Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook 2013 - European Commission - Europa

80 O P E N I N N O V A T I O N 2 0 1 3
Conclusions for the EU
Opening up city data sets increases democratic participation
and transparency, while fostering services
and product innovation. In a nutshell, the reuse of
data allows a city to function more ‘smartly’, and
related costs are low: data have already been collected
for other primary purposes of the city, and
expenses were covered by taxpayers’ money. Furthermore,
in some cases, new Web services are able
not only to save the city money, but also to create
new economic value for the citizens.
Public sector information and open data are ideal
raw material for ICT urban development: numerous
useful services increasing the comfort of urban
mobility can be based on data collected by the city.
In some cases, official authorities can share this
data with third parties, giving them room for imagination
and innovation.
However, several issues remain
The ‘data owner’ and the decision-maker are natural
gatekeepers for the use of open data. By deciding
whether data can be opened or not, they actually
shape the way a city is becoming ‘smarter’. By implementing
a ‘top-down’ approach, governments motivate
citizens and developers to freely take advantage
of open data. If a government has a rather passive or
even defensive position in sharing its data, this can
result in discriminatory data policy when access is
exclusively for a single stakeholder, or a few stakeholders.
Europe presents cases where local authorities
keep public sector data closed.
City authorities should keep in mind that by giving
exclusive data access to only one partner or
a few partners, they pursue a discrimination policy
and contradict Article 11 of the PSI directive (nonexclusive
right to PSI). On the one hand, it can be
enough for a small city to have only one official
route planner: however, on the other hand, there
will be no room for innovation. An open licence
policy with attribution to the official source can be
beneficial for both parties — developers and government.
For developers, a licence provides confirmation
of the reliability of the provided data; for
the government, it creates extra trust from the citizen
community as proof of transparency.
The PSI directive, as well as the deployment and
implementation of its national counterparts, was
based on the current existing legal framework for
data protection [19]. Under the ongoing revision of
the latter, a much wider definition of what constitutes
personal data is envisaged and much stricter
rules and provisions for use and processing are
foreseen. If not carefully drafted, these new rules
might become a major show-stopper by rendering
it difficult or impossible to use formerly considered
‘open or public’ data and prohibit the development
of innovative services for citizens around it.
References
[1] The United Nations (2011), UNFPA State of World
Population 2011 Report, The United Nations Population
Fund (http://foweb.unfpa.org/SWP2011/reports/
EN-SWOP2011-FINAL.pdf).
[2] European Commission (2010), Communication
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions, A Digital Agenda
for Europe, COM(2010) 245 final of 19 May 2010
( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF ).
[3] Hollands, R. G. (2008), ‘Will the real smart city please
stand up?’, City, 12(3).
[4] Komninos, N. (2002), Intelligent Cities, Spon Press,
London.
[5] Schaffers, H., Komninos, N. (2011), ‘Smart Cities and
the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks
for Open Innovation’, The Future Internet, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, pp. 431–446.
[6] Huijboom, N., Van den Broek, T. (2011), ‘Open
data: an international comparison of strategies’,
European Journal of ePractice, 12 (March/April 2011),
pp. 4–15 (http://www.epractice.eu/files/European %20
Journal %20epractice %20Volume %2012_4.pdf).
[7] OECD (2007), Principles and Guidelines for Access to
Research Data from Public Funding (http://www.oecd.org/
science/scienceandtechnologypolicy/38500813.pdf).
[8] Swan, А. (2012), Policy Guidelines for the
Development and Promotion of Open Access,
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (Unesco) (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf).
[9] Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament
and the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of
public sector information.
[10] Kroes, N. (2012), Speech on ePSI conference in
Rotterdam March 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=9Jq4Qy1UeAE).
[11] Uhlir, P. F. (2009), The Socioeconomic Effects of
Public Sector Information on Digital Networks: Toward
a Better Understanding of Different Access and Reuse
Policies: Workshop Summary, US National Committee
CODATA, in cooperation with the OECD, pp. 9–24.
[12] Bührmann, S., Wefering, F., Rupprecht, S.
(2011), Guidelines — Developing and implementing
a sustainable urban mobility plan, Munich, pp. 6–15
(http://www.mobilityweek.eu/fileadmin/files/docs/SUMP_
guidelines_web0.pdf).
[13] Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European
Community (INSPIRE) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:108:0001:0014:EN:PDF).