilnezhadtanha, Aliakbar Hasani, Luca Spalazzi, Yves Wautelet

Distributed ledger technology (DLT) initiatives are frequently designed from a predominantly technical and functional perspective. Such a narrow focus often overlooks stakeholder-oriented non-functional requirements, thereby limiting adoption in complex socio-technical environments. To address this gap, this paper develops the SERS framework, a stakeholder-oriented framework that structures four key dimensions for the design and evaluation of decentralized systems: Security, Efficiency, Resiliency, and Sustainability. Following a Design Science Research approach, the framework is derived from a systematic literature review and refined through expert validation using the fuzzy Delphi technique. The resulting framework provides a domain-independent typology of stakeholder-oriented performance dimensions and associated assessment criteria. To demonstrate its applicability, the framework is used to guide the design of a multi-layer architecture integrating distributed ledger technologies, IoT, and Cloud/Edge/Fog computing within a healthcare context. The architecture is subsequently evaluated using the Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (Fuzzy-ANP) based on the SERS dimensions. The results indicate that the proposed architecture performs particularly strongly in terms of security and resiliency, while highlighting efficiency and sustainability as areas requiring further improvement. Beyond healthcare, the SERS framework provides a reusable mechanism for designing and evaluating decentralized socio-technical systems across a broad range of technology adoption contexts.

Christel van de Wal

Advances in data-sharing technologies offer governments opportunities to improve efficiency and public service delivery. However, ethical risks, legal constraints, and concerns about public trust often limit the adoption of data-sharing practices within governmental organisations. This study examines how Value-Sensitive Design (VSD) and collaboration technologies, including Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs), can support responsible and trustworthy data sharing in public governance. The research addresses ethical, legal, and organisational tensions while safeguarding public values and fundamental rights. A mixed-method research design combines literature reviews, qualitative case studies, and empirical validation, structured according to design science research principles. Building on analyses of governance frameworks and case studies in Dutch governmental organisations, the study develops and operationalises a methodological and normative framework for responsible data sharing. The research adapts VSD to governmental data ecosystems and provides a structured design approach supporting ethical and privacy-preserving data-sharing practices in public administration.

L. Gaegane, V. Molose

South Africa’s experience shows how participatory sustainability models can translate climate goals into locally led action across very different contexts. This chapter synthesizes evidence from urban Tshwane and rural Limpopo to examine how community empowerment, inclusive governance, and co-creation improve resilience while advancing multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In Tshwane, collaborative planning through the Integrated Development Plan, a climate action plan to 2050, and programmes such as the Pretoria East Urban Biosphere Reserve and school-based climate initiatives combined citizen science, green infrastructure, and nature-based solutions to restore ecosystems, strengthen water and energy security, and mainstream net-zero building standards. In Limpopo, the community-led Multiple-Use Services model and the Giyani Local-Scale Climate Resilience Programme paired Indigenous knowledge with technical support to co-design low-cost water systems, deploy solar-powered boreholes and small treatment units, and build local capacity for monitoring and maintenance. A six-step participatory framework underpinned both cases, from joint problem definition through implementation and skills transfer, with Innovation Forums enabling representation of women and youth and improving accountability. Comparative analysis highlights common enablers (trusted intermediaries, transparent budgeting, citizen science, and blended finance) and barriers (fragmented mandates, uneven data, limited digital access, and funding continuity). Policy recommendations include institutionalising community-led mechanisms in municipal processes, scaling nature-based and MUS approaches where appropriate, investing in skills and open data, and creating fit-for-purpose finance that matches local capabilities. The South African lessons offer scalable, context-sensitive pathways for empowering communities to climate-proof urban and rural systems.

Sunil Kumar R M, Raghavendra M Devadas, Mrutyunjaya M S, Praveen Gujjar J · 6 authors

Healthcare data infrastructures remain fragmented, insecure, and characterized by low trust, hindering interoperable, patient-centric care. Centralized architectures struggle with multi-stakeholder governance, fine-grained accountability, and performance at scale under real-world workloads. Distributed ledger technology (DLT) promises immutability, distributed trust, auditability, and strong provenance, yet most healthcare implementations focus on narrow use cases, ad-hoc governance choices, or limited performance benchmarking. This paper designs and empirically evaluates an integrated governance architecture and performance engineering framework for healthcare DLT ecosystems. The approach combines (i) a theoretical synthesis of DLT governance and health data governance, (ii) architecture and protocol design for permissioned and hybrid platforms (e.g., Corda, Hyperledger Fabric, Ethereum-based frameworks, edge–blockchain hybrids), and (iii) testbed implementations with multi-scenario benchmarking across local, cloud, and edge-integrated deployments. Results from representative use cases—EHR interoperability, m-health/IoT streaming, and self-sovereign identity and consent—show that DLT-enabled governance can strengthen integrity, accountability, and patient control while achieving acceptable throughput–latency envelopes compared with centralized baselines, subject to explicit trade-offs between decentralization, audit granularity, and scalability. The paper distils design guidelines and reusable governance–performance patterns for large-scale, interoperable DLT health ecosystems, clarifying when to Favor platform choices, consensus mechanisms, and data-management strategies given domain-specific requirements.

