Smartening urban governance: An evidence‐based perspective

Abstract

This paper presents a framework that provides guidelines on how information and communication technology (ICT) can create added value to smarten urban governance. Furthermore, the framework was applied to measure and interpret the added value of ICT functionalities for governance practice, based on an international questionnaire (268 respondents) and in-depth expert interviews (12 experts). For improving governance processes and handling related urban problems, the results suggest that differentiated strategies should be employed. In this way, the use of ICT in smart planning can realize its full potential—and ‘smartening’ urban governance can be achieved in specific contexts. Este artículo presenta un marco conceptual que proporciona directrices sobre la forma en que la tecnología de la información y las comunicaciones (TIC) puede crear valor añadido para una gobernanza urbana inteligente. Además, el marco se aplicó para medir e interpretar el valor añadido de las funcionalidades de las TIC para la práctica de la gobernanza, a partir de un cuestionario distribuido internacionalmente (268 respuestas) y entrevistas a fondo con expertos (12 personas). Para mejorar los procesos de gobernanza y abordar los problemas urbanos relacionados, los resultados sugieren emplear estrategias diferenciadas. De este modo, el uso de las TIC en la planificación inteligente puede alcanzar todo su potencial y se puede lograr una gobernanza urbana “inteligente” en contextos específicos. 本稿では、情報通信技術 (ICT)が、都市ガバナンスをスマート化するための付加価値をどのように作り出せるかということに関するガイドラインを提供するフレームワークを提案する。さらに、国際的な質問票(268の回答)と専門家の詳細な聞き取り調査(12名の専門家を対象)を基に、ICTの機能性のガバナンスの実行のための付加価値を測定及び解釈するためにこのフレームワークを適用した。ガバナンスの質を改善し、関連する都市問題に対処するためには、結果からは差別化された戦略をとるべきであることが示唆される。以上のように、スマートプランニングにおけるICTの活用では、ICTの可能性をフルに利用することができ、ある特定の背景において都市ガバナンスのスマート化を実現することができる。 Over the past decade, the rapid development of newly emerging information and communication technologies (ICTs) (e.g., big data, Internet of Things (IoT), social media, cloud computing) in the realm of smart cities has been proclaimed as having the potential to transform traditional urban governance into “smart” governance (Jiang, Geertman, & Witte, 2019a, 2019b; Jiang, Geertman, & Witte, 2020; Ruhlandt, 2018; Webster & Leleux, 2018). As discussed in the literature, this can be accomplished in at least two ways. First, advances in ICTs facilitate the collection, processing, and storage of big data in forms like sensor data and public and private records. The increased amount of data can provide valuable information and evidence for policy-making (Kitchin, 2014). Second, smart ICTs open up the governance process and enable different stakeholders to access the public policy-making cycle (Scholl & Scholl, 2014; Webster & Leleux, 2018). Through ICT-enabled interactive dialogues, communications, debates, and social networking, it is expected that urban problems and the real needs of individuals and communities can be better clarified and defined (Verrest & Pfeffer, 2019). According to Janssen and Helbig (2018), by continually expanding data sources and enlarging political participation, technological innovations will, in the long run, both help to alter the way that policy-makers and citizens engage with each other and promote new and innovative forms of urban governance. Despite the potentials, the full capabilities of newly emerging smart technologies to generate a transformative governance praxis or enable constructive problem-solving activities have not been realized (Ferro & Osella, 2017). Thus, the value of technological innovations in improving urban governance has been largely restricted. Critics contend that the smart approach to solving profound urban problems is primarily supported by large high-tech companies that have substantial technical capabilities and financial resources (Hollands, 2015). ICT investments and applications in many smart city initiatives appear to be intricately linked to the promotion of big business interests (Shelton, Zook, & Wiig, 2015). In that, local governments often treat the acceptance and adoption of ICTs as applying smartness to urban problem-solving. However, such corporate-led and policy-driven digital infrastructure developments often lead to a discrepancy between the support capabilities and the demand from users and governance practices (Jiang et al., 2019a). Whether the implemented ICTs are actually useful and effective in handling urban challenges needs to be carefully examined (Verrest & Pfeffer, 2019). In fact, it appears that the application of ICTs is not well suited to facilitate an effective shift of power, institutions, and improved relations between government and non-state actors (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019). Hollands (2015) criticizes this corporate-led, technology-driven approach to smart cities, referring to it as a “one-size-fits-all” strategy that emphasizes the uniformity of the solution rather than relating it to specific, tailored functional support. A range of authors argue that the improved role of ICTs in governing smart cities requires input and contributions from various groups of people, as well as an increased awareness of the value of technology as a means to an end (Ruhlandt, 2018; Webster & Leleux, 2018). This implies that it is more important to focus on “the long-term dynamics of institutionalized collaboration and instrumental value” (Meijer & Thaens, 2018, p. 363). As Ferro, Caroleo, Leo, Osella, and Pautasso (2013) assert, technological innovations are considered valuable only to the extent to which they can achieve a set of goals that are recognized as being of intrinsic value for either society or a specific group of stakeholders. Therefore, Meijer and Bolívar (2016) argue that the potential of ICTs to improve urban governance should be part of a complex process of institutional change and the acknowledgement of the political nature of appealing visions