Smart Urbansim: Approaches to Smart Cities through the lens of DRR

Smart Urbanism:

Approaches to Smart Cities through the lens of Disaster Risk Reduction

Contents

Jordan Kiehne Master of Disaster, Design & Development June 2020 2

Chapter 1 OVERVIEW 4 - 11 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Introduction Industry relevance Research question and objectives Research Methodology

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 12 - 25 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Introduction Smart Cities and IOT technology Disaster Risk Reduction within Smart city Context Participatory Design ICT and its effects on economic structures Public vs Private Urban Domain and Governance Smart City DRR potential in Pandemic Scenarios Literature Review Analysis

Chapter 3 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 26 - 39 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Case Study Analysis

3.2.1 Sidewalk Labs, Toronto

3.2.2 Smart Cities, European Commission

3.2.3 Barcelona 3.3 Comparative Analysis Chapter 4 DISCUSSION 40 - 43 4.1 Discussion of the Risks and Threats Facing Smart Cities 4.2 Discussion of Opportunities for DRR within Smart Cities 4.3 Discussion of Smart City Solutions within the context of Pandemics Chapter 5 CONCLUSION 44 - 45 5.1 Conclusion APPENDIX 46 - 53

Reference List

3

Chapter 1

Overview

4

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1

Introduction

Urbanism has been an ongoing solution to the way we view the human habitat and its interactions, as an expression of our own views on to the environmental aspects of the world, the urban reshapes the environment to our own desire. Smart Cities has been the progression of these ideas being adapted to the 21st Century to incorporate our new digital and data driven era, creating systems research into the multidisciplinary interactions of our engineered cities and urban spaces (Albino et al. 2015; Hollands 2008).

However with new ICT (Information Communication Technology) systems, traditional views of the city are further engineered to force certain aspects of productivity, growth and efficiency out of the urban and into a new innovation economy and urbanism (Angelidou 2015). This though alienates and affects the inefficient and unproductive aspects that define and shape the social, the cultural and in some cases the political, where new technocratic approaches to the city emerge as the dominate political tools (Söderström et al. 2014). This corporatism and privatisation in the form of technocratic systems is at large a danger to the ideals that give benefit to smart cities urbanism, as the real potential of the city comes from public orientated governance and sustainable control (Ahvenniemi et al. 2017) (Al Nuaimi et al. 2015). Additionally as urbanism frames the way we interact with the environment, it is therefore critical in the challenges that we face from climate change and disaster mitigation, that these aspects demonstrate the specifics of what is needed from a reshaping of the concept of Smart Cities.

Internet of things (IoT) to ICT, systems research will allow for greater understanding of our underlying connections between our urban spaces and natural systems increasing the potential of sustainable resilient urbanism (Zanella et al. 2014). Redefining the smart city through this lens of Resiliency and DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction) will help transform our ideas of the urban, allowing a new understanding of our connection to the systems of this changing world.

The term Smart City has been used to describe multiple works going across the globe, as development moves forward within the 21st Century the integration of ICT with the urban space becomes inevitable. From the programs seen across the world, the development of Smart Cities is here to stay, therefore it is critical that urban practitioners understand the effects it will have on the way we design the landscape and risks associated with it.

As of today more than half of the world’s population is living in urban areas, the future of urbanism needs smarter, more resilient, and more sustainable cities that are able to adapt to the needs of the community. While Smart Cities typically focuses on digital and data driven optimizations to existing urban infrastructure, the need to go beyond optimizations remains critical for our urban centres (Batty et al. 2012; Chourabi et al. 2012). Creating dynamic technologies and resilient practices can dramatically improve the planning, design, and management of contemporary cities for the changing climate of our future. With new technological integration from the Chapter 1 - Introduction

5

1.2

Industry Relevance

As of today the search for the Smart City has been developed not just over the past decade, but has been a holistic vision of the integration of technology and the urban, creating the evolution needed for the city of the digital age. Fundamentally what shapes the paradigm of Smart Cities is the conceptual ideas surrounding the philosophy and morals in the application of technology. Throughout human history technology has fundamentally been tied to economic progress, and the story of which it exist has been veiled in this idea. However technology has always effected society, causing dramatic shift in social political and cultural spheres, in almost all cases the application of technology has seen dramatic shifts in development and of human understanding and communication.

IoT and ICT are the essential platforms for the construction of Smart Cities, these technologies form the background for the potential that shapes of Smart Cities. However when these new technologies have been applied to the urban the focus has been on economic factors as the only product of Smart Cities, rather than being background to new social and cultural opportunities. The vision for Smart cities is that of cultural, social and political factors that will help reshape our society creating a more dynamic and responsive urbanism that is resilient to the changes that will affect the global community in the coming century (Anttiroiko 2014; Kitchin 2019). This contrast between the two focuses seen within Smart City projects and literature, has been between questions on private and public development as critical points in developing the discussion for Smart Cities, and is relevant to the questions asked throughout this paper.

Within our current society, where a focus on private enterprise over public institutions has become the norm, it is dangerous to allow the control of an evolutionary technology be controlled by a private system. The control of this system is fundamentally shaped to be the control of a city, as the integrated programme of urban and cyber space will allow for the subjection of the city itself. This power fundamentally should be allocated to the citizens and not the 6

Chapter 1 - Introduction

individual, this is the framework in which DRR should develop within the city (Kaika 2017). Underlying the Smart City approach is the dangerous ability of the city to become a tool to technocratic control (Kitchin 2019), it therefore should be the goal of all urban practitioners and engineers to empower the citizen and give grassroots power to the communities through this new technology, giving the potential for a more direct democracy model (Schliwa 2019).

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is critical to this new approach, as the risk associated with the above can be accelerated through disaster, as disasters create turning points in human development, helping to accelerate underlying inequalities and risk created within the very fabric of society.

This is why this discussion paper will explore these concepts, giving a guidance to the future possibilities that these integrated ideas of smart, dynamic, and DRR cities.

W

1.3

Research Question and Objectives

This project sets out to review the parameters that shape the concept of Smart Cities developments seen around the world, reevaluating at the aspects that will define the urban in the 21st Century. As a discussion paper this project will develop a basis for future study and application within the current discourse, setting up the potential for change in the way we shape the urban in the coming century. This project will allow for further development, allowing for the potential of continued study around the application and outcomes that may occur under the schemes discussed. The way we define our habitats today will become the defining features that shape our future, understanding the systems that create these urban spaces is key to addressing the challenges faced in this century.

This discussion paper will focus on the potential of the Smart City processes to improve urban quality of life, while exploring the opportunities for DRR within Smart Cities to respond to the challenges of this century. By reevaluating the features of the Smart city to incorporate factors from DRR and integrated approaches to the urban this will allow for a more dynamic social, cultural political and economic change that is needed. Through a selected set of topics this research will explore the effects of specific DRR studies on the discourse of Smart City development. Examining the specifics of each topic

and their possibilities to integrating into Smart City frameworks and improving the overall quality of the urban. Case studies will help to reveal the existing applications of Smart Cities and will be used to demonstrate the gaps were DRR focused studies can alleviate the issues surrounding the study of a Smart City.

Understanding this potential connection between Smart Cities and DRR, will be the objective of this discussion. These objectives are set out as discussion questions, which will explore the potentials of each topic to allow development within Smart City discourse, which will be the focus of the discussion.

While the Case studies and literature review will act as resources to the existing systems and the potentials that can be highlighted out of each of these scenarios. The discussion will be based around 3 major questions into the potential of Smart Cities and their place within urbanism required for the 21st Century.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1 (4.1) To what extent will the smart city processes be effected by the challenges facing urban communities around the world, from climate change to sustainability within economic and social connections?

2 (4.2) How will shifting the features of Smart cities to incorporate factors of DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction) improve approaches taken to urbanism, and will this allow for a more dynamic social, cultural political and economic change, required in this new century?

3 (4.3) In reference to ongoing disaster issues (Covid-19 Pandemic) how can the relationship of smart cities and DRR help to alleviate the strain of these disasters in the future?

