URBP6007: Planning Sustainable Cities and Regions

Individual Mid-Term Paper

on
Smart City

Submitted by

Mohammad Aminul Quaium

MUP Year-1, University Number: 3035455395

Date: 23 October 2017

1. The Concept of Smart City:

Looking into the literature, the concept of Smart City may seem somehow all over the place.

It expands over a broad interdisciplinary context. The definition of Smart city is still very

vague and inconsistently given. Academicians and scholars vary widely over the definition of

Smart City, and there is a plethora of publications defining the nature and scope of Smart

Cities. As Zanella et al (2015, p.22) observed:

“Although there is not yet a formal and widely accepted definition of “Smart City,” the final

aim is to make a better use of the public resources, increasing the quality of the services

offered to the citizens, while reducing the operational costs of the public administrations.”

Besides the indefinite nature of the concept of smart city, it is apparent from the existing

literature that the cornerstone of smart city concept is widespread adoption of information

and communication technologies (ICT) in the urban context considering its huge impact on

transforming people’s life, work, and society as a whole. Conceptually, Smart cities are

expected to have potentials for creating smart communities by improving the standards of

living, and enhancing participation in education and governance by ensuring greater access to

urban information technology. However, as far as ICT in urban environment is concerned,

there are some other types that have appeared in the literature, such as ‘information cities’,

‘virtual cities’, ‘digital cities’, ‘intelligent cities’, ‘knowledge cities’ etc. only to name a few

(Batty et al, 2012, p.483; de Jong et al, 2015, p.26). But smart city managed to get ever

increasing attention compared to other related concepts in recent years.

Perhaps the most popular definition of smart city so far was provided by Caragliu et al

(2011). According to them, a city can be considered smart “when investments in human and

social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel

sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural
resources, through participatory governance” (Caragliu et al, 2011, p.70). On the basis of a

rigorous review of related literature, they summarized following six characteristics of smart

cities: 1) the utilization of networked infrastructure for enhancing economic and political

efficiency and enabling social, cultural, and urban development; 2) underlying emphasis on

business-led urban development; 3) a strong focus on the aim of achieving the social

inclusion of various urban residents in public services; 4) a stress on the crucial role of high-

tech and creative industries in long-run urban growth; 5) profound attention to the role of

social and relational capital in urban development; and 6) social and environmental

sustainability as a major strategic component of smart cities (Caragliu et al, 2011, pp.67-69).

Now arises the question: are smart cities sustainable?

Bibri et al (2017) have found a number of discrepancies between the concepts of smart city

and sustainable city after extensively reviewing relevant literature. From their analysis it is

apparent that there is a misunderstanding of the link between these two concepts and also

there is a weak connection between the concept of smart cities and environmental

sustainability. Ahvenniemi et al (2017) tried to address the similar issue by analyzing 16 sets

of city assessment frameworks, including eight smart city and eight urban sustainability

assessment frameworks. Outcome of their analysis suggests that there is a much stronger

emphasis on technologies as well as social and economic aspects in smart city assessment

tools, but lacking environmental sustainability indicators as compared to urban sustainability

measurement frameworks. Thus, both of these groups of researchers have recommended the

use of a hybrid concept – smart sustainable cities – in order to align smart city concept with

sustainable city principles and therefore create cities that are both smart and sustainable.
2. Smart City Domains:

Since smart city is an interdisciplinary discourse, there are many domains of this concept.

Here three domains are discussed in the light of existing literature, namely smart energy,

smart mobility, and smart governance.

2.1 Smart Energy:

One of the most important domains of smart cities is smart energy. Apart from widespread

application of ICT technologies in the form of digital infrastructure and big data, smart cities

are envisaged to adopt smart energy principles by promoting use of renewable energy, smart

buildings, and smart transport. When the generation of energy for smart cities is concerned,

two topics are mostly discussed – namely renewable energy and distributed generation (DG).

The desired future for smart cities is their complete dependence on renewable sources of

energy, and this goal can be facilitated by distributed generation (Calvillo et al 2016). Electric

energy is transmitted from the points of generation to the consumers by means of a grid

system which forms the backbone of electric power system. In a smart city context, smart

grid system is the preferred strategy.

Calvillo et al (2016, p.278) identified following features of smart grid system:

• a quality-focused power supply with a combined power-source structure, composed of

separate energy networks (micro-grids) capable of exchanging power and operating

separately and independently if necessary;

• enables real-time bidirectional communication among all participant entities

• every device and system in the grid is capable of providing information about its own

energy consumption or production

• some degree of flexibility to schedule its load depending on factors such as system load,

prices, and contractual obligations

• capable to meet increasing consumer demand without building new infrastructure;

• resilient to impacts and natural disasters and capable of self-recovery.

