Paper by Leonidas G. Anthopoulos and Christopher G. Reddick: “Smart City is an emerging and multidisciplinary domain. It has been recently defined as innovation, not necessarily but mainly through information and communications technologies (ICT), which enhance urban life in terms of people, living, economy, mobility and governance. Smart government is also an emerging topic, which attracts increasing attention from scholars who work in public administration, political and information sciences. There is no widely accepted definition for smart government, but it appears to be the next step of e-government with the use of technology and innovation by governments for better performance. However, it is not clear whether these two terms co-exist or concern different domains. The aim of this paper is to investigate the term smart government and to clarify its meaning in relationship to the smart city. In this respect this paper performed a comprehensive literature review analysis and concluded that smart government is shown not to be synonymous with smart city. Our findings show that smart city has a dimension of smart government, and smart government uses smart city as an area of practice. The authors conclude that smart city is complimentary, part of larger smart government movement….(More)”
How do they fare? Govt complaints apps compared
Medha Basu at GovInsider Asia: “Countries across the region have launched complaints apps. But how do they fare? GovInsider takes a look at each how they compare.
#BetterPenang
#BetterPenang was one of the earliest complaints apps in the region, however. It was released in 2013, built by citizens with their own funding, and was later adopted by local authorities to respond to complaints. Officials answer to citizens directly on the app, in some cases responding with photos of how the problem was addressed.
The Mayor of Seberang Perai city in Penang monitors the complaints herself. She has appointed a team to ensure that complaints are responded to.
Downloads: 5,000
Rating: 4.3 out of 5
Interview: Mayor of Seberang Perai
Qlue
#BetterPenang compares with Jakarta’s similar Qlue app, which was built by a startup and is now being used by the city government.
Qlue has gone a step further with features to keep citizens engaged with the government. It ranks local authorities in Jakarta based on how quickly they respond to reports.
It has a gamified element that awards citizens points for posting complaints and inviting others to use the app. The points can be traded for avatars with “special powers”.
Downloads: 100,000
Rating: 4.2 out of 5
Interview: Inside Jakarta’s Smart City HQ
Cakna
Inspired by #BetterPenang, the Malaysian federal government has launched its own complaints app, which it plans to push to every city in the country.
The features are similar to Penang’s app, but Cakna has broader coverage thanks to federal government backing. Reports are automatically sent to the relevant local authority in the country.
That also makes the app more comprehensive from the government’s perspective. The federal government can now monitor the quality of services across cities on an internal dashboard, while cities can see all of the complaints in their area.
Downloads: 1,000
Rating: 4.2 out of 5
Interview: How we built… Malaysia’s complaints app
OneService
Singapore’s OneService complaints app asks users to submit additional information, as compared to the other apps. It lets pick the date and time when problem was seen. This could help officials better track and resolve cases.
The government has created a separate unit – the Municipal Services Officer – to get these complaints addressed, particularly in areas that require coordination across agencies. The unit is already linked with at least 10 agencies, and is working to expanding this network to other agencies and town councils….(More)”
Cities, Data, and Digital Innovation
Paper by Mark Kleinman: “Developments in digital innovation and the availability of large-scale data sets create opportunities for new economic activities and new ways of delivering city services while raising concerns about privacy. This paper defines the terms Big Data, Open Data, Open Government, and Smart Cities and uses two case studies – London (U.K.) and Toronto – to examine questions about using data to drive economic growth, improve the accountability of government to citizens, and offer more digitally enabled services. The paper notes that London has been one of a handful of cities at the forefront of the Open Data movement and has been successful in developing its high-tech sector, although it has so far been less innovative in the use of “smart city” technology to improve services and lower costs. Toronto has also made efforts to harness data, although it is behind London in promoting Open Data. Moreover, although Toronto has many assets that could contribute to innovation and economic growth, including a growing high-technology sector, world-class universities and research base, and its role as a leading financial centre, it lacks a clear narrative about how these assets could be used to promote the city. The paper draws some general conclusions about the links between data innovation and economic growth, and between open data and open government, as well as ways to use big data and technological innovation to ensure greater efficiency in the provision of city services…(More)“
Smart Cities Readiness Guide
SmartCitiesCouncil: “Welcome to the Readiness Guide. This document was assembled with input from many of the world’s leading smart city practitioners – the members and advisors of the Smart Cities Council. It will help you create a vision for the future of your own city. Equally important, it will help you build an action plan to get to that better future.