Chapter 1 - Introduction

7

1.4

Research Methodology

The discussion will focus on relevant exploration of the defining features of Smart Cities, finding the distinctions from other city concepts, furthermore discussion will be lead on the priorities facing an integration of DRR into these frameworks. Discussion on Smart Cities requires exploration into the distinct characteristics and challenges facing the concept moving forward, specifically issues related to sustainability of cities in a time of climate change and increased risk from disasters. Issues relating to climate change, economic instability and technology disruption all require direct analysis into the impacts of each, and the effects that this will have on the concept of a Smart City. That is why the following discussion questions have been selected to each reflect on the critical elements of Smart Cities that will have an effect on its development over the coming years.

1 (4.1) To what extent will the smart city processes be effected by the challenges facing urban communities around the world, from climate change to sustainability within economic and social connections?

This question will be explored through the literature review, exposing the existing elements of Smart Cities and the underlying issues. The literature review will further explore the issues that surround urbanism in this century, demonstrating just a few of the elements that will need to be addressed by smart cities if it is to continue as the status quo of urban design. Within the discussion this tension will be the focus of this question, as elements of smart cities will require adaption to the new norm.

8

Chapter 1 - Introduction

2 (4.2) How will shifting the features of Smart cities to incorporate factors of DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction) improve approaches taken to urbanism, and will this allow for a more dynamic social, cultural political and economic change, required in this new century?

Through both the Case study analysis and Literature Review, this question will be the focus of this paper, discussing the benefits of DRR and its potential to strengthen Smart Cities methodologies. The literature review will be used to expose the components of DRR best suited to integration within Smart City frameworks, while the Case studies will help to demonstrate real world scenarios where DRR methodologies could be applied to better the result for the community.

3 (4.3) In reference to ongoing disaster issues (Covid-19 Pandemic) how can the relationship of smart cities and DRR help to alleviate the strain of these disasters in the future?

Disaster scenarios, such as Covid-19 Pandemic, provide examples into the benefits and possibilities that DRR can provide. Through the literature review certain technologies and aspects of IOT and ICT in their connection to pandemic research will be explored. With integration of both this research with DRR and Smart cities it will allow for a discussion on the possibilities that DRR could provide for the benefits.

As described this discussion paper will be broken into three major sections to answer the discussion questions, each section in its own will reflect on the existing state of Smart Cities, as seen in both literature and case study.

• The first section will be a literature review

focusing on the main selected themes of

Smart cities, Disaster Risk Reduction,

Participatory design, ICT and economic

change and lastly Public vs private domain.

•

The second section will use case study analysis to review the aspects of smart cities that can be best be influenced or aided

by DRR

•

The third section will focus on a discussion of the major effects of each question, with a focus on DRR and the example of current disaster scenarios and the potential impact Smart Cities could have on it.

Each of these topics have been selected for their overlapping connection to Smart Cities, each having a distinct characteristic to either add or that is effected by this smart urbanism. Each of these topics will be expanded upon through literature review and analysed in several real world case studies / pilot programmes of smart cities. Creating a discussion piece around the importance and integration of each of these concepts into the defining factors of ICT and Smart Cities approaches. The research from the Literature review and Cases studies will include various types of sources from journals, paper conferences, books, policy regulations, and reports discussing Smart City frameworks. These sources are gathered from the past 20 years of Smart Cities research (2000-2020), and the selection of resources have been selected based on several key topics.

Exploring the features of Smart Cities to incorporate factors from DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction) to develop an integrated approach to the urban that will allow for dynamic social, cultural political and economic change. These elements will be explored through multiple topics, broken down to assess critical points of Smart cities and their relationship to DRR. The First section, the Literature Review will be broken down into specific points of study, leading from an analysis of the following topics.

• Smart Cities and IOT Technology • Disaster Risk Reduction within Smart City

Context • Participatory Design • ICT and its effects on Economic Structures • Public vs Private Urban Domain and

Governance • Smart City DRR potential in Pandemic Scenarios Chapter 1 - Introduction

9

(1) Literature Review - Research Literature Review will be broken down into specific points of study, each will review an aspect of Smart Cities and Disaster Risk Reduction

(2) Case Studies - Research Three Models of Smart City Development reviewed and anaylsised against academic response to Smart Cities and Disaster Risk Reduction

(3) Discussion - Analysis Discussion question analysis in response to the Research found in Literature Review and Case study Analysis

10 Chapter 1 - Introduction

Case studies will be used to demonstrate the shift occurring in the way we see the urban, moving towards an integration of spatial and ICT / IoT systems.

This integration of approaches to ICT and urbanism have the potential to allow for dramatic change in the way the city responds to the citizen, changing the tradition of urban development to one defined by the human experience. These changes allow cities to become more dynamic in their approach to urbanism, potentially allowing for a more integrated egalitarian and participatory approach to the city, creating space for an integration of resilient methodologies. What has been noted across multiple applications of Smart Cities is the differences in an approaches that each city has taken, as differences on private vs public integration has been critical in many cases, while also approaches to public private partnerships (PPP), and also methods of top down vs bottom up programs.

These differences are key to understanding the possibilities that Smart city programmes can have on impacting the livelihoods of its citizens and will be explored through Case study analysis.

discussion throughout this project, as each element (1) Literature Review, (2) Case studies, and then, (3) Discussion will build on these objectives to highlight the potential of DRR within Smart Cities discourse and development.

The discussion of the case studies will evaluate what is referred to as ‘Lighthouse’ case studies, these examples or ‘Lighthouse models’ are models that have been pushed by global bodies to be used as the best practice examples that should be replicated.

These ‘Lighthouse models’ are good starting points for many cities however they can easily begin to overshadow the individual potential of unique cities.

Many of these frameworks tend to differentiate cities between lighthouse and follower cities, creating a perceived idea of status among urban sphere, potentially creating a new form of modernity that destroy the diverse cultures of our cities. Many of these lighthouse models because of these views, fail to grapple with the differences we see in governance and culture seen in our cities today across the world.

Understanding the current frameworks for Smart Cities is key to dissecting the potentials of each model to create the greatest benefit from this new urban technology, allowing a smooth integration into the community while giving the most potential to DRR. These objectives will be integral to the Chapter 1 - Introduction 11

Chapter 2

Literature Review

12 Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.1

Introduction

For purposes of the discussion the literature review will be broken down into several topics, to refine the concepts seen in DRR and their relation to Smart Cities. These conceptual topics will set the framework in which the discussion will centre on, as the exploration of these topics will define the key features that make Smart Cities and DRR distinct from any other city concept, furthermore the discussion will demonstrate the priorities facing an integration of both DRR and Smart Cities. Exploration into these distinct characteristics facing the concept moving forward, are required to understand the possibilities of integration between both DRR and Smart Cities.

Issues relating to climate change, economic instability and technology disruption all require direct analysis to understand the impacts each will have on the concept of a Smart City. That is why the following topics have been selected to each to reflect on the focal elements that will effect cities in the future.

SMART CITY DRR POTENTIAL IN PANDEMIC SCENARIOS The need for DRR is even clear in current global situation, as Covid-19 has brought many cities to a standstill effecting not just the economic situation, but also the social and cultural interconnections of our communities. These disaster scenarios, such as Covid-19 Pandemic, provide examples into the benefits and possibilities that DRR can provide and the potential for Smart Cities to effect change in the way we respond and resist disaster in the future.

The Internet of things (IOT) and Information communication technology (ICT) are both critical technologies shaping the continued development of Smart Cities. Their technological basis sets the stage for the development of Smart Cities. Both of these topics though, Smart Cities and IOT + ICT, face challenges of public domain and private ownerships.