Sonja Kivinen

Tämän opinnäytetyön tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten kassanhallinta ja talousohjaus tulisi suunnitella web3-pohjaisessa startup -yrityksessä, jonka liiketoimintamalli on kehitysvaiheessa. Tutkimus kohdistui case-yritykseen, jonka toiminta yhdistää kotimaisen luonnonkalan välittämiseen perustuvan kalaliiketoiminnan sekä digitaalisen toimitusketjuratkaisun kehittämisen. Tutkimus toteutettiin laadullisena kehittämistyönä, jossa aineistona hyödynnettiin yrityksen edustajien haastatteluja sekä kassanhallinnan ja talousohjauksen teoreettista viitekehystä. Työssä analysoitiin yrityksen rahoitusrakennetta, operatiivisen kassavirran haasteita sekä taloushallinnon nykytilaa. Tulosten perusteella kassanhallinta kehitysvaiheessa olevassa startup -yrityksessä tulee rakentaa integroiduksi kokonaisuudeksi, joka yhdistää maksuperusteisen kassavirtaennusteen, burn rate- ja runway-seurannan, operatiiviset ja strategiset mittarit sekä vaiheittaisen järjestelmäintegraation. Kalaliiketoiminnan erityispiirteet, kuten ostojen ja myyntien ajoituserot sekä varaston kiertoon sitoutuva pääoma, korostavat käyttöpääoman hallinnan merkitystä. Web3- ja ERP-ratkaisut voivat parantaa kassavirran läpinäkyvyyttä ja reaaliaikaista seurantaa, mutta niiden tulee tukea selkeästi määriteltyä talousohjausmallia. Taloushallinnon osalta suositeltavaksi ratkaisuksi muodostui hybridimalli, jossa lakisääteiset toiminnot ulkoistetaan ja operatiivisesti kriittiset prosessit integroidaan yrityksen omaan järjestelmään. Opinnäytetyön tuloksena syntyi käytännönläheinen kassanhallinnan ja mittariston malli, joka tukee yrityksen siirtymää kehitysvaiheesta kohti taloudellisesti kestävää liiketoimintaa.

Ehsan Dorostkar, Keramatollah Ziari

No abstract is available for this record.

James Evans, Davide Cassanmagnago, Tathagata Chatterji, Andrew Irvin · 10 authors