of socio-technical governance. Other authors also emphasize that tools and technologies for governing smart cities must start with the “city,” matching different types of “smartness” (technologies, tools, and applications) with different types of urban functions in specific contexts (Stratigea, Papadopoulou, & Panagiotopoulou, 2015; Verrest & Pfeffer, 2019). In other words, a redefined role of technology “should be grounded in places—actually existing cities—with their specific populations, resources and problems” (McFarlane & Söderström, 2017, p. 313). Rather than leaving technologies, tools, and applications to the corporate and political elites, taking the “urban” into consideration indicates an urban social process of technological innovation in improving urban governance. More recently, Jiang et al. (2019b) proposed an urban planning perspective on smartness to improve ICTs' capabilities for smartening urban governance in the realm of smart cities. They argue that smart urban governance should integrate technology with explicit reference to the particularities of the urban challenges at stake and the specifics of the embedding governance processes. Still, studies on how to transform urban governance into smart governance and its resulting added value are mostly lacking. This paper combines multidisciplinary knowledge of smart urban governance and planning support science to make the key argument that technological innovations (i.e., the supply of smart ICTs) should be embedded in governance processes and attuned to urban problems to achieve their added value in smartening urban governance. To help explain the argument, the following research question was formulated: “How can smart ICTs be transformed into added value in smartening urban governance?” Here, added value means the usefulness of an ICT tool to help the participants to achieve their specific urban governance objectives. It offers urban governance problem-solvers a new dimension, enabling them—with the help of ICT—to innovate decision-making processes and find action-oriented solutions. The smart city concept has been adopted as a policy priority in many countries. It is argued that by integrating smart ICTs and various physical devices connected to the IoT network into urban functions, it provides creative solutions to the challenges of economic growth, social justice and environmental problems in cities (Haarstad & Wathne, 2019). It should be noted that there is no commonly agreed upon definition of “smart” cities. For instance, Hollands (2015) points out the self-gratulatory nature of the smart city label and asserts that smart cities are too dependent on big data and ICT applications. Kourtit, Nijkamp, and Steenbruggen (2017) argue that smart cities should focus on developing productive interactions between networks of urban actors (McFarlane & Söderström, 2017; Meijer & Bolívar, 2016). More recently, Wolf, Borges, Marques, and Castro (2019) showed that the achievement of a smarter city relies more on the ability to increase the flexibility and transparency of urban decision-making and promote place-based initiatives. Although many definitions of “smart city” have been identified (Albino, Berardi, & Dangelico, 2015), we adopted the comprehensive definition by Caragliu, Del Bo, & Nijkamp (2011, p. 70) to help us understand the changing and fuzzy concept: “A city can be defined as smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional transport and modern ICT infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, The rapid development of smart cities and smart ICTs has various new for smartening traditional urban governance & 2017). According to and urban governance is being connected to that focus on technology and innovation (e.g., and innovation Here, governance a range of actors and the in the city” p. It that the of various ICTs and digital devices into local urban government to improve the of urban governments and transform the role the government can in a smart that smart city technologies can transform government from institutional (i.e., traditional governance of a smart into more institutional (i.e., smart urban (Meijer & Bolívar, 2016). According to et al. it is to transform and the between various stakeholders smart city technologies to change how cities are In to the ability of smart ICTs to urban governance new big data can also be from citizens to help policy-makers to and understand urban problems et al., 2017). For instance, the rapid development of big data to the of big data Through the and of data, innovative and knowledge can be to understand the nature of specific urban 2014). various urban data and data provide and data, which individuals and communities to and their solutions to problems (Jiang et al., 2019a). Although smart ICTs can be to support governance processes and with different urban problems, their have not been realized to the of an effective framework to understand and into the argued added value of smart new data, urban governance and knowledge of urban (Ferro et al., Jiang et al., According to literature, the smartness of ICTs is by the technology companies the their smartness by a network of technological functionalities (e.g., digital and 2015). However, the capabilities of smart ICTs can the needs of urban governance practices is only considered in To a framework for smartening urban has to integrate technology with explicit reference to the particularities of the urban challenges at stake and the specifics of the embedding governance processes (Jiang et al., First, technology is as the capabilities a has for governance on and types of ICT capabilities are and and and and Here, and (e.g., social and government information management is information between different and devices and is and information to improve of the and and is the and of 2014). Second, the urban challenges to urban problems that and quality of that and environmental problems in the of urban the of and we also and and as to their & 