This in itself remains an ongoing challenge of economic reform as these technologies integrate and transform urban ideas of public infrastructure. DRR enables reform of these technologies, focusing on integrated methods of participatory response to the challenges of the 21st century and the risk associated with Smart Cities itself. Examples of where DRR can help to improve the focus of Smart Cities can be seen in research around Pandemics, Food security and Climate change. The Literature summary provided is detailed through the lens of DRR following an exploration of the research questions that have been the focus of this paper.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 13

SMART CITIES AND IOT TECHNOLOGY

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

Development in any form of human evolution has centred on the continued and ongoing transformation of human technology, in this century of the digital age new systems of ICT and IoT have allowed globalised systems of communication, economics and culture to develop interconnected around the world. This new form of communication has developed to encompass all other technology in the form of IoT, which has enabled complex system research allowing the interconnected web of devices. Urbanism has always dealt with the social, cultural, political and economic systems that have developed over human history, however with this new form of technology the city faces a new set of systems that will reshape the city into the Smart City.

Community engagement and community consultation have dominated planning proceedings and design frameworks, however true participatory design has rarely been engaged. New ICT systems and approaches to open sourced urbanism has the potential to allow new forms of engagement and new forms of community participation (Kitchin 2019), moving beyond consultation and towards active social, political and cultural engagement and participation based on grass roots development and design.

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION WITHIN SMART CITY CONTEXT With the global trend towards climate change and an increasing pressure on political and economic instability disaster risk reduction and mitigation are required in all aspects of modern life. DRR is required specifically within the urban, and therefore the Smart Cities, due to its interconnection with ICT it has the potential to have the greatest effect in this field. Sustainable development under the UN development goals has been set as a priority for all member nations, this framework sets the standards that are required to deal with the changing climate and will enable societies to become more resilient.

Resiliency sets the groundwork for everything previously discussed around one concept, how to improve the lives of all those within the community to engage with and adapt or mitigate the effects of the changing world (Godschalk 2003). Smart Cities plays a key role in this, as the new urban centric focus of it requires it to address these problems and alleviate the effects of them.

14 Chapter 2 - Literature Review

PUBLIC VS PRIVATE URBAN DOMAIN AND GOVERNANCE Neoliberalism has been the standard for global economies of the world throughout the late 20th Century, this has resulted in the mass privatisation of public resources placing them in the control of the private sector. Smart Cities has the potential to continue this paradigm, essential removing the idea of the public domain from our urban centres, while removing the privacy of its citizens. However Smart Cities also have the potential to be the building blocks of greater public participation and community driven grassroots development (Willis 2019), this paradigm between public and private domains requires discussion to evaluate the benefits of both outcomes.

ICT AND ITS EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC STRUCTURES Automation as the fourth industrial revolution will change the entire economy and therefore society of the globe, shifting much of existing concepts about local and external economic systems and connections to globalised markets (Anttiroiko et al. 2014). Smart cities can play a key role in this, enabling adaption of urban systems to evolve into the required approaches needed to sustain the benefits of automation towards the social good of communities.

- Monitoring Systems - RFID - App Based Integration - Interconnected Technology - Cloud Based Systems - Ai Based Technology - Blockchain Integration

- Urban Privatisation - Private Control of Urban Data - Citizen Mapping / Tracking - Individual Privacy - Data Mining - Individualised Marketing

- Urban Integration of IoT + ICT - Spatial GIS system Planning - Urban Density Diagnostics - Smart Sustainable Systems - Smart Resilience Response Systems

Economic / Political unrest - Ai Assisted Workplaces - Automated Jobs - Information Control - Surveillance Systems

- Social Connectivity and Responsiveness - Integrated Disaster Responsive and Monitoring Systems - Preparedness Integrated into Environmental Systems - Redundancy in place of Hard Wired Systems - Allow Low Tech Solutions to High Tech Issues

- Integration of ICT Allows for Quicker Community Response to Urban Issue - Allows for an Interactive Response to Environmental Aspects, giving Individuals Responsibility for their Environment - Increase of Public Domain Beyond the Urban to the Digital

RESPONSE

Participatory Design

FRAMEWORK

Disaster Risk Reduction

EFFECTS

Public + Private

Smart Cities

TECHNOLOGY

IoT + ICT

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 15

2.2 Smart Cities and IOT Technology

I.

Atzori, L, Iera, A, Morabito, G, 2010, “The Internet of Things A survey”, Computer Networks, Vol.54, pp. 2787–2805 As predicted by the US national Intelligence committee, and as noted by the author, IoT (Internet of things), will be one of the most disruptive technologies developed in this century. This risk comes from data mining of everyday goods and services, as the interlinking of all distribution and consumption are potential for information technologies to give data on any individual. The authors notes that from IoT, smart spaces and programmes are established from these integrated approaches, and therefore an inference of Smart Cities is in term a practical application of IoT in urban spatial methodology. Many of the integrated technological benefits of IoT are groundwork established goals of Smart Cities, as mentioned by the authors, Transport and logistics, Healthcare, Smart environmental domains, and personal and social domains will all be transformed through this technology. Therefore these technologies in themselves carry risk demonstrating the need for DRR solutions even within the technology.

II.

Weber, R,H, 2010, “Internet of Things – New security and privacy challenges”, Computer Law & Security Review, Vol. 26, pp. 23-30 With an integrated IoT system comes fundamental risks from two main sources, Security and privacy, however risk can also be further amplified by the changing environmental and social factors. DRR and resiliency play major roles in these risk factors, as highlighted by the author, redundancy must be accounted for in a system totally dominated by IoT, as disaster within the system has the potential to cripple an entire city that has become developed as a Smart City. Additionally the control of mechanisms to ensure the security and privacy of individuals must come from a fundamentally public source, as shown by the author, self-regulation of public data by private enterprise in this manner will fail to address these underlying concerns of the public and risk to disaster. Furthermore it is noted that international regulation and public policy should be at the heart of this due to the nature of not just Smart Cities, but the Internet itself, and the need for public oversight.

III.

Miorandi, D, Sicari, S, Pellegrini, F,D, Chlamtac, I, 2012, “Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges”, Ad Hoc Networks, Vol. 10, pp. 1497-1516 The authors establish a set of literature and reasoning behind the taxonomy of research surrounding the area of IoT. A set of three distinct systems of research branches are established around Distributed intelligence, as in data mining and coordination of data driven systems, Distributed Systems, as in networked protocols and interlinking databases, and lastly Computing Communication identification, as in RFID (Radio-frequency identification) and identity data systems. Each of these systems are detailed by the author to demonstrate the unique potential and risk associated with each system. Within a Smart City it is assumed that all of these technologies will be interlinked, therefore requiring detailed DRR response to each system.

16 Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.2 Smart Cities and IOT Technology

IV.

Tan, L, Wang, N, 2010, ‘Future Internet: The Internet of Things’, 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering, pp. 376-380 The authors describe the benefits and existing integration of IoT and smart technologies within our society today, though what is highlighted through their work is the need for in depth understanding of the security and privacy protection of those citizens part of an IoT system. Security and privacy are broken down into four distinct systems of legislation and regulation, Socio-ethical aspects of IoT, the economic impacts and aspects of markets, and lastly the technical vulnerabilities that will shape an interconnected IoT or even a city. Smart Cities risks the public and private nature of individuals social cultural and political sphere it is important that community guidance is taken at each step helping to avert disaster and risks associated with each of these points.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 17

2.3 Disaster Risk Reduction within Smart City Context I.

II.

III.

IV.

Harrison, C, Williams, P, 2016, ‘A systems approach to natural disaster resilience’, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, Vol. 65, pp. 11-31 The Authors conclude that an increase amount of risk due to disaster is expected over the coming years, which will effect disproportionately those in large concentrated urban areas. A systems approach is studied to improve approaches to mitigation and adaptation of these risks and to recovery from such events. It is concluded that under current systems research and technology, the authors find that, no particular model is able to deal with the complexity of the interconnected systems of urban theory. And rather alert the audience to the potential of Smart Cities to integrate resilient thinking into the urbanist theory and design, creating DRR responses to the risk of this century.