Urban innovation has emerged as a priority to address global climate and sustainability goals. As the world continues to urbanise, global organisations are encouraging cities to spearhead innovation to meet global carbon reduction targets and reduce inequalities (UN Habitat, 2022). Finding new ways to build, manage and live in cities is critical to provide all humans with adequate nutrition, shelter, access to products and services including mobility, leisure, health, energy, and education (UN, 2023). Focusing on the potential role of urban innovation is logical -cities drive innovation by bringing diverse people, knowledge and resources together (Florida et al., 2018). In many ways urbanisation represents the manifestation of new technologies and forms of social organisation, from the hydraulic cities of Mesopotamia 7000 years ago through to industrial and post-industrial cities today (Jacobs, 1969;Athey et al., 2008). However, while the link between cities and innovation is longstanding, the idea of 'urban innovation' as a specific activity to discover new ways to develop, manage and inhabit cities in more sustainable ways is recent, distinct and less familiar. This framing of urban innovation reflects established approaches to governance for sustainability, layered over the distinctive characteristics and capabilities of cities. In this paper we define urban innovation as a directed activity that takes place in and is driven by cities as a way to address local challenges that will contribute to the delivery of global climate and sustainability goals. The emergence of the urban innovation as an influential global policy agenda pushes cities once more to the front of the battle against climate change. This paper examines the emergence of urban innovation as a discrete and influential policy goal to deliver global climate and sustainability goals and outlines a research agenda to help achieve this.The paper is authored with leading global organisations in this space -the United Nations Climate Change Global Innovation Hub and the Global Covenant of Mayors. The United Nations is the leading global organisation coordinating international action on key challenges including climate change. The United Nations Global Innovation Hub for Climate Change promotes innovation as a catalyst for achieving global climate and sustainability targets. Their first global dialogue series focused on cities specifically because of their potential to integrate technological, social, and policy innovations. The Global Innovation Hub emphasizes systemic approaches to urban innovation, fostering cross-sectoral collaboration and community engagement to create sustainable, climate resilient development in urban environments. The Global Covenant of Mayors (GCoM) represents an alliance of more than 13,000 cities combatting climate change. Through its Innovate4Cities initiative, launched in 2019 in response to the Edmonton Cities and Climate Change Science Conference (Oke et al., 2022), the GCoM alliance outlines the knowledge gaps and action priorities for urban innovation, research and implementation, sharing data and best practices, and unlocking financing for scalable urban innovation projects. Both work closely with the Mission Innovation Urban Transitions Mission, which launched at COP 26 in 2021. This organisation empowers cities worldwide in their transition towards net-zero, resilient, and people-centred cities, mobilizing decision-makers across all levels of government to prioritize pathways enabled by clean energy and systemic innovation across all sectors and in urban governance (Urban Transitions Mission, 2024). The Urban Transitions Mission develops innovation systems capable of transforming cities to address climate change, including a focus on coordinating city level research and innovation challenges (European Commission, 2022).These organisations form part of a Global Innovation Alliance (GIA), which is engaging cities and relevant partners to build a worldwide urban innovation policy agenda for climate and sustainability goals. This policy agenda is complemented by the Global Research and Action Agenda on Cities and Climate Change Science, which provides a cross-sectoral, systems-based foundation for knowledge to enable urban innovation. This document launched at the Cities and Climate Change Science Conference in Edmonton, Canada in 2018, and in its latest iteration following the 2024 Innovate4Cities Conference, serves as an evidence base for the knowledge and innovation outputs being co-created by researchers, governments, businesses, and civil society (Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, UN-Habitat & University of Melbourne, 2024). These initiatives demonstrate the growing ambition for science to inform action and facilitates the exchange of knowledge to support stronger and more ambitious urban solutions and partnerships.The priorities and initiatives of these international organisations individually and collectively show that urban innovation has become central to the delivery of global climate and sustainability goals at multiple levels of governance. Urban innovation is being promoted as a way to develop solutions to challenges in sectors ranging from energy and transport to housing and social justice. By cutting across domains, and more closely engaging economic and knowledge production, urban innovation represents an exciting new way to create more sustainable cities. However, as Bai (2024) notes in relation to the potential of cities to deliver the SDGs, action on the ground requires clarity of roles. The term 'urban innovation' is used widely now in policy and research, but in different ways by different groups to mean different things, not necessarily with sustainability or justice and equity as core values. Realising the potential of urban innovation to deliver climate and sustainability goals requires greater clarity in defining what exactly it is, how it should be done in practice, and who is supposed to be doing it. Given the political weight and resource behind it, researchers have an important role to play in helping to ensure that urban innovation is an equitable and effective. Addressing rather than exacerbating inequalities and making sure successful innovations are actually transformative lie at the forefront of this challenge. This Grand Challenge article builds upon the high levels of current ambition and activity associated with key international initiatives like the Global Innovation Alliance and Global Research and Action Agenda on Cities and Climate Change Science to frame a broad and inclusive research agenda for sustainable cities and urban innovation.Innovation relates to the development of new services, products or processes that generate value through being of use to customers or users. The concept of innovation was arguably first framed as a place-based agenda in scholarship and policies relating to regional innovation clusters. These often developed near universities, most famously in the case of the Silicon Valley innovation cluster in California that grew up around Stanford University. The focus was on supply-side technology development though, with little consideration of the demands of cities and their residents. The emergence of the idea of smart cities in the early Twenty-First Century dramatically changed this, positioning innovation as a key element of place-making. Urban innovation became an activity focusing on how to deploy digital technologies to improve cities and urban services (Angelidou, 2015). Successful examples include the replacement of traditional incandescent bulbs with LED for street lighting, and the adoption of digital information and payment platforms for citizens to engage with municipal authorities. Evidence suggests that cities investing in smart city projects tend to generate economic benefits associated with traditional innovation, gauged through measures such as numbers of patent filings (Caragliu and Del Bo, 2019). A rapidly growing body of work from China suggests a correlation between the innovative capacity of cities and their environmental performance (see for example Tan, et al., 2022;Yang, et al., 2022;Guo, et al., 2023). Work in this context has also identified a positive relationship between the existence of a digital economy and the achievement of low carbon transitions in larger Chinese cities (Liu et al., 2024). However, it is the distinct idea of urban innovation as a directed process that brings different stakeholders together to develop solutions to problems in their own cities that has gained traction beyond smart cities. In relation to environmental policy, the need for practical