Skip to main content

Smart cities must pay more attention to the people who live in them

them

The sun peaks through the clouds above the East River as seen from the Empire State Building in New York City, U.S., February 14, 2019
How to build a bright urban future.
Image: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
Around 68% of the global population might live in urban areas by 2050. Smart cities will likely be a part of this future, promising to make our lives more convenient, more secure and more sustainable.
Mostly, the stakeholders of smart city projects are politicians, consultants, academics and tech companies. However, the most important group of stakeholders is often missing: the ordinary citizens that will have to live in these transformed cities.
In consequence, strategies and projects focus too much on technology and not enough on cities’ inhabitants. This issue has been raised before in academia and has been answered with frameworks and standards such as the Boston Smart City Playbook or the BSI Smart City Standards.
Yet research has shown that there are still shortcomings and contradictions regarding true inhabitant-centricity. In light of the fact that inhabitant-centricity and citizen engagement are deciding success factors for any smart city transformation, it becomes vital to put inhabitants first.
Otherwise cities might invest significantly into services that its people will neither use nor want. If decision-makers do not change the current trajectory, we will see more protests similar to the ones in Torontothis year.
How could this happen?
The smart city market is rapidly growing to a predicted volume of $158 billion in 2022 and many interested groups hope to profit from that. It is not just lucrative for tech-companies to develop the hardware and software, but also to offer additional services. Among other things, most cities are not capable of handling the newly acquired influx of data, inferring meaningful insights or monetising it, which is why city governments look for help in the private sector. Due to a lack of skilled IT personnel, cybersecurity is also often outsourced.
Owing to the popularity of smart cities, political decision-makers can use smart city projects for branding while stimulating investments. Unfortunately, there is a huge technology-knowledge gap in politics, inhibiting the development of reasonable strategies. The lack of knowledge is compensated for by seeking assistance from third parties that might have their own agenda.
This dependence on the private sector induces a positive reinforcement of close collaboration between city governments and businesses, leading to even more exclusion of normal citizens.
False incentives from smart city rankings
Analysing the methodologies and measured indicators of the smart city rankings that have gained attention in the media, it becomes obvious that inhabitant-centricity and citizen engagement only play a minor role.
The IESE Cities in Motion Index (CIMI) 2018 presented a well-designed ranking of cities, and stated that collaboration (between, for example, residents and administration, public-private-partnerships and between cities) is critical for success, yet did not take into account any parameters for inhabitant-centricity and citizen-engagement when determining their ranking.
Easy Park’s Smart City Index 2017 used election turnout as proxy for citizen participation, which does not necessarily translate in a more democratic and inhabitant-centric smart city. A more recent ranking by the Eden Strategy Instituteincluded people-centricity as one of 10 equally weighted parameters, defining it as a people-first approach without answering how it could be quantitatively measured.
The logical consequence of a people-first approach would have been to mirror the importance in the overall weighing for the total score, which did not happen. Some rankings did use political participation as proxy for citizen engagement in smart city projects. However, depending on the political system, many city officials that are involved in smart city projects are not democratically elected but simply public officials, which limits the significance of the used parameter. And since those rankings are often quoted in the media and used by cities for marketing purposes, this has a self-reinforcing effect.
Smart city rankings should start to research and use indicators such as the existence of a digital co-collaboration platform, means of offline engagement (a dedicated office, door-to-door and phone surveys, for example), percentage of surveyed city population, community representatives in steering committees, incorporation of continuous citizen-feedback, number of public events, free digital literacy education, the possibility to opt-out of data-collection, ratio of bottom-up versus top-down initiated projects, transparent communication and transparency regarding contracting to commercial-partners (such as data usage or monetisation).
Furthermore, smart city rankings should attribute a relatively higher weight to the inhabitant-centricity indicator, when building a total score. When not reflecting the importance of inhabitant-centricity in rankings, it sets false incentives and misleading examples for future smart city projects.
How to become inhabitant-centric
The city of Montreal engaged its citizens through four surveys, meetings and a dedicated phone-line in order to inform their smart city goals and collect ideas. In total the city collected qualitative survey data from 7601 residents, which equals less than 0.0045% of the city’s population. It becomes obvious that a non-representative share of the population might have impacted the life of all inhabitants. Hence, we need a more scientifically representative data collection. Adding to this, feedback and idea generation from citizens should be continuously incentivised and gathered, not just at certain project stages.
Montreal’s dedicated phone-line led to more than a million data-points which revealed the wishes and problems of its citizens. They predominantly addressed roads, parks, garbage pickups or streetlights. While technologists discuss artificial intelligence, data analytics, sensors, robotics or blockchain in the context of a smart city, inhabitants seem to define a smart city with less of a focus on tech. Hence, it is important to establish common ground when it comes to the definition of a smart city and to educate citizens about digital technologies. Vice versa, smart city steering committees have to better incorporate the problems, wishes and needs of their inhabitants.
Cities like Stockholm, Reykjavik, Amsterdam and Copenhagen have suggestion platforms linked on their website or offer apps through which inhabitants can provide information about the city’s infrastructure and environment. Yet these communication tools tend to exclude non-digitally-savvy people like the elderly or simply less-informed inhabitants, which leads to a digital bias. People that are digital-savvy and interested might contribute disproportionately to a smart city strategy. Hence, we also need home visits and dedicated offline touching points that are communicated in local newspapers and letters. Citizens should also have continuously offline and online access to a voting system for project proposals, selection and funding.
In order to close the technological knowledge gap in steering committees, governments should also invest in full-time personnel who can initiate and manage smart city projects. It should be a diverse team of engineers, computer scientists, statisticians, biologists, psychologists, social scientists, lawyers, civil engineers, health professionals, teachers and others that could create a balanced and expert smart city council. Such a multi-disciplined team would be less dependent on external consultants and corporate partners, which would allow a closer and less-biased dialogue with the inhabitants.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