Mitchell, T, Van Aalst, M, Silva-Villanueva, P, 2010, ‘Assessing Progress on Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Development Processes’, Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 2, University of Sussex, Brighton Critical of the policy systems themselves, the authors study the obstacles facing the DRR and CCA (Climate change adaption) policy process, and detail the issues between institution and communication between partnered groups. The critic is centred on five main obstacles to DRR in urban policy, policy process, inter and intra agency communication and connection, financing, scale and integrated knowledge transfer between sectors. They find that even with direct ties between both DRR and urban policy there still remains major barriers to integration of the two fields, these issues have the potential to be resolved through greater connection of community and DRR policy frameworks.

Goswami, P, 2015, ‘Matrix for a smart city’, Current Science, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 245-246 A matrix for a Smart City is proposed and argued for through a comprehensive analysis of specific development opportunities that would allow for resiliency of the city. These options are defined by, sustainable, integrated and design and development of a smart, liveable city. The author describes various strategies that could be developed in India, and provides a strategy for the overall connectivity each would have to the resilience of the cities.

Godschalk, D.R, 2003, ‘Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities’, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 3, pp. 136-143 The author concludes that as resiliency is a priority of urban design and city planning, these notions of resiliency need to be disseminated through the practice of applied research and education programmes, bringing existing practitioners up to speed on building Resilient Cities. A link is made between both natural hazard mitigation and counter-terrorism practices, establishing that both of these instances create the same social devastation that is required to be addressed under resilient city practices. Smart Cities have greater risk associated with terrorism, due to the interconnectedness of ICT and IoT systems, this issue will need to be addressed for Smart Cities to be adopted by citizens.

18 Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.3 Disaster Risk Reduction within Smart

City Context V.

Bansal, N, Mukherjee, M, Gairola, A, 2017, ‘Chapter 8: Smart Cities and Disaster Resilience’, From Poverty, Inequality to Smart City, Springer, pp.109-122 This study shows indication that there is relation between smart development and disaster resilience, where the smart growth, smart urbanization (smart grids, Eco-cities, compact development), and low-carbon footprint strategies have been utilised to create integrated approaches with ICT within Smart Cities. It is shown by the author that when resiliency urban strategies are utilised with the connection to ICT that greater results are found, creating both a more resilient and smart approach to urbanism. Though what is added to this, and concluded, is that without an inclusive approach to design and participation by the community, the benefits of this approach are lost and overall the projects fail.

VI.

Hayat, P, 2016, ‘Smart Cities: A Global Perspective’, India Quarterly, Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 177-191 With the advent of Smart Cities and ICT into our urban spaces brings with it added risk due to the interconnectedness of major infrastructure systems. The author describes the potential for the impacts of climate change and natural disaster to become even greater impacts to this integrated system, therefore requiring the need for DRR. Taking these predictions the author then defines changes that would be required of Smart City programs to adapt to mitigate the natural side effects of a Smart City itself.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 19

2.4 Participatory Design

I.

Schliwa, G, 2019, ‘Smart Cities by Design? Interrogating Design Thinking for Citizen Participation’, The Right to the Smart City, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 151-164 Establishing the citizen as the “smart citizen” within the context of the Smart City, the author attempts to reevaluate the context in which buzzwords become actualised events , moving away from comments of human centric and alike. Looking for interface with the Smart city, design thinking is lead as a guide to navigate the control of private interest within the urban towards a greater public participation. However what is lacking in this text is the often misguided approach that consultation equals participation, as is often the design process’ function to guide the public rather than let the community lead, which is when DRR is established.

II.

Kitchin, R, 2019, ‘Toward a Genuinely Humanizing Smart Urbanism’, The Right to the Smart City, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 151-164 The author notes that, the citizen within the Smart City is no longer an individual rather a data point of consumer logic, within an algorithmic based system guided to a set of responses. This is seen in the new development of the neoliberal experiment and implemented in the creation of the Smart City. For participatory outcomes to succeed or the human centric urbanism to exist, new ideas on public lead initiative is required of the Smart City to adapt to a more publicly integrated urban.

Smart Cities have the potential to create systems of citizen power and grassroots control, shifting the city away from neoliberal policies to greater public control and ownership.

III.

Kaika, M, 2017, ‘Don’t call me resilient again!’: the New Urban Agenda as immunology … or … what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with ‘smart cities’ and indicators’, Environment & Urbanization, Vol 29, Iss. 1, pp. 89–102 What is noted by the author is that typical frameworks of development that seek to create sustainability, resiliency and alike, fail due to their top down notions. Rather what they create is the act of immunology: “they vaccinate people and environments alike so that they are able to take larger doses of inequality and environmental degradation in the future.” Though what is suggested is building a smarter city would require a practice of rigour in working with living indicators to establish frameworks of global socio-environmental equality. Using public acts of dissensus to indicate the lived experience and allowing for grassroots organisation and bottom up policy driven urbanism, establishing a new Smart City.

20 Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.5 ICT and its Effects on Economic

Structures I.

Heinrichs, D, Rupprecht, S, Smith, S, 2018, ‘Making Automation Work for Cities: Impacts and Policy Responses’, Road Vehicle Automation 5, Springer, pp.243-252 This paper focuses specifically on the effects of Autonomous Vehicles (AV), however the author does a good job showing how the effects of automation, and to a greater extent ICT, will effect and shape the urban in many ways. From a policy and planners perspective it is shown that there is current uncertainties into the future of our cities under the existence of AVs, and autonomous systems, leaving potential risk associated with the continued approaches to urbanism that exist today. Smart Cities in this way are required to adapt to these changing technologies and assess the effects that these new developments will have on urban communities. The author points out that with automation comes a danger of the advantages being given mostly to the wealthy leaving greater social and economic divided with the coming autonomous age.

II.

Allama, Z, Dhunny, Z.A, 2019, ‘On big data, artificial intelligence and smart cities’, Cities, Vol. 89, pp.80-91 Looking at data driven cities and ICT in the realm of the Smart Cities, the author establishes developments leading to AI being integrated within the systems of cities and urban spaces. These aspects of machine learning are shown to be easily integrated with existing ICT elements that define Smart Cites. These systems have the potential to use data gathering techniques to quickly assess and re-calibrate urban dimension through autonomous systems. The author alludes to the governance concerns regarding these data and machine learning techniques, but fails to elaborate on the methods as quoted as the fundamental dimensions of Culture, Metabolism and Governance that will be effected by integrated ICT AI systems, that Smart Cities will be required to address.

III.

Anttiroiko, A.V, Valkama, P, Bailey, S.J, 2014, ‘Smart cities in the new service economy: building platforms for smart services’, AI & Soc, Vol. 29, pp. 323-334 Smart Services, as reflected by the author, is the synthesis of ICT and public service, these new findings on the nature of the economy within a smart city demonstrate the shift that new urbanism will create. The role of governance in these instances is one of a broader collaborative effort rather than existing models of competitive destruction, as the author puts it. These changes because of ICT demonstrate the need for new approaches to how we see the smart city and its connection not just to the physical space but the economic, the political and the social.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 21

2.6 Public vs Private Urban Domain and Governance I.

Kitchin, R, Cardullo, P, Feliciantonio, C.D, 2019, ‘Citizenship, Justice, and the Right to the Smart City’, The Right to the Smart City, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 1-24 The authors demonstrate the controlling nature of the Smart City approaches seen in recent times, represented in the critic of neoliberalism, the paper analysis the potential for Smart City governance to become a mechanism for the control and destruction of public space. The paper suggests that for the Smart City to work for the benefit of the community rights are required for the citizens to express the right to their own data and information, moving away from a system of privatisation. Concluding that the Smart City itself could enable change for a greater representation and community driven public urbanism.

II.

Willis, K.S, 2019, ‘Whose Right to the Smart City?’, The Right to the Smart City, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 27-41 A model of citizenship is offered in Smart Cities, as demonstrated by the example Chennai, the existing models of a Smart City reconfigure the role of citizenship in ways that instrumentally effects existing systems and disproportionately further isolate disadvantaged communities. The authors proposes influencing the model of the Smart City into the hackable city, allowing citizens to strangle control of the public sphere reshaping it to the communities’ desires as they see fit. Within this is reference to contextually driven approaches to the concept of the Smart City and ICT interface, exemplified through the reference to post-colonial theory and the Modernist approach taken previously to the global south.