The first goal of the Readiness Guide is to give you a “vision” of a smart city, to help you understand how technology will transform the cities of tomorrow.
The second goal is to help you construct your own roadmap to that future. It suggests the goals to which you should aspire, the features and functions you should specify, the best practices that will gain you the maximum benefits for the minimum cost, at reduced risk.
The Readiness Guide is intended for mayors, city managers, city planners and their staffs. It helps cities help themselves by providing objective, vendor-neutral information to make confident, educated choices about the technologies that can transform a city.
Cities around the world are already making tremendous progress in achieving economic, environmental and social sustainability, in export-based initiatives and in the creation of 21st century jobs. All of these are excellent ways to improve city living standards and economies. The concept of smart cities doesn’t compete with these efforts. Instead, smart city technologies can support and enhance work already underway….Contents:
Crowdsourcing On-street Parking Space Detection
Paper by Ruizhi Liao et al in: “As the number of vehicles continues to grow, parking spaces are at a premium in city streets. Additionally, due to the lack of knowledge about street parking spaces, heuristic circling the blocks not only costs drivers’ time and fuel, but also increases city congestion. In the wake of recent trend to build convenient, green and energy-efficient smart cities, we rethink common techniques adopted by high-profile smart parking systems, and present a user-engaged (crowdsourcing) and sonar-based prototype to identify urban on-street parking spaces. The prototype includes an ultrasonic sensor, a GPS receiver and associated Arduino micro-controllers. It is mounted on the passenger side of a car to measure the distance from the vehicle to the nearest roadside obstacle. Multiple road tests are conducted around Wheatley, Oxford to gather results and emulate the crowdsourcing approach. By extracting parked vehicles’ features from the collected trace, a supervised learning algorithm is developed to estimate roadside parking occupancy and spot illegal parking vehicles. A quantity estimation model is derived to calculate the required number of sensing units to cover urban streets. The estimation is quantitatively compared to a fixed sensing solution. The results show that the crowdsourcing way would need substantially fewer sensors compared to the fixed sensing system…(More)”
Do Universities, Research Institutions Hold the Key to Open Data’s Next Chapter
Ben Miller at Government Technology: “Government produces a lot of data — reams of it, roomfuls of it, rivers of it. It comes in from citizen-submitted forms, fleet vehicles, roadway sensors and traffic lights. It comes from utilities, body cameras and smartphones. It fills up servers and spills into the cloud. It’s everywhere.
And often, all that data sits there not doing much. A governing entity might have robust data collection and it might have an open data policy, but that doesn’t mean it has the computing power, expertise or human capital to turn those efforts into value.
The amount of data available to government and the computing public promises to continue to multiply — the growing smart cities trend, for example, installs networks of sensors on everything from utility poles to garbage bins.
As all this happens, a movement — a new spin on an old concept — has begun to take root: partnerships between government and research institutes. Usually housed within universities and laboratories, these partnerships aim to match strength with strength. Where government has raw data, professors and researchers have expertise and analytics programs.
Several leaders in such partnerships, spanning some of the most tech-savvy cities in the country, see increasing momentum toward the concept. For instance, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in September helped launch the MetroLab Network, an organization of more than 20 cities that have partnered with local universities and research institutes for smart-city-oriented projects….
Two recurring themes in projects that universities and research organizations take on in cooperation with government are project evaluation and impact analysis. That’s at least partially driven by the very nature of the open data movement: One reason to open data is to get a better idea of how well the government is operating….
Open data may have been part of the impetus for city-university partnerships, in that the availability of more data lured researchers wanting to work with it and extract value. But those partnerships have, in turn, led to government officials opening more data than ever before for useful applications.
Sort of.
“I think what you’re seeing is not just open data, but kind of shades of open — the desire to make the data open to university researchers, but not necessarily the broader public,” said Beth Noveck, co-founder of New York University’s GovLab.
GOVLAB: DOCKER FOR DATA
Much of what GovLab does is about opening up access to data, and that is the whole point of Docker for Data. The project aims to simplify and quicken the process of extracting and loading large data sets so they will respond to Structured Query Language commands by moving the computing power of that process to the cloud. The docker can be installed with a single line of code, and its website plays host to already-extracted data sets. Since its inception, the website has grown to include more than 100 gigabytes of data from more than 8,000 data sets. From Baltimore, for example, one can easily find information on public health, water sampling, arrests, senior centers and more. Photo via Shutterstock.