action to complement international commitments on climate change and sustainable development, coupled with the emergence of world cities as major political actors (Bulkeley, 2013), has provided fertile ground for urban innovation to emerge as a potential driver of societal change. Urban innovation represents the culmination of a longer-term metamorphosis of cities from being framed as sources of sustainability problems to sources of sustainability solutions (Angelo and Wachsmuth, 2020). In principle, urban innovation offers a way to situate and address the United Nation Sustainable Development the context of cities and 2024). In practice, the term urban innovation local a way to their own a to create sustainable and inclusive and new for their is urban innovation has rapidly become a priority to deliver global climate and sustainability emergence of urban innovation as a driver of sustainability and climate goals has by of research and innovation in but also the and of this has provided to by to new solutions in to demonstrate and how work in world like urban the of urban et al., a of sustainability solutions have in cities, successful projects have to up beyond their This has a focus on the in which projects and the need to build the capacity of cities to and innovations As notes examples of successful urban that help deliver global climate and sustainability goals the current policy agenda in the of leading global organisations promotes urban innovation as a rather than a discrete The systems to urban innovation from a of systems and and innovation upon the associated concept of an innovation innovation to a of and resources that work to the development and of new and products such as universities, governments, and research a regional or global context to enable innovation through knowledge and and 2020). urban innovation as an innovation brings focus a of that city provide et al., 2024). organisations provide local provide and help through The systems urban innovation by ways to and support the innovative capacity of cities while the and with of urban at and levels has a of in innovation as a to drive and address major societal challenges & and the of urban innovation is as a driver of systemic change. Urban innovation address place-based challenges by bringing and organisations change is critical in the context of climate and sustainability which of all of how we but to achieve governance and economic benefits at city level at 2024). often innovation the context of et al., and However, this focus the social, and political that are critical for sustainability Evidence suggests that social problems have become a major driver of urban innovation environmental challenges 2019). Urban innovation is not new technologies or projects but fostering systemic change through the of development and of new businesses, and approaches that sectors has urban innovation for transitions in cities by as of their innovation in the Urban Transitions The systemic of urban innovation more in to address societal change, like relating to sustainability and climate rather than more framed 2023). requires new forms of governance at the and city with distinctive approaches that across traditional of activity (European Commission, et al., innovation be specific urban for it to et al., The key the urban innovation agenda what larger societal innovation like climate change and sustainability meet local urban et al., innovation is in global policy as best as an innovation and to drive transformative towards major societal goals. Urban innovation from of it is in cities rather than or industrial and different including by all urban urban innovation is political and requires local The of many smart city projects the of to for projects as local and have solutions as being on et al., 2019). Urban innovation is also cross-sectoral rather than focused on the of a specific These urban innovation to develop the of solutions to be sustainable and but more The and use of energy, and housing stakeholders for these urban innovation different to forms of innovation, and the to which urban innovation be like innovation and innovation, the to address with the of the urban innovation research community is of how urban innovation takes place in practice, the of urban innovation that are successful in urban problems and societal and the as and that are to successful urban policy agenda for urban innovation around widely and capacity The first of these how to achieve sustainability goals over the but specific in the urban The has emerged from specific challenges urban innovation have in through in urban The represents current around how to that enable urban innovation. The of the paper the key of and research priorities to help forms the focus of the urban innovation policy local urban innovation are with engagement to ensure innovation processes include all groups et al., 2018). The iteration of the Global Research and Action Agenda for Cities and Climate Change Science that and between all levels of government and stakeholders are for the Sustainable Development and change (Global Covenant of & University of Melbourne, 2024). collaboration with businesses, and stakeholders to develop solutions to the and of specific and for in more the of urban innovation and benefits are more Innovation that and benefits all is a priority for urban innovation, but a series of it is for cities to who should be in the of problems and how to to and the of different of community engagement in different et al., 2018). These the political context in which cities and local The of political and adoption of which tend to over it more to stakeholders in actors are on the urban as traditional municipal are to or et al., and play important in policy in smart cities et al., The as knowledge between research and practice, often helping to create of cities that work the of these new have for et al., 2022), the to which the and of urban innovation has little economic innovation as a of the role of and societal challenges as et al., 2024). This is as urban innovation for climate and sustainability goals takes place through governance and associated political and of different et al., 2023). the of governance are and cities have often to beyond for governance to how to change on the & This has to the emergence of new forms of governance that are more and to local Urban and innovation for with policy, and services that traditional forms of governance not et al., 2018). place-based to the need to stakeholders together to urban innovation. technologies play a transformative citizens to in urban governance in and ways that drive more and place forms of innovation & 2024). A has emerged around urban and but are major gaps in of how place-based of innovation integrate or social, environmental and economic and and drive in different urban et al., problems that most cities in the SDGs, are more but less like adequate housing and with which innovation. research on urban sustainability et al., research on innovation to focus on cities in the Global actors and the and the of the urban live in cities in the Global the of urban knowledge and systems in urban innovation are less in of their and In practice, this that while the context for urban innovation is different in the Global approaches and policy around urban sustainability challenges tend to of the Global et al., of innovation, civil society often innovation and the a less role has by development for in relation to the and achievement of the et al., and is but less in the urban innovation in knowledge and provide solutions to sustainability have developed sustainable like which and to or used traditional to to the of climate change et al., innovation is and solutions local resources et al., but in relation to transport include with in to greater or with for transport in In the context of urban city often provide like and energy for in and ways This urban innovation is to and such as innovation not associated with innovation on new solutions that like the of urban in of urban et al., and their in like 2024). The need for innovation that and benefits social groups is in Global and Global et al., in to include citizens in the of regional innovation challenges et al., urban innovation to address global climate and sustainability goals more and researchers help the of what innovation by its governance and and that of innovation are to be an frame for of inclusive the of this be to for the of innovations the actors and their the of and the in which a work is to and how forms of innovation, like innovation, or et al., A priority has identified in the on urban the of what as innovation is critical to new forms of