III.

Krivý, M, 2016, ‘Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control’, Planning Theory, Vol. 17, Iss.1, pp.8-30 Referencing Deleuze, the author goes on to explain the actualised elements of Deleuzes work that now exist within the way we interpret the city, exemplified in the Smart City process of privatisation that has dominated originally public spheres. Demonstrating the control that Smart Cities infer through their incompatibility with informality, requiring space to be engineered, programmed and efficiently defined. This system allows for a corporatisation of the urban, redefining the city from a public space to a private one, reconfiguring the systems to enable private economic interest and big data control. The author demonstrates a rethinking of citizenship and ownership that is inherent within the concept of Smart Cities and requires critique to produce and outcome beneficial for the citizen.

IV.

Batty, M, 2018, ‘Artificial intelligence and smart cities’, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, Vol. 45, Iss. 1, pp. 3-6 The author argues a need for new organizational structures to cope with these changes, to begin to tame AI and to establish the right kind of regulatory structure to invoke serious ethical principles, and to ensure that the increasing polarizing effects of information technologies are dealt with appropriately. Critique is brought not to AI, or systems ICT development but rather the long term approaches to AI technology within the urban, removing the need for human interaction rather the machine learning approaches create the outcomes, redefining the purpose of human design.

22 Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.7 Smart City DRR potential in Pandemic Scenarios I.

Dibble, C, Wendel, S, Carle, K, 2007, ‘Simulating pandemic influenza risks of us cities’, Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference, The authors work shows modelling systems based of disease control, were simulations are modelled to determine the response of certain outbreaks of specific diseases across urban areas. Through their work it is made clear that these modelled systems act effectively in tracking the potential for disease through an entire country. Smart City integration could allow analysis of pandemics could be tracked an analysis across urban areas, allowing intermittent quarantines and focused isolation.

Allowing greater mobility then is traditionally seen under quarantine and allow continued economic and social activity under certain models.

II.

Kickbusch, H, Sakellarides, C, 2006, Flu City—Smart City: applying health promotion principles to a pandemic threat’, Health Promotion International, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 85-87 Analysing the risk of pandemics, the authors find a critical link can be made between Smart Cities and what is termed as the flu city, or the city that is able to respond to health influxes within society.

From their research it is found that current urban policy and planning has allowed for ‘chokepoints’ and ‘tight coupling’ of economic and social systems, creating further vulnerabilities to health crisis’.

Smart cities in this way must allow for dynamic decentralisation and recentralisation, determined through the flow of a pandemic or other crisis. This dynamism is central in the way we respond to disaster and is critical when forming the basis of smart city developments. Additionally it is critical in any crisis, and is central to Smart Cities, that strong social and community participation and trust is allowed, as with a pandemic, community trust and involvement is critical in stemming the flow of disease.

III.

Fuller, H, 2016, ‘Pandemic cities: Biopolitical effects of changing infection control in post SARS Hong Kong’, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 182, No.4, pp. 342-352 The author develops an argument from the political aspects of Foucault’s city, shaping the idea of health and safety as the very ingrained nature of urban space. From a history of urban change effected by pandemic demonstrating the interaction of ideas of security and health, the author, demonstrates the political effects of pandemics on the way we interpret the urban. As SARS spread through Hong Kong, the author makes a connection to media speculation creating fear that then furthered infection, while creating fear of the individual and then of society and therefore the city.

However it is noted that what stemmed the flow of fear, was that once infections were spatialized within the city, giving individual’s information on infected buildings and locations, allowing individuals to self-quarantine certain parts of the city. The author notes that once this individual responsibility was given to the citizens, a culture of self-protection and responsibility to disease became the norm, and was linked to the ‘face mask culture’. All of these functions mentioned, are further enhanced by integrated IoT and ICT allowing a Smart City to respond quickly not just to a disaster but also fear that is often connected to the disaster itself.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 23

2.7 Smart City DRR potential in Pandemic Scenarios IV.

Beltran-Ramirez, R, Maciel-Arellano, R, Gomez-Barba, L, Sokes, L, Gonzalez-Sandoval, C, 2015,’ Mobile Applications utilised for the prevention of potential epidemics in Smart Cities’, In 2015 IEEE First International Smart Cities Conference, pp. 1-4 Allowing Smart City integration and regulation with the application of phones could allow for the potential of distances diagnoses of influenza and other diseases. The authors refer to the app BioDnX which is used to diagnose patients from their homes helping to prevent the spread of disease across a city. Allowing this technology integration with Smart City concepts could allow for preventative care to exist at the will of the individual, removing the fear of infection and spread to the greater community. Additionally with these programmes being integrated into other systems discussed the potential for greater control and monitoring under a Smart Cities system would allow for a more controlled quarantine effort, allowing greater concentration of resources and efforts where needed.

V.

Solanas, A, Patsakis, C, Conti, M, Vlachos, L, Ramos, V, Falcone, F, Postolache, O, Pérez-Martínez, P, Pietro, R, Perrea, D, Martínez-Ballesté, A, 2014, ‘Smart Health: A Context-Aware Health Paradigm within Smart Cities’, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol.52, no. 8, pp.74-81 Integrated approaches to smart cities and health technologies will help to deal with, overall health and wellbeing of the community but also the control and spread of disease allowing the control of potential pandemics. The authors discuss various technologies that can be integrated into Smart Cities that will achieve these results, discussing both the benefits and challenges, but altogether showing the potential for smart cities to act in Disaster risk reduction process, helping to prevent future pandemic, and disaster.

VI.

Flahault, A, Vergu, E, Coudeville, L, Grais, R, 2006, ‘Strategies for containing a global influenza pandemic’, Vaccine, Vol. 24, pp. 6751-6755 The authors demonstrate through mathematical models certain potentials of disease control, coming to various conclusions on each, showing the determined spread and infection of disease in each. Concluding from their results it was found that, beside vaccination, isolation was the most effective at diminishing the impact of a pandemic at a global scale. Smart Cities could be critical in this model allowing further control and understanding in the spread of disease and allowing government agencies to easily control and monitor the spread of disease across urban areas.

Allowing for quick response to effective methods that can prevent global pandemic.

24 Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.8

Literature Review Analysis

The topics chosen through the literature framework are set as foundational methods of DRR, each topic represents a critical theme of Disaster Risk Reduction in the form of either social, cultural, political or economic grounds on which the foundation of disaster resiliency is founded and established in critically assessing urban resiliency. Smart Cities is demonstrated through the literature to provide opportunities for DRR in the form of technological innovation in the systems research on IoT and ICT, where Smart Cities is seen to strengthen the response to disaster resiliency as seen in the examples of pandemic scenarios. However issues still remain in the frameworks set for Smart cities, as referenced under public and private domain issues, and participatory risks associated with technocratic views of society. It is noted that this notion of technocratic and neoliberal infiltration into the Smart City process is highlighted by many of the authors (Schilwa 2019; Kitchin 2019; Kaika 2017; Allama 2019; Krivy 2016; Willis 2019), and remains a critical issue to the establishment and development of Smart Cities in the future. Demonstrated though is once systems of participation are included within the Smart City framework and Disaster Risk Reduction is applied to the issues associated with Smart Cities the potential and opportunities of Smart cities is given strength.

In this way the strengths of both systems, DRR and Smart Cities, provide opportunities to the other and alleviate the weaknesses of each other.

The literature review is established to demonstrate the multifaceted effects that Smart Cities will have on the world once it is developed in a meaningful way in our urban environments. It is critical that for the weaknesses and threats referenced by Smart City discourse are addressed in a way developed to alleviate risk, which is best suited by Disaster Risk Reduction as the methods applied by DRR set the groundwork in which Smart Cities can address the issues facing our cities today enabling solutions to the challenges shaping the 21st century.