2017). governance processes the different urban governance by interactions of governance are which the government as the only or by in urban interactive in which non-state actors (i.e., and are important and are Furthermore, integrating functionalities into urban governance processes can be as an (Jiang et al., According to the can also be as the added value of Here, the added value on well the are of out the p. functionalities are implemented to different problems and support the policy-making added can be identified to measure the it should be noted that are also for the usefulness of technology (Jiang et al., Meijer & Bolívar, 2016). Here, is the and in which the application of ICT in improving urban governance is that the role of technology in policy-making and the of planning the specific of and the of the planning and policy the planning and policy and the political on a conceptual framework was to provide guidelines on how ICT can create added value to smarten urban governance Here, the with urban problems and governance processes is based on the which “the question of the of the in can is p. the that functionalities are into urban problems and governance processes to added This process of application of functionalities to create added value is as However, it should be noted that the of added value by functionalities is related to the with urban problems and governance that how well functionalities can urban problems and support governance processes. In we that the between urban problems, and governance processes are related to the added value by the As authors adoption and use of functionalities suggest that functionalities have (e.g., 2015; also that an important role in the role of technological functionalities in smartening urban governance. information the application of ICT in smartening urban governance was an international questionnaire and expert The questionnaire was to the in and research and between and to the The part of the questionnaire into types of technological urban challenges of added and the (e.g., also The on a to the extent to which they agreed or with each in the recognized to and in of technological applications in smartening urban governance. The from the the the and and of in the for at least The interviews between and the the data the and to generate to the research The of the data was based on in to the conceptual and and of the on how ICT can added value to smarten urban governance. The of the questionnaire data was based on the framework in of the in smart city and this to the role of ICT in As in a of a of the in smart city in which ICTs an important role and in into from from or from or and from other The and not to Thus, only the and in the In of the data that there types of types of and two types of It should be noted that smart city can more than of urban and more than of However, smart city only of governance process or The of functionalities urban problems and governance processes the of In that we measure the of of of to their Second, the added value of each of in a of urban problems, and governance processes was by an The added value of each of was with the of of to their a was applied to the The of this was to a of between urban problems, and governance processes in a added value of to the the into two from and from This was and have large (e.g., of of local political and policy-making and policy Therefore, research on the application of technology in and help understand the different development of technology in smartening urban governance. in-depth interviews with from the of urban to interpret and the This us to up a comprehensive of the application of smart ICTs in improving urban governance. The of the of urban problems, and governance processes was to be to the of specific between urban problems, and governance processes. The of the of the between functionalities and urban It that and was the which is related to and problems by environmental problems and to a extent and economic For the two other and and and urban of and is also the connected to other have of the The of transport and the it has on the urban et al., 2016). The of the of the between functionalities and governance processes. types of functionalities are more to interactive processes than processes. the the between and and interactive process the and and are applied to support and The results the that the identified technological functionalities focus more on forms of governance with non-state than on processes To find the between of the and added value by and based on their of the of the identified for presents the between of the and added value It that the functionalities with high added value are and and and to and and interactive functionalities with added value are and and and to problems related to (e.g., and environmental and processes. To find in the of the and added value a was that the the of the the the added value of the The of different added value also The that the and only A is that the support capabilities of technologies are more on complex problems like and and problems, the functional support to facilitate capabilities for participation, and communication is in quality as The results well with the high of the between and urban problems, and governance and the of the between and urban problems, and governance processes (i.e., the the of the the the added value of the of for the from and from The that the of the between urban problems, and governance processes in and are more or to the of the also the that the the of the the the added value by the functionalities However, it should be noted that the in is than in which indicates that the of the of the on added value in is than the in To the for the of different in and that the of on the role of functionalities in are mostly than they are in that the role of functionalities in is This the in of the of the on added value between and the of added value in and The results with the for that and tools are more there is a of functional or