governance and on more and processes of innovation and while policy and have to focus on innovation as a way to create new cities are a leading role in the of technologies including and that and from technologies and services be as governance innovations in as as ways to drive innovation to the that is and 2020). include cities that have to transport technologies et al., Work on the governance of 'urban or the of technologies in cities, is but represents an important research urban innovation for climate and sustainability need for a societal change to achieve climate and sustainability goals has a policy focus on how successful initiatives up to drive projects address challenges in a specific place in a up but the solutions are to more widely as the governance of cities to of different In of the challenges of place-based approaches is successful local initiatives beyond the to its by or its it more and et al., et al., social and support and fostering a of cross-sectoral in these is in and research as across that are including the and are the role of and knowledge in urban innovation and This the between and fostering inclusive forms of innovation. on environmental change the of the in including the and that how define or systems and as as their and through with and to urban innovation in more inclusive and researchers this beyond the focus on and policy to with less innovation actors and requires new for governance and policy on the and of innovation governance et al., 2024). and on action are challenges in the climate research and response and policy are key at the city and levels to create for urban innovations to deliver climate and sustainability goals et al., and Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, UN-Habitat & University of Melbourne, 2024). change requires innovation to deliver value across a of including the and as as civil and over a than achieve this, development and their to support initiatives that prioritize sustainability rather than and financing to the achievement of specific sustainability In the case of for payment to upon the energy through In the urban policies and innovation and their like and innovation have a role to These are not as for knowledge and development, the for to and for innovative solutions to Their role in urban innovation for sustainability, in relation to and is but less economy including services and for urban et al., 2022). and the and of or products et al., In and for that for and and reduce carbon and in the et al., 2022). urban innovations is the of societal challenges the of and often for local benefits that in et al., 2022). This process requires at the of innovation processes that also be through specific like innovation urban innovation policy focus relates to the of key including and to build the capacity of cities to et define policy capacity as the and that are used to and has a in relation to environmental et (2024) show how key international on climate change and sustainability, the first on and Urban Agenda in research on urban climate and capacity has towards the of stakeholders and across cities and local to The Climate Innovation launched by the Global Covenant of Mayors (2024) in with a The to regional and of climate innovation at their urban and urban climate innovation as of urban stakeholders to and new or products or processes to to the challenges by climate local at the of this process the policy of urban innovation, while engagement from civil and in the The Climate Innovation is to from focused on governance and systems the on how their work upon systems and of climate resilient development across the their The Cities Mission represents influential and important governance innovation to help cities drive the energy climate transition by for to et al., The ways in which such capacity including its and and to change as are critical research digital technologies data and digital of urban that the capabilities of cities to problems and potential solutions 2018). cities a of problems and the of innovations to address but be resource to et al., or not to cities in ways that use 2018). in many cities the most transport data is by like forms of and environmental data are and to this, major of urban sustainability have little data and are important helping to and urban The potential of digital and to improve urban is but to be from in urban research help ensure technologies to the priorities and of and new forms and of governance that are more to local and et al., 2024). also the of cities to and use which represents a in urban governance et al., in which like these have transformative sustainability benefits important for capacity of cities to also on their to from their innovation and what In relation to the and a that and the local of innovation including its on and Evidence how are are to how to goals like innovation with sustainability and social justice et al., et al., 2022). measures the of the on the This such as or to the of the from Evidence the by different in urban innovation is to help cities to their capacity the process including and resource et al., 2019). This help and improve more from urban is and tend to focus on such as the role of or policy in specific for rather than the between different and their on innovation for climate and sustainability goals et al., 2023). and of not the and but of the for urban innovation et al., as that that requires organisations to not their but also their and political and urban engage with the processes of change and governance 2023). The concept of transformative which is the to and is not a but a of the relationship between the and actors et al., 2024). urban innovation projects are a of and to and drive this process & their of transformative innovation policy more et up the capacity of policy to and transformative as a key be by with actors a of critical in the the in groups became for the local by with the and through to deliver and et al., 2022). of or is but to what and et al., urban innovation capacity global to evidence and successful of data and evidence the and of initiatives has as being of critical to the capacity of cities to address sustainability and climate challenges across a of from to and local solutions to across and to be in diverse such as the Cities and or the Urban Innovation Hub in for how urban innovation be at and These are in the platforms for cities to and build across However, the growing of city focused on global challenges such as climate change, of the of these is often to policy such as to the delivery of carbon reduction goals et al., city are to play a role in global urban we need more process of how and for systemic are in innovative capacity and innovation has become central to global policy to sustainability and climate change. as a way to societal policy on urban innovation around the of and capacity This paper has identified a series of how these play in specifically urban with research priorities to support urban innovation for global sustainability and climate of innovation. Urban sustainability researchers are to contribute to this Urban innovation for climate and sustainability goals across all of how we manage and live in cities, requires that how we innovation and in urban Urban innovation the role of cities in societal change, for cities as key in global climate and sustainability The urban innovation agenda to be and that urban sustainability A community of researchers in making initiatives to improve cities, and as and have an important role to play in more inclusive and forms of place-based urban innovation et al., innovation is a to research and is by The of and to urban innovation for sustainability and climate change up a greater role for and research in urban innovation towards sustainability and climate goals. systems approaches that and data to deliver and equitable action in climate resilient development of In approaches that integrate multiple case including the of and challenges a and of practical and The to which urban innovation be like innovation and innovation, In many the of urban innovation are being the and of urban governance. In urban governance not with this Work on urban provides a of and but is more to in innovation policy and but to goals like cross-sectoral and change of research to be the urban innovation In with the of the to Action on Climate Research and this agenda research that is with stakeholders and to cities, and access to and case in Sustainable Cities was on a to and sharing knowledge to help cities become more Cities are around the world but not have the or resources to the role as a global research community is to evidence and that help urban innovation as and as