7 eating habits that we know are good for us:

1. Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits – Some countries are very specific about the number of servings of fruits and vegetables that we should consume daily, for example Greece says six, Costa Rica and Iceland say five. Canada even specifies the colors of vegetables to consume (one dark green and one orange vegetable a day). Serving sizes can vary by country; however, all guidelines recommend eating plenty of fresh vegetables and fruits on a daily basis.

2. Watch your intake of fats– Said in different ways, most guidelines make mention of reducing solid, saturated fats and give recommendations for replacing animal fats with vegetable oils. In Greece, olive oil is recommended, in Viet Nam it is sesame or peanut oil – demonstrating the importance of availability and cultural preference in each country’s guidelines.3. Cut back on foods and beverages high in sugar – It is generally agreed upon that processed sugar is harmful to our health. The guidelines in every country recommend to maint…

Humans are a massive minority on Earth. Why don't we act like it?

Humans are a massive minority on Earth. Why don't we act like it?

Most of us, including scientists, are blind to the full scope of the living world. This was illustrated by an informal survey which asked biologists and ecologists from elite universities two questions. In terms of mass, is the living world mostly composed of animals, plants or bacteria? And is there more global biomass on land or in the oceans? The majority of them answered both questions incorrectly.In an age of unparalleled access to information, this is a glaring gap in our knowledge. We are now equipped to close it. I joined colleagues from the Weizmann Institute in Israel and the California Institute of Technology to estimate the biomass of all kingdoms of life on Earth. The results were published in the journal of the American National Academy of Sciences, and were widely (and more digestibly) covered by the popular press.It required years of work, collecting and integrating information from hundreds of previ…

Chart of the day: These countries create most of the world’s CO2 emissions

With CO2 levels on the rise, being able to track global emissions is crucial. Image: REUTERS/Regis Duvignau Just two countries, China and the US, are responsible for more than 40% of the world’s CO2 emissions. With CO2 levels still on the rise, being able to track the global emissions hotspots is becoming more important than ever. Before the industrial revolution, levels of atmospheric CO2 were around 280 parts per million (ppm). By 2013, that level had breached the 400ppm mark for the first time. On 3 June 2019 it stood at 414.40ppm. Fifteen countries are responsible for more than two thirds of global CO2 emissions. Image: Visual Capitalist There are huge disparities between the world’s top 15 CO2 emissions-generating countries. China creates almost double the emissions of second-placed US, which is in turn responsible for more than twice the level of third-placed India.