Week 6 Lecture I Flashcards
The purpose of this paper
is to investigate the links between smart cities and urban energy sustainability
Instead, we understand smart cities to be a broad framework of strategies pursued by urban actors, and ask whether and how smart city projects catalyze urban energy sustainability.
while sustainability is not always
a major objective of local implementation of smart city projects, the smartness agenda nevertheless increases the ambition to achieve energy sustainability targets
sustainability measures in smart cities are rarely driven by
advanced technology, even though the smart city agenda is framed around such innovations.
there is significant sustainability potential in
cross-sectoral integration, but there are unresolved challenges of accountability for and measurability of these gains.
The idea of the “smart city” is increasingly central
to debates on urban energy sustainability and a host of cities are now pursuing “smartness” to improve their energy efficiency, transport, and public services
smart city definition
a city that is oriented towards energy sustainability, mobility, new business models and partnerships and the advanced use of big data
By integrating new technology into the management and operation of cities
smart cities are seen to offer innovative solutions to the challenges of sustainability, equity, and economic growth in cities and urban regions
cities can increase rates of economic growth, competitiveness, and innovation while achieving sustainability goals, such as reduced emissions, increased energy efficiency, and improved quality of life
However, it is not clear how the smart city agenda contributes to sustainability
links between “smart city” and “sustainable city” in academic literature are relatively weak
need for a holistic and comprehensive smart city model, but that it is difficult to integrate all the necessary elements into a single model.
Therefore, the relationship between what is smart and what is sustainable is largely dependent upon the local context
we see the “smart city” not as a specific set of interventions, but rather a loosely defined agenda.
The agenda consists of both a technological aspect as well as a managerial side
can potentially include an infinite number of policies, innovations, and targets
Therefore, the appropriate analytical approach is not to attempt to measure its effects – it is more appropriate to understand smartness as a broad framing encompassing a wide range of interventions that are translated and reinterpreted by cities
critique - One is the instrumental camp, which
highlights potentialities for specific technological solutions, but has little to say about the social integration of these solutions in cities.
Such instrumentalist approaches highlight the potential of information communication technology (ICT) solutions and ICT-enabled solutions to increase urban energy efficiency and improve urban infrastructure, which reduces emissions from cities
By integrating new technology into the management and operation of cities, it is widely considered that smart cities can revitalize issues of sustainability, equity, and economic growth in urban landscapes.
Five processes through which ICT solutions may reduce energy use in cities:
through processes of dematerialization (reducing the need for physical products such as DVDs or banks),
demobilization (i.e., facilitating meetings online),
mass customization (reducing resource use through streamlining adaptation, personalization, and demand management),
intelligent operation (reducing the resources needed for various operations)
and soft transformation (changes in the physical infrastructure because of technology and ICT advancements).
The other is the critical camp, - 6
which focuses on the socioeconomic interests and the implications of the smartness agenda itself rather than its practical application in projects.
One criticism is that the agenda is driven by private and corporate economic interests, particularly the large companies that promote smart technologies
universalist and abstract ideas that fail to recognize the local contexts and nontechnological elements of cities
Some of this criticism is quite radical, with scholars arguing that the very approach of driving urban development through technological innovation fails to address the root causes of urban problems
It has even been suggested that smart city developments may exacerbate environmental sustainability challenges in cities, as well socioeconomic ones, by reducing urban problems to technical and apolitical issues and focusing primarily on issues that are solvable through ICT and technological advancements
In particular, they clearly articulate the problem that technological solutions may not be sufficient to meet sustainability targets and indicate that political and governance issues are important for promoting urban sustainability
Competing understandings of the smart city emerged
across the fields of engineering, innovation, and social science.
Much of the research overlaps with related concepts such as intelligent cities, smart growth, information cities, or digitalization, and there is not necessarily a coherent literature on “smart cities” per se.
Second, it is used in relation to urban infrastructures and utilities, such as transport, digital systems, and monitoring.
Third, it refers to urban governance: i.e., cross-sectoral collaboration, integrated decision-making, and citizen participation
we understand smartness to be
the framing of particular urban interventions.
In other words, we propose to assess smart cities not for what they are, but for what they do to urban development strategies in general, and to energy sustainability strategies specifically
A “frame” can be understood as the context or structure within which we make sense of our action
In smart city initiatives, sustainability
becomes interwoven into a set of other goals and agendas, all interfering with and influencing each other, creating possible feedback loops and unpredictable outcomes