quality in capabilities for participation, and However, the of different of added value in with their that the of the added value in are than the in As the of the of different of urban problems, and governance processes in on the than in Thus, the of different added value in agreed with the that that functionalities in added value and the different of added value also with the that the of on the role of functionalities in is than in To better understand the the expert interviews to the First, it is that the of and and transport and was by the expert the in smart related to and As expert problems are an important for smart cities of economic and social In the of the technological functionalities in their smart linked with and For instance, functionalities digital tools to provide an of in are in the and of in and are to support the and of in key for the adoption of and tools is to the by new big data and new for instance, that the past big data has been into a important it provides new for or tools, the use of big data in smart city is to up and they how to with big data and open data they of and urban data In to the of big data and of companies to improve from to the of technologies and the of complex This indicates that the emerging big data and digital technologies provide new to the development and application of and tools in the smart not at least in the complex urban of and in of the of urban problems, and governance processes and is to support and environmental problems in that the been the that to make a of more to the public on and their input with to and the that it is important to realize that smart urban governance is more ICTs to transform institutional into institutional Here, the of two are not open governance in an & p. to urban planning in a new the digital planning The digital planning more and to improve the and quality of and “the technologies in are to the and of and networks of cities, the application of the is we have to focus more on digital by have on their the of the can be from the perspective of a on in urban governance with more focus on planning processes and a for tools to support this participation, and Second, the results that functionalities in in added value and This that to improve the added value of technological more on technologies to urban problems and support governance processes are However, the results that the role of we to the expert the between the of the and the added value by technological functionalities was the expert interviews the of To better interpret the of this of urban problems, and governance processes The in the different of the of technological The and that the and is and in handling different urban problems and both of governance processes. a high of of the and added In that, should at the or and to from 2017, p. However, with the the indicates the of and in specific (i.e., and environmental high support As and big data are to with urban problems and high the technical and of users the use of technologies in urban “the complex and nature of urban problems it for tools to in This implies that and tools to and environmental problems should be more to the (i.e., of governance to their 2015). The indicates that and and and are in they are This can be from of the expert tools more more up to and needs that can understand and This implies that technological innovations that can improve support functions of participation, and should primarily be improved in quality the technological functionalities and that are not implemented in governance processes added value As the (e.g., the political of urban more on smart functionalities to support interactive processes. are in First, it is not that the are also the they are the It is that this was a which means a range of other as of the urban political and not considered as a part of the added value This be part of a the to understand the of technological innovations into added Second, to of the questionnaire we to the different of added value referring to of governance processes and urban problems in smart city the us to understand the of ICT in smart cities. and no citizens in However, provide important into and knowledge on improving the role of ICTs (Meijer & Thaens, it be for research to the of citizens have in urban governance. The that various smart ICTs and big data are being connected to urban governance to that can make cities This paper a framework that provides guidelines on how ICT can added value to smarten urban governance. international questionnaire and expert interviews to the application of technological functionalities in smartening urban governance and to measure the added value by technological on the of the this paper The added value of ICT tools is by tools to and problems, and functionalities are of between urban problems, and governance processes results in the added value of and and have a on the process of technological functionalities into added lead to the following strategies to the support capabilities of technological functionalities in smartening urban governance. First, we a better at the from the more application of and tools, in the of and and they are to the urban governance and environmental Second, we should be more to the (i.e., and the of governance to the of technological functionalities that have high support (e.g., and and and in and environmental technological innovations that can to the of an enabling for and In and tools should improve the quality of and both the of and added value of functionalities in governance are this not that there is no for innovations that are tailored to specific needs (e.g., to the of ICT in in for improving governance processes and handling related urban problems, the results suggest that differentiated strategies should be employed. In this way, the use of ICT in smart planning can realize its full potential—and urban governance can be achieved in specific contexts. The authors like to the two for many that to of this from the are

Topics & Concepts