Vasiliki Fytrou

We live in an era of unprecedented transformation, driven by digital platforms that are redefining the creation, distribution, and consumption of creative content. The emergence of new digital platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Patreon has led to new forms of social inequality in the economy, AI ethics, and environmental sustainability. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR) enhance content personalization and production efficiency, yet algorithmic opacity and revenue concentration create disparities that favor established creators. This study investigates the impact of digital platforms on creative industries through a qualitative methodology, integrating secondary data from global reports (e.g., UNCTAD, 2022) and case studies of TikTok, Patreon, and emerging Web3 alternatives. Findings highlight both opportunities—such as decentralized revenue models, AI-driven innovation, and regional creative growth—and challenges, including the monopolization of content distribution, ethical dilemmas in AI-generated creativity, and the environmental burden of data centers and blockchain transactions. This study focuses on the impact of Web3 technologies on the reliance of intermediaries while covering contemporary regulations on AI governance and platform responsibility. The study highlights the gap in policy efforts that ensure economic equity, transparency, and platform sustainability that need to be addressed. Suggested policy targets include more humane monetization of smaller creator's content, more responsible AI regulation, and the creation of less environmentally harmful digital systems. This study is situated within the larger discussion of the intersection of innovation, equity, and sustainability in the context of a developing digital creative economy.

Robin G. Qiu

No abstract is available for this record.

Aiman Erbad

No abstract is available for this record.

Robin G. Qiu

No abstract is available for this record.

Igor Calzada

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly framed as a driver of economic transformation, yet its capacity to alleviate poverty in the Global South remains contested. This article introduces the notion of AI Economics—the political economy of value creation, extraction, and redistribution in AI systems—to interrogate h ow innovation agendas intersect with structural inequalities. This article examines how Social Innovation (SI) systems, when coupled with decentralized Web3 technologies such as blockchain, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), and data cooperatives, may challenge data monopolies, redistribute economic gains, and support inclusive development. Drawing on Action Research (AR) conducted during the AI4SI International Summer School in Donostia-San Sebastián, this article compares two contrasting ecosystems: (i) the Established AI4SI Ecosystem, marked by centralized governance and uneven benefits, and (ii) the Decentralized Web3 Emerging Ecosystem, which promotes community-driven innovation, data sovereignty, and alternative economic models. Findings underscore AI’s dual economic role: while it can expand digital justice, service provision, and empowerment, it also risks reinforcing dependency and inequality where infrastructures and governance remain weak. This article concludes that embedding AI Economics in context-sensitive, decentralized social innovation systems—aligned with ethical governance and the SDGs—is essential for realizing AI’s promise of poverty alleviation in the Global South.