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 25

Chapter 3

Case Study Analysis

26 Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis

3.1

Introduction

The term Smart City has been used to describe multiple projects being test across the globe, as development moves forward within the 21st Century the integration of ICT with the urban space becomes inevitable. From the programs seen across the world, the development of Smart Cities is here to stay, therefore it is critical that urban practitioners understand the effects it will have on the way we design the city. What has been noted across multiple applications of Smart Cities is the differences in approaches that each city has taken, from examples of models such top down vs bottom up programs or in some cases private vs public integration that has been critical in many cases, as seen through public private partnerships (PPP). These differences are key to understanding the possibilities that Smart City programmes can have on impacting the livelihood of its citizens. Many of these first cities to gain momentum and funding for experimentation with Smart City technology have been called Lighthouse case studies, the models established here set the ground work for future research in this field.

Lighthouse case studies have been encouraged by many global institutions as exemplar models of Smart Cities, where investment is done within these lighthouse models, while in many circumstances these models are then replicated by so called ‘follower’ cities. These Lighthouse examples are good starting points for many cities however they can easily begin to overshadow the individual potential of each unique and individual city (Paolo & Kitchin 2018).

Many of these lighthouse models fail to grapple with these differences we see in governance and culture seen in our cities today, many of these frameworks tend to define cities either between lighthouse and follower cities, creating a perceived idea of status and hierarchy among urban sphere (Joss et al. 2019). “…this narrative suggests that world or capital city status de facto confers model and best practice standing. What, notably, this narrative fails to articulate is whether such presumed model status is necessarily justified on substantive ground and, moreover, how to account for likely differences between acclaimed smart cities. In short, in the

search for the paradigmatic smart city, global or world city status appears to play an overriding factor, trumping other considerations.” (Joss et al. 2019) Understanding the application of these current frameworks for Smart Cities is key to dissecting the potentials of each model to create the greatest benefit from this new urban technology. The three models that have been chosen to explore through case study analysis are that of Private-Public Partnership Model (PPP), Top down models and a bottom up models, each of these have had different applications around the world each differing from the other. Therefore there is not one case study that would cover the total application of each of these models or that would represent one fully, however the case study’s chosen have been highlighted due to their real world current applications and continuing development process.

Side-Walk labs by Alphabet has been chosen as an example model of PPP, and private enterprise entering the development of Smart Cities process.

Their original model for Toronto will be analysed as a case study, exploring the benefits and issues surrounding this model and its reasoning for failure.

Looking into the potential for DRR within this model and the future of this development process in the Smart City system.

The EU Smart City Model has been chosen as the example model of Top down approach to Smart City development. This model has been established by the European Union to establish Lighthouse case studies and technologies for eventual integration into European cities around the continent.

Bottom up models have emerged naturally around the world in several cities, though where it is seen the most concentrated effort and collaboration is that in Barcelona. Barcelona’s model has adapted to a concerted effort by the community and the government to foster a trust in the ongoing development of their city, fostering a grassroots effort to explore the capabilities of ICT and IoT.

Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis 27

Case Study Private Sector

28 Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis

3.2.1 Side-Walk Labs, Toronto

In 2016, Sidewalk Labs a subsidiary of Alphabet and therefore Google, began conversations with North American cities to begin work on what it intended to be a Smart City model, stating its intentions to develop a city “built from the Internet up.” (Williams 2017). In 2017, Sidewalk Labs announced plans to redevelop Quayside, an existing neighbourhood in Toronto, Canada (Gibson 2017). Announced as Sidewalk Toronto, the project aimed to develop a city as the testbed for emerging technologies, materials and processes, attempting to address issues such as sustainability, accessibility, inclusiveness and prosperity in urban communities (Side Walk Toronto n.d.). This model was to be developed alongside the local government of Toronto, developing for the city an “IDEA district” or Innovative Design and Economic Acceleration (IDEA) which has been defined as district centred on high performance job creation (Valverde & Flynn 2018). This though has also given Sidewalk control over the development process and of the district once completed. The PPP (Private Public Partnership) that was set up with this development was heavily influenced by Sidewalk Labs requests, as through the development process public money would be used to reimburse their advisory position, while also allowing them ownership over the development and land. Additionally governance was to be provided by local government agencies in the form of a single administrator, who was to be advised by Sidewalk Labs on relevant regulation for the Toronto IDEA District (Side Walk Labs 2019). This structure was developed alongside the proposals for Smart City technologies as the local government would itself share in the profitability of the predicted technological interventions,

Sidewalk Labs only begins to earn performance payments after Waterfront Toronto and the public sector reach their objectives; and a profit-sharing proposal, through which the public sector would receive a share of the profits generated by certain technologies first tested and deployed in the IDEA District.” (Side Walk Labs 2019) However critic towards this proposal came from the approaches to these technological interventions, and the governance/regulation of them. As Sidewalk Labs states in their own revenue sources of the project (Side Walk Labs 2019), Smart City technologies are listed as 2nd only to Real estate as revenue potentials.

Demonstrating the demand from this project is that of technological intervention in the pursuit of profit seeking Smart City technologies.

“This structure includes a proposal to pay the public sector a share of the upside value if Quayside and Villiers West prove more profitable than expected; an approach where Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis 29

Even Sidewalk Labs remains critical of Smart Cities and its technologies, as it sees itself as “…more than just the pursuit of urban efficiencies associated with ‘smart cities’, urban innovation is a diversified set of industries” (Side Walk Labs 2019). However they go on to state, that cities must engage in “…changing their regulations to accommodate disruptive outsiders such as Uber or Airbnb or are developing “smart city” master plans to incorporate technology into municipal operations,” (Side Walk Labs 2019) therefore forcing cities to act in a way to compete with other cities for this new economy of innovation. It is clear that Sidewalk Labs sees Smart Cities as a potential for the generation of spatial data leading to a profit from these new technologies, though also contradictory to this, an opportunity to diversify and engage in a more holistic way with urban communities. What is exemplified in this case study is that issue of privatisation of the governance process overshadows the development potentials of Toronto’s Smart City, while Sidewalk Labs has also shown itself to be contradictory in its approach to Smart Cities further demonstrating their lack of authority to the community.

of the “yellow book”. The yellow book provided by Google to its urban systems teams, is said to detail aspects that could be utilised through a Smart City platform such as social credit systems the likes that is seen in China, criminal justice reform providing police with up to date tracking, personalised marketing and advertising creating further detail of consumer habits (Cardoso & O’Kane 2019; Farr & D’Onfro 2018; Doctorow 2019). As coined by Shoshana Zuboff, Surveillance Capitalism (2019) is a danger specifically associated and generated from internet based technologies, and when developed through Smart Cities in the form of IoT these dangers emerge and become critical points of conflict for citizens and the greater community as a whole. The Smart City, in this form, does not just effect just the urban citizens but also the greater community, as those wishing to enter as anonymous or non-smart city citizens are marginalised from public/private assets, such as mass transit. These issues develop when a lack of participation in the development process is given to the community and furthered by a reduction in public governance and engagement over the lifetime of a city.

Sidewalk Labs has faced criticism to its development proposals over issues of privacy and governance, as technocratic approaches to regulation and privatisation of public assets has become a grave concern of the community of Toronto. Private control has been at the centre of all discussions around Sidewalk Toronto, as details emerge on programmes being pushed to enable these Smart City systems.

One such example is a program called “Replica”, which when used creates locational data to enable Sidewalk Labs “…a comprehensive portrait of how, when and why people travel in urban areas” (Bowden 2018).