On the consumption side, smart energy notion encourages construction of smart buildings

that can contribute to efficiency in energy use by means of efficient heating and cooling

system, installation of low-energy lighting and smart meters. In fact, energy efficient smart

buildings, also known as zero energy buildings (ZEB), are expected to play a crucial role in

helping the European “Smart Cities & Communities Initiative” of the Strategic Energy

Technology Plan (SET-Plan) in progressing towards a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions by 2020 through sustainable use and production of energy. Zero energy buildings

(ZEBs) are regarded as buildings that have zero carbon emissions on an annual basis. In

practice, this is achievable through reduction of energy demand of the building and resorting

to renewable energy sources to meet energy requirements (Kylili et al, 2015).

2.2 Smart Mobility:

The concept of smart mobility itself is a useful perception of how ICT solutions can be

adopted to transform urban lifestyle. Docherty et al (2017) give an insight into different

aspects of smart mobility. They have identified following components characterizing smart

mobility:

• a transition from individual vehicle ownership to ‘usership’ through purchasing access

rights to mobility services like bus, rail, taxi, bike share etc. usually catered by corporate

entities (‘Uber’ can be considered as an example of such service);

• intensive processing of ‘big data’ to cater to demand in real time;

• pooling user-generated and user-centred information by obtaining crowd-sourced, real-

time data which is context specific and integrates mobility and non-mobility options;

• development of increasingly ‘intelligent’ infrastructure that is capable of providing

feedback in real-time to influence traveller behaviour and optimise system performance;

• adoption of emission free technologies for vehicles in pursuit of sustainability objectives;

• operation of automated vehicles that enable all occupants of the vehicle to focus on other

tasks while they are in motion (Docherty et al, 2017).

Melo et al (2017) consider that real time traffic management made possible by the provision

of guidance information to (and/or by) drivers as a good example of ICT solutions in a smart

city context. Such information can facilitate the driver to take a ‘more efficient direction’

assuming that driver’s decision is typically influenced by factors such as travel time, travel

cost, convenience, travelers' value of time and the level of services offered by each network

(Melo et al, 2017).

2.3 Smart Governance:

Smart governance is a very critical aspect of Smart cities. Batty et al (2012, p.497) argued

that “a much stronger intelligence function is required for coordinating the many different

components that comprise the smart city”. In this regard a crucial question might be what

form the governance structure of a smart city might take. Can the city perform as a smart city

with existing governance structure or does it require an extensive overhaul? The institutional

arrangements and administration are expected to play a pivotal role in efficient functioning of

smart cities. Meijer and Bolivar (2016, pp.398-400) conducted a focused literature review on

this topic of smart city governance and identified four broad patterns of conceptualizations of

smart city governance depending upon the extent to which transformation of government is

necessary to make cities smarter. They refer to these conceptualizations as 1) government of

a smart city, 2) smart decision making, 3) smart administration, and 4) smart urban

collaboration. The first conceptualization holds the most conservative view as far as

transformation of government is concerned and suggests that smart governance is possible

under the prevailing governance structures and processes. It views smart governance as

merely governance of a smart city. The second conceptualization tend to perceive smart

governance as a process of decision making and implementation, and therefore aims at

restructuring the decision making process rather than restructuring the organizational

structure of government itself. The third type of conceptualization is higher degree of

transformation since it addresses the need for more innovative approaches towards

administration with a view to better serve citizens and communities. And the fourth type of

conceptualization (smart collaboration) is considered to be the most transformative one since

it involves both internal and external transformation of governance structure to make it more

citizen-centric and participatory. Hence, it can be summarized from Meijer and Bolivar

review that smart governance may vary in approaches that might range from conservation of

traditional institutions to radical transformation of institutions.

3. Hong Kong as a Smart City:

Hong Kong embarked on a smart city strategy (Digital 21 Strategy) since 1998, and it has

followed four strategic updates since then (Anthopoulos, 2017, p.143). Being one among the

earliest cities in Asia to adopt smart city strategy, Hong Kong apparently performs well,

especially as far as public transport and electronic modes of transactions are concerned.

