Analysis of Smart City Models and the Four-Foci Taxonomy for Smart City Design

Driven by increasingly complex social, political, economic, and environmental challenges, in the hope of promoting the health, safety, and welfare of citizens in urban environments, the demand for more effective management of immense data resources and easy public access to information is increasing. The notion of a smart city has evolved in recent years to mean a city that is well-endowed by information and communication technologies (ICT) that complement the physical infrastructure, and thereby enhancing the quality of the social and environmental assets. A city may be defined as “smart” or “intelligent” when investments in human capital, social capital, traditional transportation, and modern communication infrastructure drive growth and sustainable physical and economic development. Through participatory governance, managed growth of the smart city is intended to result in a high quality of life and wise management of natural resources. Currently several theories and models for designing a smart city, including hybrid models and new ideas, are emerging. Following an analysis of various research studies, it was possible to group these models in terms of their foci: (1) technological, (2) business, (3) political, and (4) environmental. While the proposed models have made considerable contributions to the field of smart cities, each of these models shares four key limitations: (1) a lack of integration of the local system and globalsystem, (2) a lack of attention to holistic sustainability, (3) a lack of consideration of human factors and human-environment interaction, and (4) an inability to address significant urban changes. The research approach of Takeda et. al. (1990) was adopted for this research project, and has four phases namely: Phase I (Awareness), Phase II (Suggestion), Phase III (Development) and Phase IV (Evaluation). The research will be conducted in several studies. This paper reports on Study 1 which followed an exploratory and conceptual approach in two phases namely Phase I and Phase II, in which an in-depth analysis of several smart city case studies reported in the literature was performed. The purpose was to examine promising smart city models, and to critique their effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses. The literature review enabled the authors to solidify their understanding of smart city design. A taxonomy of key categories of concern when designing a smart city, called the Four-Foci Taxonomy, is proposed in the paper.

[1]  Mark Deakin,et al.  From intelligent to smart cities , 2011 .

[2]  P. Healey Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies , 1997 .

[3]  Kevin C. Desouza,et al.  Citizen Apps to Solve Complex Urban Problems , 2012 .

[4]  Edward J. Jepson,et al.  How Possible is Sustainable Urban Development? An Analysis of Planners' Perceptions about New Urbanism, Smart Growth and the Ecological City , 2010 .

[5]  Mark Deakin Intelligent cities as smart providers: CoPs as organizations for developing integrated models of eGovernment Services , 2012 .

[6]  Elma Durmisevic,et al.  Interface design for open systems building , 2010 .

[7]  Richard J. Jackson,et al.  Making healthy places : designing and building for health, well-being, and sustainability , 2011 .

[8]  Emmanouil Tranos,et al.  Smart networked cities? , 2012 .

[9]  Nan Ellin Canalscape: Practising Integral Urbanism in Metropolitan Phoenix , 2010 .

[10]  David Alan Kopec,et al.  Environmental Psychology for Design , 2006 .

[11]  William J. Mitchell,et al.  City of Bits , 1995, CAADRIA proceedings.

[12]  Dagmar Haase,et al.  Multi-criteria assessment of socio-environmental aspects in shrinking cities. Experiences from eastern Germany , 2008 .

[13]  Alessandro Farina,et al.  A new shared vehicle system for urban areas , 2012 .

[14]  Jonathan Logan,et al.  Greening the Rust Belt: A Green Infrastructure Model for Right Sizing America's Shrinking Cities , 2008 .

[15]  Dagmar Haase,et al.  Modeling and simulating residential mobility in a shrinking city using an agent-based approach , 2010, Environ. Model. Softw..

[16]  Carole Després,et al.  When mobility makes sense: A qualitative and longitudinal study of the daily mobility of the elderly , 2011 .

[17]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Smart cities in perspective – a comparative European study by means of self-organizing maps , 2012 .

[18]  Aumnad Phdungsilp Futures studies’ backcasting method used for strategic sustainable city planning , 2011 .

[19]  William J. Mitchell,et al.  e-topia: Urban Life, Jim - But Not as We Know It , 1999 .

[20]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  High Technology and Low-Income Communities: Prospects for the Positive Use of Advanced Information Technology , 1997 .

[21]  J. Hollander,et al.  The bounds of smart decline: a foundational theory for planning shrinking cities , 2011 .

[22]  R. Gifford Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice , 1987 .

[23]  Peter Cruickshank,et al.  Creating Smart-er Cities: An Overview , 2011 .

[24]  Nancey Green Leigh,et al.  Smart Growth's Blind Side , 2012 .

[25]  Lawrence D. Frank,et al.  Health and Community Design: The Impact Of The Built Environment On Physical Activity , 2003 .

[26]  Theodora Vardouli,et al.  Design-for-empowerment-for-design : computational structures for design democratization , 2012 .

[27]  R. Hollands Will the real smart city please stand up? , 2008, The Routledge Companion to Smart Cities.

[28]  Claudia M Agudelo-Vera,et al.  Resource management as a key factor for sustainable urban planning. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[29]  M. Thite Smart cities: implications of urban planning for human resource development , 2011 .

[30]  R. Jackson,et al.  Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities , 2004 .

[31]  George Bugliarello,et al.  Critical New Bio-Socio-Technological Challenges in Urban Sustainability , 2011 .

[32]  William J. Mitchell,et al.  Placing Words: Symbols, Space, and the City , 2005 .

[33]  E. Burton,et al.  Dementia-friendly cities: designing intelligible neighbourhoods for life , 2004 .

[34]  Ryan Abraham Landscape as urbanism , 2008 .

[35]  Elizabeth Deakin,et al.  Smart Growth Planning for Climate Protection , 2012 .

[36]  David Gann,et al.  Technological Innovation and Complex Systems in Cities , 2011 .

[37]  D. Berrigan,et al.  Health and community design: the impact of the built environment on physical activity , 2005 .

[38]  Harvey C. Jassem Municipal WiFi: The Coda , 2010 .

[39]  K. Larsen New Urbanism's Role in Inner-city Neighborhood Revitalization , 2005 .

[40]  B. Born Review: Agricultural Urbanism: Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agriculture Systems in 21st Century Cities , 2014 .

[41]  P. Norris Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide , 2001 .

[42]  G. Kuk,et al.  The Business Models and Information Architectures of Smart Cities , 2011 .

[43]  John Forester,et al.  Dealing with Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes , 2009 .

[44]  David Gibbs,et al.  ‘Third Wave’ Sustainability? Smart Growth and Regional Development in the USA , 2008 .

[45]  P. Nijkamp,et al.  Smart Cities in Europe , 2011 .

[46]  Jean-Philippe Vasseur,et al.  Smart Cities and Urban Networks , 2010 .

[47]  J. Ahern From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world , 2011 .