The issues emerging from these technologies is one of oversight of platform, governance and transparency, and when Sidewalk labs demonstrates the willingness to gain a profit from these technologies, community criticism is an eventuality. These concerns are most highlighted in the critic of Google’s approach to data mining and commercial use of personalised data, and furthermore the secrecy of its information gathering operations, which is exemplified in the revaluations

The issue of trust is not unique to private companies, however it is especially present in the case study of Sidewalk Labs were participatory outcomes were required to enable transparency in the process of development, which is particularly required in Smart Cities. The consultation process is highlighted by Sidewalk Labs as an integral approach to their design process, however this engagement process has evidently failed, exemplified the mass public outrage and critic of the projects development. Therefore it is shown from this critic that the success for Smart Cities lies with the ability for participatory outcomes to define the project, allowing for an ongoing process that evolves with the community expectation. DRR enables this process, as integral to the notion of resilience and mitigation of disaster is the process of community participation. As the Sidewalk lab Toronto set out to establish sustainable, accessible, inclusive and prospering urban communities (Side Walk Toronto n.d.), DRR follows proven methodologies seen established from the UNs Sustainable

30 Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis

Development goals (United Nations 2015) it is within these frameworks that a critical notion of community engagement is maintained within the process of development, which helps to remove the barriers of marginalisation. Consultation in development, especially Smart Cities, is not enough to justify this critical infrastructure rather ongoing participatory development is required for these technologies to flourish and to achieve the goals set out for them (Bansal et. Al 2017). When applied to these systems DRR improves the possibilities of Smart Cities, while allowing for an inclusive approach to design and development. What has been shown from this PPP model is that consultation does not equal participation, as is often seen that a private design process’ functions to guide the public rather than let the community lead (Schliwa 2019), which leads to the outcome seen with Sidewalk Toronto.

engagement, which would enable the addressing of the soico political landscape effected by Smart City development practices. It is also clear that for Smart City development, responses are required to address the accelerating rate of disaster risks, and without Smart Cities shifting its frameworks towards DRR outcomes more projects will fail as seen with Sidewalk Toronto.

Sidewalk Toronto has now failed, stepping back from their Smart City goals, Sidewalk Labs has now abandoned the project completely. Covid-19 has been at the centre of this exiting as Sidewalk has blamed the ongoing pandemic on its choice, stating “…as unprecedented economic uncertainty has set in around the world and in the Toronto real estate market, it has become too difficult to make the 12-acre (4.8-hectare) project financially viable without sacrificing core parts of the plan…”

(Gibson 2020). Though many in the community see this move as a response to their ‘techlash’ (Teale 2020), as the community critic has now shifted and made the project unsustainable in its plans to appeal to the local community. Even with the community backlash it is clear that the PPP model relies heavily on economic certainty and stability, while also requiring the ongoing support of the local community. From a DRR approach to mitigation of disaster, community engagement lies central to all development practices, this can take the form of resiliency to Pandemic like scenarios, but also creates the requirement for community engagement as the participation in the development creates at its heart mitigation to disaster (Mercer 2008). These issues with Sidewalk lab could have been mitigated through further community participation and Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis 31

Case Study Top-Down Model

32 Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis

3.2.2 Smart Cities, European Commission

The European Union has established a priority as part of its city initiatives to understand and develop the integration of ICT and its urban spaces, beginning to establish the development of Smart Cities and to understand the connections between industry, business, banks and research.

Their goals are to strategise and develop ways to deal with the challenges facing Europe today, low growth, insufficient innovation, and a diverse set of environmental and social challenges (European Commission 2011). This top down model is established around three EU instruments, the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF), Horizon 2020 and the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities (EIP-SCC), each of these are set the task of delegating funding towards Smart City systems and initiatives (European Commission n.d). Priorities have been set by the commission are established around basic visions for European cities,

“…smarter urban transport networks, upgraded water supply and waste disposal facilities and more efficient ways to light and heat buildings. It also means a more interactive and responsive city administration, safer public spaces and meeting the needs of an ageing population”

to the overall EU Smart Cities programme. Though these lighthouse case studies have an effect on the perception and perceived nature of urbanism within Europe, these systems create a class like function between cities classing them as either lighthouse or follower cities (Joss et al. 2019) This model of top down approach with the added effects of lighthouse based models has the potential to effect communities in a colonial manner (Kaika 2017), stripping the socio cultural differences between cities forcing a Smart City model that does not integrated into the existing physical and social infrastructure. These challenges can be mitigated through correct acknowledge of this models flaws, however this does not appear to be the case with the EU model at present.

Top down approaches have the potential to rapidly change existing practice and allow for direct and integrated innovation, however these models can quickly redefine existing landscapes and unknowingly effect local community on disastrous scales. EIP-SCC have advocated for responses to the city to be civically engaging and empowering allowing for participation on each scale, as the European commission notes that the potential for Smart Cities is through existing networks of communities and citizens (EIP-SCC n.d).

However through the frameworks set by the European Commission specific imitative and innovations are targeted for leading projects, and these specific projects are created and chosen in a system of top down governance rather than a participatory process of justification and procurement.

(European Commission n.d).

This model bases its development around lighthouse cities and technologies, using these as the basis for establishing frameworks for the greater European approach to Smart City development.

Creating collaborative spaces for innovation and experimentation with Smart City technology establishing the research and tested methodologies for the greater use of the programmes, enabling start up organisations, researches and alike to contribute Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis 33

“Our analysis has highlighted the extent to which EIP-SCC works as a mechanism of adjustments of opportunities and a platform which allocates funding, displays pre-packaged solutions for various stakeholders, and favours exchanges within already determined boundaries of cooperation. We individuated three specific forms of governance through which this process of marketization takes place: technical solutionism, nudging behaviour, and scaling/replication. Ultimately, we contend the supranational strategy for ‘citizenfocused’ smart cities acts as a smokescreen to a much more deliberate neoliberal agenda for cities whilst circumscribing a particular role for their citizens.”

(Cardullo & Kitchin 2018)

These frameworks set by the commission have the potential to lead to disengaged communities and unresponsive citizens, leading to the eventual decline of any Smart Cities technology having any benefit to the greater urban community. The European Commission as part of their new economic competitiveness and innovation agenda (Cooke and De Propis 2011) have stressed the importance of Smart Cities, and this approach of a top down 34 Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis

model has imposed through its lighthouse studies a prescribed definition of Smart Cities. Though Haarstad (2016) argues against this technocratic view of the Commissions approach, and rather suggesting “…that this ideological critique misses an important point, namely, that the smart city concept is sufficiently open and flexible to allow actors across different cities to insert a wide range of different strategies and agendas into it.” This is justified by the EU’s central role in the ability to define and advocate for the discourse surrounding Smart Cities giving rise to the notions associated with this new urban thinking, of energy sustainability and low-carbon energy mobility etc. However it is noted by Haarstad (2016) that, “…strategies driven primarily by technology-centric imaginaries are unlikely to succeed”, as approaches require a unique understanding of the relations between of technological innovation and social dynamics that shape individual cities. It is in this understanding of cities individuality to each other in either social cultural political or even economic grounds that top down models struggle to anticipate and adapt to, rather they tend towards rigidity of frameworks and governance models.

It is through an approach of assemblages (McFalane 2011) that will enable a multifaceted approach to Smart City design, allowing top down dynamics to facilitate in rather a participatory definition of the Smart City. Allowing a top down assessment to guide the traditional corporate, bureaucratic and institutional barriers that exist within current urban planning, while allowing Smart Cities to deconstruct the existing barriers will enable a framework for new participatory development. The EU model does enable multifaceted approaches in the way it allocates funding to groups involved in the development of Smart Cities, however these groups themselves are generally part of greater organisational bodies.

Therefore the model trends towards connecting top-down organisation with other top-down organisation, removing any opportunity for selfgoverned models. Applying DRR to this model will allow for resilience to be integrated at all levels of society, motivating collaboration between both the

European Commission, Smart city Stakeholders and citizens. For top-down models to activate the greatest benefits from Smart city development, further work in the case of the European approach, is needed to address these differences between each urban space. And in integrating DRR into these models an approach to top down development will help foster community integration that is critical for Smart cities to work.

“There may be some real hurdles in such an attempt: different physical landscapes, distinctive urban residential cultures, a divergent morphology of infrastructures, contrasting norms, traditions and habits at local level.