Fabienne Sierro, Yann Blumer

Citizen participation and photovoltaics (PV) are increasingly important as energy systems transition towards decentralization and sustainability. However, tenants, low-income groups, and homeowners with unsuitable roofs are often excluded from investing in PV systems. Citizen-financed photovoltaic (CiFi PV) projects offer a more inclusive approach by collectively financing large-scale solar installations. This study explores and compiles the various motivational factors that underlie CiFi PV participation and compares the prevalence of these factors among participants and project developers. By combining the two perspectives for the first time, we provide a comprehensive understanding of the motivations behind CiFi PV participation. Based on 32 interviews across multiple Swiss CiFi PV projects, we identify 27 motivations categorized into seven overarching themes. The most prevalent factor for both groups is the opportunity for citizens to individually contribute to solar power deployment through tangible projects aligned with their values. While most motivational factors are relevant for both groups, a few are more prevalent among participants, such as the opportunity to use liquid assets, becoming a role model, and proving solar power viable and profitable. While CiFi PV projects are often studied from an energy community perspective, our results show that interviewees value collective action through individual contributions without explicitly referring to community-related aspects. We thus suggest that CiFi PV projects represent a manifestation of energy citizenship. To promote CiFi PV projects and their potential to engage various kinds of individuals, policymakers should expand regulatory frameworks focused solely on community projects to support individual participation in the energy transition. • We explore motivations for participating in citizen-financed (CiFi) PV projects. • There exists a wide range of motivational factors that match among participants and project developers. • Drivers of CiFi PV participation are based on collective rather than community action. • We suggest that CiFi PV projects are a manifestation of energy citizenship. • Policymakers must go beyond energy community regulations to promote CiFi PV.

Devansh Mehta, Nidhi Harihar, Siddique Patel, Nishit Lalitkumar Sanil · 11 authors

There is growing demand for innovation in social sector fundraising.The conventional model relies on emotions rather than evidence, brand recognition instead of outcomes and marketing over impact.In this paper, we sketch out a prototype for an online giving platform modelled on a Pay for Success mechanism where donors pay retroactively for tangible impact already achieved.It uses impact certificates, currently limited to the carbon credits industry, to fund verified past impact from three civic participation organizations in India.The demo shows how blockchain can ensure single sale per outcome and enforce a fundraising cap based on impact created.Drawing on the historical database of over 5000 impact reports of the three partner organizations, we minted 27 impact certificates on the Ethereum testnet.Over the course of creating the demo, we raised USD 4034 from 133 contributors through the donation matching platform Gitcoin for purchase of these certificates.

Cho Chan Myei Oo, Chokeanand Bussracumpakorn

Web 3.0's rise has sparked the proliferation of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), transforming design management practices. This study investigates how DAOs reshape design processes, focusing on the concept of meta-design in Web 3.0 environments. Through multi-case studies of four DAOs (Astrogirls NFT and three Kambria Open Innovation Platform projects), we conducted semi-structured interviews with eight contributors to examine the application of meta-design principles, the impact of token-based voting on design governance, and shifts in designer roles and user participation.

Kristi Yuthas

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are goals associated with the most significant global issues, which include climate, health, security, and poverty. The goals are part of an agenda for making progress on environmental, social, and economic issues while ensuring peace and leaving no one behind. Meeting these goals requires effort and innovation on all fronts, including technology. Information and communication technologies have long contributed to these efforts, and more recently, blockchain for good projects have begun to bear fruit. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which are, in essence, certificates of ownership stored on a blockchain, can also contribute to sustainable development. However, to this point, they have been underutilised. NFTs have inherent capabilities that can make them ideally suited to contribute towards the SDGs. Their unique capacity to validate ownership, identity, claims, and history of events makes them valuable for a variety of purposes. To date, NFTs have been employed primarily for trading digital assets such as collectibles, in-game items, digital art, and event tickets. However, their affordances—the actionable properties NFTs offer to users—make them suitable for use in ways that can significantly affect the health and well-being of humans and the planet. This article provides a framework for linking NFT affordances with the SDGs and examples of how NFT use cases are addressing, or could address, these urgent global needs.

Linda Weigl, Tamara Roth, Alexandre Amard, Liudmila Zavolokina

User-centricity in e-government is a double-edged sword. While it helps governments design digital services tailored to the needs of citizens, it may also increase the burden on users and deepen the digital divide. From an institutional perspective, these fundamental conflicts are inevitable. To better understand the role and effect of user-centricity in e-government, this paper analyses academic literature on user-centricity and public values. The analysis leads to three main insights: First, there is a conflict in citizen representation that may result from the normative dominance of decision-makers. Second, we identify an accountability conflict that can prevent user-centric innovation from thriving in a highly institutionalized environment. Third, we identify a pluralism conflict that emerges from a clash between the reality of a diverse society and the assumed homogeneity of actors. The need to address these conflicts increases with rapid technological innovation, such as distributed ledger technologies, artificial intelligence, and trust infrastructures. These technologies put the user at the center stage and permeate aspects of social life beyond government. In response to these insights, we outline suggestions for further research and practice.