That’s partially because researchers are a controlled group who can be forced to sign memorandums of understanding and trained to protect privacy and prevent security breaches when government hands over sensitive data. That’s a top concern of agencies that manage data, and it shows in the GovLab’s work.
It was something Noveck found to be very clear when she started working on a project she simply calls “Arnold” because of project support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The project involves building a better understanding of how different criminal justice jurisdictions collect, store and share data. The motivation is to help bridge the gaps between people who manage the data and people who should have easy access to it. When Noveck’s center conducted a survey among criminal justice record-keepers, the researchers found big differences between participants.
“There’s an incredible disparity of practices that range from some jurisdictions that have a very well established, formalized [memorandum of understanding] process for getting access to data, to just — you send an email to a guy and you hope that he responds, and there’s no organized way to gain access to data, not just between [researchers] and government entities, but between government entities,” she said….(More)
Technology and the Future of Cities
Mark Gorenberg, Craig Mundie, Eric Schmidt and Marjory Blumenthal at PCAST: “Growing urbanization presents the United States with an opportunity to showcase its innovation strength, grow its exports, and help to improve citizens’ lives – all at once. Seizing this triple opportunity will involve a concerted effort to develop and apply new technologies to enhance the way cities work for the people who live there.
A new report released today by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Technology and the Future of Cities, lays out why now is a good time to promote technologies for cities: more (and more diverse) people are living in cities; people are increasingly open to different ways of using space, living, working, and traveling across town; physical infrastructures for transportation, energy, and water are aging; and a wide range of innovations are in reach that can yield better infrastructures and help in the design and operation of city services.
There are also new ways to collect and use information to design and operate systems and services. Better use of information can help make the most of limited resources – whether city budgets or citizens’ time – and help make sure that the neediest as well as the affluent benefit from new technology.
Although the vision of technology’s promise applies city-wide, PCAST suggests that a practical way for cities to adopt infrastructural and other innovation is by starting in a discrete area – a district, the dimensions of which depend on the innovation in question. Experiences in districts can help inform decisions elsewhere in a given city – and in other cities. PCAST urges broader sharing of information about, and tools for, innovation in cities.
Such sharing is already happening in isolated pockets focused on either specific kinds of information or recipients of specific kinds of funding. A more comprehensive City Web, achieved through broader interconnection, could inform and impel urban innovation. A systematic approach to developing open-data resources for cities is recommended, too.
PCAST recommends a variety of steps to make the most of the Federal Government’s engagement with cities. To begin, it calls for more – and more effective – coordination among Federal agencies that are key to infrastructural investments in cities. Coordination across agencies, of course, is the key to place-based policy. Building on the White House Smart Cities Initiative, which promotes not only R&D but also deployment of IT-based approaches to help cities solve challenges, PCAST also calls for expanding research and development coordination to include the physical, infrastructural technologies that are so fundamental to city services.
A new era of city design and city life is emerging. If the United States steers Federal investments in cities in ways that foster innovation, the impacts can be substantial. The rest of the world has also seen the potential, with numerous cities showcasing different approaches to innovation. The time to aim for leadership in urban technologies and urban science is now….(More)”
Cities want to get smarter, so why is it taking so long?
Kevin Ebi at Smart Cities Council: “Most cities and utilities want to get smarter. They see the smart cities movement as delivering more than some incremental improvement. They see it as a meaningful transformation — one that delivers far more than just some cost savings.
Despite all that, the latest Black & Veatch Strategic Directions: U.S. Smart City/Smart Utility Report finds they plan to move slower — not faster — to become smarter. But understanding the obstacles can help you overcome them.
First, the good news
Cities don’t need to be sold on the idea of becoming smarter. More than 90% see the smart cities movement as being transformational with long-term lasting impacts.
Nearly 80% believe it should start with initiatives that have lasting benefits — even if that work is largely behind the scenes (and therefore less likely for the public to notice.) A similar number also believe that data analytics will significantly improve decision making. And nearly all believe it’s a comprehensive effort; it’s more than just buying some new technology.
The smart cities revolution is also inclusive. More than three-quarters say that energy, water and telecommunications providers should play a leadership role in smart cities initiatives — they shouldn’t be relegated to a supporting role.
And growing numbers see smart cities initiatives as something more than just a vehicle to cut costs. This year, more respondents — cities leaders and utilities alike — see the potential to become more sustainable, better manage community resources and to attract business investment.
But there’s also room for improvement
Despite clearly understanding the value of smart cities initiatives, the survey finds respondents are losing faith the transition can happen quickly. Last year, the study found that nearly 1 in 5 thought the smart cities model would be widespread in American cities within the next five years. This year, not even 1 in 10 believe that timeline is achievable.