Introduction of Octopus card has definitely added to the efficiency of this city by making life

easier in daily mobility and transaction and thus aligning to the very essential spirit of smart

city. According to Research Report on Smart City (2015) published by Central Policy Unit

(CPU), over 28 million Octopus cards are in use already, more than 15000 retail outlets from
more than 6000 service providers accept Octopus card for payment, and over 13 million

Octopus card transactions take place every day. Most importantly, over 99% people aged

between 15 and 64 years use Octopus card (CPU, 2015, p.22). These figures clearly show the

huge impact that Octopus card was able to create in Hong Kong. The versatility of this card

has actually changed the entire face of day-to-day transactions in this densely populated city.

In terms of smart mobility, Hong Kong has succeeded to create a public transport oriented

urbanism. Over the years the city developed a comprehensive MTR system backed by

sophisticated ICT operation. Stations and exits of MTR has been located strategically to bring

most of the population into its coverage and also to effectively integrate MTR system with

other modes of public transport. Furthermore, an app has been developed to facilitate users in

using MTR system. Consequently, MTR has become the backbone of mobility in Hong

Kong.

As far as smart governance is concerned, Hong Kong government has made some progress in

the areas of electronic public services, development of ICT infrastructure in government and

public spaces, and digitization of and accessibility to government information and data (CPU,

2015, p.42). However, Hong Kong is yet to make significant progress in ensuring public

participation – an essential prerequisite of smart governance.

Leonidas Anthopoulos, a European scholar and smart city researcher, concludes that “Hong

Kong self-claims and succeeds in most of smart city promises with regard to smart

infrastructure and smart service deployment, which are mainly based on cyber-physical

integration” (Anthopoulos, 2017, p.143).

4. Opportunities and Threats Associated with Smart City:

Batty et al (2012) gave essential insights into the opportunities smart cities offer by enabling

us to monitor, understand, analyse and plan the city to improve the efficiency, equity and

quality of life for its citizens in real time. According to them “a much wider group of citizens

can engage in the science of smart cities through new ways of participating in the future

design of their cities and neighbourhoods” (Batty et al, 2012). Thus smart city can open up

more opportunities for empowerment of citizens.

On the other hand, there are also potential threats to smart city. Over-dependence on

information and communication technology may make smart cities more vulnerable to cyber

attacks. Such an attack or a series of attacks may disrupt ICT dependent systems and thereby

causing chaotic situations in urban life. Therefore issues of cyber-security and resilience

should be of serious concern for smart cities.

Furthermore, Hollands (2008) warns that some self-labelled smart cities may run the risk of

turning into high-tech variation of the ‘entrepreneurial city’, triggering social polarization and

gentrification. He argues that over-emphasis on business-driven technology may increase the

divide between ICT professionals and creative workers, and the unskilled and IT illiterate

sections of the society.

Reference:

Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017), “What are the
differences between sustainable and smart cities?”, Cities, 60, pp. 234–245.

Anthopoulos, L. (2017), “Smart utopia vs smart reality: Learning by experience from 10

smart city cases”, Cities, 63, pp. 128-148.

Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz,M., et
al. (2012), “Smart cities of the future”, The European Physical Journal, 214, pp. 481–
518.

Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017), “Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive
interdisciplinary literature review”, Smart Cities and Society, 31, pp. 183-212.

Calvillo, C. F., Sánchez-Miralles, A., & Villar, J. (2016), “Energy management and planning
in smart cities”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, pp.273–287.

Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P., (2011), “Smart cities in Europe”, Journal of Urban
Technology, Vol. 18(2), pp.65-82.

Central Policy Unit (CPU) (2015), “Research report on Smart City”, The government of
Hong Kong special administrative region. Accessed at:
http://www.cpu.gov.hk/doc/en/research_reports/CPU%20research%20report%20-
%20Smart%20City(en).pdf, (last accessed on 21 October 2017).

de Jong, M., 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 sustainable urbanization”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, pp.25-38.

Docherty, I., Marsden, G., & Anable, J. (2017) “The governance of smart mobility”,
Transportation Research Part A (in press).

Hollands, R. G. (2008), “Will the real smart city please stand up?”, City: Analysis ofUrban
Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, Vol. 12(3), pp.303–320.

Kylili, A., & Fokaides, P. A. (2015), “European smart cities: The role of zero energy
buildings”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 15, pp.86–95.
Meijer, A., & Bolivar, M. P. R. (2016), “Governing the smart city: a review of the literature
on smart urban governance”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol.
82(2), pp.392-408.

Melo, S., Macedo, J., & Baptista, P. (2017), “Guiding cities to pursue a smart mobility
paradigm: An example from vehicle routing guidance and its traffic and operational
effects”, Research in Transportation Economics (in press).

Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A. P., Vangelista, L., & Zorzi, M. (2014), “Internet of Things
for Smart Cities”, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, Vol. 1(1), pp.22-32.