Kazi Md. Munim, Muhammad Nazrul Islam

With ongoing global challenges like population growth, resource deficiency, climate change, and global warming, the demand for efficient procedures to produce sustainable, efficient, and safe food is increasing. Thus vertical farming, a pioneer emerging technology may play a vital role in addressing such challenges in agriculture. This article presents an innovative framework integrating IoT and blockchain to offer an efficient, reliable, and secure ecosystem for vertical farming. The IoT devices allow real-time monitoring and controlling of essential parameters like temperature, moisture, light, nutrient levels, and alike, while the Blockchain technology provides a transparent and immutable ledger of the records regarding crop growth and resource consumption of the farm, enhancing the framework’s traceability. A prototypical system of this framework was developed and simulated in the lab environment to evaluate its performance for a specified use case. By generating required control instructions to maintain the ideal environment, the prototypical system proved to be effective, efficient, and reliable.

Mikael Lindquist

No abstract is available for this record.

Ying‐Ying Hsieh, Sebastian Brenk

No abstract is available for this record.

Wulf A. Kaal

Impact innovation has progressed through three phases: 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. Impact 1.0 introduced carbon credit trading, while Impact 2.0 added participatory grantmaking, impact measurement, and price competitions. Impact 3.0 incorporates Web3 community tools and impact certificate trading. This paper examines the evolution of these phases, focusing on Impact 3.0’s influence on philanthropic practices. Through an analysis of the literature and case studies, Web3 technologies and impact certificate markets are investigated for how these innovations affect transparency and efficiency in social impact initiatives. The information gathered indicates that Impact 3.0 facilitates decentralized impact verification and creates a marketplace aligning stakeholder interests. Consequently, leveraging the features of Web3 technologies can enable philanthropy to scale significantly and provide insights for impact-focused donors aiming to improve outcomes.

Igor Calzada

In an era of rapid technological advancement, decisions about the ownership and governance of emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence will shape the future of both urban and rural environments in the Global North and South. This article explores how AI can move beyond the noise of algorithms by adopting a technological humanistic approach to enable Social Innovation, focusing on global inequalities and digital justice. Using a fieldwork Action Research methodology, based on the Smart Rural Communities project in Colombia and Mozambique, the study develops a framework for integrating AI with SI. Drawing on insights from the AI4SI International Summer School held in Donostia-San Sebastián in 2024, the article examines the role of decentralized Web3 technologies—such as Blockchain, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, and Data Cooperatives—in enhancing data sovereignty and fostering inclusive and participatory governance. The results demonstrate how decentralization can empower marginalized communities in the Global South by promoting digital justice and addressing the imbalance of power in digital ecosystems. The conclusion emphasizes the potential for AI and decentralized technologies to bridge the digital divide, offering practical recommendations for scaling these innovations to support equitable, community-driven governance and address systemic inequalities across the Global North and South.

Austin Zwick, Zachary Spicer

Cohen's Smart City Generational model has been the basis of understanding for the evolution of the Smart Cities movement. However, how does this model align with practitioners’ conceptualization of the term? Our research focuses on Infrastructure Canada's Smart City Challenge (SCC). Through 14 primary interviews and 20 finalist applications, this research reveals that practitioners overwhelmingly understand Smart City building as a government-driven, data-centric endeavor (Smart City 2.0), as opposed to being about vendor transactions (Smart City 1.0), resident engagement (Smart City 3.0), or community co-creation (Smart City 4.0), where the specific technology is of secondary importance to project objectives. We conclude that, rather than moving through distinct generations, the smart cities movement should be understood as a gradual process of municipal public administration modernization as local governments are becoming increasingly savvy and experienced about contracting with technology firms to address urban problems.

Yilun Lin, Wei Hu, Xi Chen, Shuang Li · 5 authors

The development of smart cities has been a significant trend in recent years, aiming to improve the quality of life of citizens by leveraging technology and data. However, the current models of smart cities have limitations in terms of their centralized control and lack of citizen participation. City 5.0 proposes a new paradigm for smart cities that emphasizes the symbiotic relationship between humans and technology. This article presents the concept of Spatial Symbiotic Intelligence, which refers to the ability of a city to dynamically respond to the needs of its citizens and environment through the integration of data from various sources and the use of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and parallel systems. This letter also discusses the potential benefits and challenges of implementing City 5.0 and highlights some of the ongoing initiatives in this area.