Instead, more than a third now believe the implementation could take a decade. Nearly a quarter believe it could take 15 years. More than 80% believe the U.S. is lagging the world in the smart cities revolution.
What’s holding them back
Part of the problem may be a big knowledge gap. While people responding to the survey say they understand the potential, more than half say their city still doesn’t understand what it means to be a “smart city.”
And while half the cities and utilities are assessing their readiness — a third are even working on roadmaps — nearly two-thirds still don’t understand where the payoff point is. That may be adding to the money woes….(More)”
The Smart City and its Citizens
Paper by Carlo Francesco Capra on “Governance and Citizen Participation in Amsterdam Smart City…Smart cities are associated almost exclusively with modern technology and infrastructure. However, smart cities have the possibility to enhance the involvement and contribution of citizens to urban development. This work explores the role of governance as one of the factors influencing the participation of citizens in smart cities projects. Governance characteristics play a major role in explaining different typologies of citizen participation. Through a focus on Amsterdam Smart City program as a specific case study, this research examines the characteristics of governance that are present in the overall program and within a selected sample of projects, and how they relate to different typologies of citizen participation. The analysis and comprehension of governance characteristics plays a crucial role both for a better understanding and management of citizen participation, especially in complex settings where multiple actors are interacting….(More)”
Hacking the streets: ‘Smart’ writing in the smart city
Spencer Jordan at FirstMonday: “Cities have always been intimately bound up with technology. As important nodes within commercial and communication networks, cities became centres of sweeping industrialisation that affected all facets of life (Mumford, 1973). Alienation and estrangement became key characteristics of modernity, Mumford famously noting the “destruction and disorder within great cities” during the long nineteenth century. The increasing use of digital technology is yet another chapter in this process, exemplified by the rise of the ‘smart city’. Although there is no agreed definition, smart cities are understood to be those in which digital technology helps regulate, run and manage the city (Caragliu,et al., 2009). This article argues that McQuire’s definition of ‘relational space’, what he understands as the reconfiguration of urban space by digital technology, is critical here. Although some see the impact of digital technology on the urban environment as deepening social exclusion and isolation (Virilio, 1991), others, such as de Waal perceive digital technology in a more positive light. What is certainly clear, however, is that the city is once again undergoing rapid change. As Varnelis and Friedberg note, “place … is in a process of a deep and contested transformation”.
If the potential benefits from digital technology are to be maximised it is necessary that the relationship between the individual and the city is understood. This paper examines how digital technology can support and augment what de Certeau calls spatial practice, specifically in terms of constructions of ‘home’ and ‘belonging’ (de Certeau, 1984). The very act of walking is itself an act of enunciation, a process by which the city is instantiated; yet, as de Certeau and Bachelard remind us, the city is also wrought from the stories we tell, the narratives we construct about that space (de Certeau, 1984; Bachelard, 1994). The city is thus envisioned both through physical exploration but also language. As Turchi has shown, the creative stories we make on these voyages can be understood as maps of that world and those we meet (Turchi, 2004). If, as the situationists Kotányi and Vaneigem stated, “Urbanism is comparable to the advertising propagated around Coca-Cola — pure spectacular ideology”, there needs to be a way by which the hegemony of the market, Benjamin’s phantasmagoria, can be challenged. This would wrestle control from the market forces that are seen to have overwhelmed the high street, and allow a refocusing on the needs of both the individual and the community.
This article argues that, though anachronistic, some of the situationists’ ideas persist within hacking, what Himanen (2001) identified as the ‘hacker ethic’. As Taylor argues, although hacking is intimately connected to the world of computers, it can refer to the unorthodox use of any ‘artefact’, including social ‘systems’ . In this way, de Certeau’s urban itineraries, the spatial practice of each citizen through the city, can be understood as a form of hacking. As Wark states, “We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have too much of it. We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present.” If the city itself is called into being through our physical journeys, in what de Certeau called ‘spaces of enunciation’, then new configurations and possibilities abound. The walker becomes hacker, Wark’s “abstractors of new worlds”, and the itinerary a deliberate subversion of an urban system, the dream houses of Benjamin’s arcades. This paper examines one small research project, Waterways and Walkways, in its investigation of a digitally mediated exploration across Cardiff, the Welsh capital. The article concludes by showing just one small way in which digital technology can play a role in facilitating the re-conceptualisation of our cities….(More)”