However, the history of European integration has shown that tackling and overcoming difficult tasks has been the key to veritable breakthroughs in the process of Europeanization”

involving the communities, this lack of definition in smart city development will only hindered the process and create further critic. DRR in this way works within top-down frameworks to give helping to foster grassroots organisational development, connecting it to greater systems of collaboration enabling resilience to the challenges of the 21st century. It is critical for the European commission to establish an ongoing process of definition backed by policy and community driven support for Smart city development, allowing grassroots approaches to ICT and IoT in connecting existing urban systems while allowing for individuality of place. Through this and an integration of DRR, will Smart cities establish the dynamic systems needed to develop a responsive urbanism, which enables participatory outcomes and sustainable practices.

(Ferrara 2015)

Smart City development has been allocated and framed by the European Commission to act in multifaceted ways across multiple platforms, the assembling of the Smart City has been done through their Lighthouse case studies to test the market for Smart urbanism. This top-down framework though has failed to enable definition and strategy in its approach to the Smart cities failing to give legal and policy driven certainty to enable such Smart city development (Ferrara 2015). Without an overall understanding and participatory education process Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis 35

Case Study Bottom-up Model

36 Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis

3.2.3 Barcelona

Cities from around the world have been slowly developing and incorporating the elements of IoT and ICT into the urban fabric, though many of these approaches to the city have been established from traditional practitioners and institutional bodies. Smart Cities though allow for a new model and approach to the city, one that allows for the collaboration between community and urban development, allowing for a greater participatory approach to the city as a whole. Barcelona’s approach to the Smart City has been centred around four main initiatives, Smart Governance, Smart Economy, Smart Living and Smart People (Batlle 2010; Batlle et al. 2011), each of these has set objectives focusing on citizen engagement and collaboration. Local government approach has been developed to provide a smart city platform for its citizens, allowing them to then activate and modify the Smart urban environment to the benefit of the community (Bakici et al. 2013). This has also been backed by policy driven reform that ensures transparency of process and equal opportunity to all citizens, this code of political ethics of the smart city is a hallmark for Smart city development (Barcelona en Comu n.d).

Additionally open platforms like that of decidim.org (Decidim n.d), allow citizens to actively participate in decision making of their urban spaces, allow for direct participatory urban development empowered by the technologies of smart citizens. These grassroots efforts when brought together empower a strong community engagement with the Smart City process, allowing for a beneficial development outcome.

city. This data is viewed as public information and is therefore classified in this way and made readily available for all those wishing to access it. Another development under the Barcelona model, which has also seen pilots run in Amsterdam is Decode (Decode n.d.), Decode has been established from the community concerns on newly developing data economies and has attempted to give ownership back to the individual, giving control to the individual of their own personal data.

“…a blockchain-style distributed-ledger system that records every data transaction using distributed “nodes” instead of a central database.

DECODE allows individuals to share only the personal data they need to share, and allows them to see if that data has in turn been passed along to others.”

(Side Walk Labs 2019)

Data is the new digital economy, and has already seen application in the way we navigate the web, however once integrated into our urban spaces in the form of Smart cites further oversight and community engagement will be required for this technology to be accepted. In the case study of Side Walk Toronto this phenomenon was explored with data being central to the critic of the project, however in Barcelona’s model this has been handled much differently.

Open Data (Bakici et al. 2013) is an initiative set by the Barcelona community council that attempts to connect citizens with data created and collected by any and all Smart City developments within the Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis 37

These technologies create reassurances and transparency in the systems of Smart Cities, which is required for technologies to develop in support of the community. With bottom up technologies such as these ones developed from community concern, trust in the system can be fostered helping to strengthen any future DRR applicant and engagement. However these technologies can eventually become privatised and or isolated from their original community roots, as seen with Decode (Decode n.d.), which has due to its success been helicoptered in to other European cities. Using open-source software tools provides a greater transparency to the programming of the city, and safe guards against future ownership or governance, as the tools themselves remain transparent to the public sphere. Barcelona has in this regard developed an open source module for its Smart City development for this reasons, Sentilo (Sentilo n.d.) is an open source platform designed to fit in the Smart City architecture allowing for openness.

It’s built around the application of developing tools to isolate exploits to information generated by the city allow the protection and transparency across digital platforms. These intervention by Barcelona allows for the continued development of grassroots Smart City technologies, creating a public forum for discussion on the application of the projects, generating the necessary collaboration and participation required for a Smart city.

Barcelona’s approach to Smart Cities has allowed the development of a tool kit to be utilised by the local community, giving the choice of development and initiative to the citizen allowing self-determined development. This system of grassroots initiatives with institutional backing and promotion allows the creation of Smart infrastructure that supports existing urban systems, supporting and not re-creating system of existing community. Developing a market place for the community lets technology be built from the ground up reinforcing bottom up development, while also strengthening public engagement and participation in the city and therefore greater society.

Critical in DRR is this engagement model, allowing the public interaction to determine the best actions for resiliency and recovery. Additionally promoting 38 Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis

engagement within a community creates further trust between people allowing for in the event of a disaster the strength of the community to build back together. This model also supports resiliency through the identification of on the ground risks, since community is a resource that becomes an identifier and problem solver, creating space for immediate public driven resolutions. Barcelona city council has set the ground work with these Smart cities technologies to enable a grassroots response to the urbanism of the future, giving self-determination to the residents allowing choice in the way their city is made Smart.

3.3

Comparative Analysis

Smart City development, as explored in these case studies, represents a series of urban developmental models that have now allowed for the integration of technology and urbanism resulting in a new technological approach to the city. Through systems such as ICT and IoT, these developments enable new possibilities in participatory driven solutions, economic and social development and Disaster Risk Reduction, however each require sustainable models that enable Smart City development. Drawing from the case study analysis in this research, it is shown that for Smart Cities to achieve a beneficial outcome for the community civic engagement and participatory solutions need to be a leading factor in the process, allowing for trust in these new technological systems. Each model explored in the case studies attempts this in one form, though it is only the bottom-up model (exemplified in the Barcelona Case Study) that successfully archives public engagement. This model does not do anything radical, but rather starts at the core of where engagement begins, with the community. Promoting grassroots development is not unique to Smart Cities, and has been seen in frameworks developed for DRR, this model of bottom-up development allows for a critical approach to design to develop socially, culturally and economically from the ground up. These methods also allow for the integration of existing systems, providing outcomes that flow easily into the existing urban landscape allowing for quick up take and engagement by the greater community.

based systems and oversight enables development of Smart Cities, as seen in the case of Barcelona.

However with new digital infrastructure and the vertical integration of technology new disaster potentials emerge, as the digitalisation of the city relies heavily on the integration of power systems, and data driven systems rely heavily on authenticity and anti-corruption from hacking attempts (Colding 2020). These new vulnerabilities of the city require new DRR techniques and understanding to approach the city in a holistic resilient and sustainable manner, dealing with the complexity of large systems research needed through top down governance, but enabled by participatory design. In the case studies it is seen how the model of Smart City effects the overall outcome of the development process, defining the model around participatory outcomes and frameworks enables Smart City integration, maintaining a connection to the existing qualities of the city. Therefore it is critical in reflection of the case studies, that for Smart City development to improve the lives of communities it is required first that the citizen is given self-determination of their own development model, and developed within a system focused on DRR outcomes.

With all new development there is always new risk that is generated from within process, especially evident with Smart Cities as data and technology integration creates new risk via the interconnection of technological systems (Colding 2020). This risk is further exacerbated by governance and control measures taken in Smart City approaches as is highlighted in the example of Sidewalk labs, where data generation was seen as a method of profit and control, leaving much of the community to walk away from the project. Therefore it is critical that these concerns and risks are addressed to reduce and enable a sustainable and resilient design thinking, as enabling technology driven from community Chapter 3 - Case Study Analysis 39

Chapter 4

Discussion

40 Chapter 4 - Discussion

4.1

Discussion of the Risks and Threats Facing Smart Cities

Development in any form of human evolution has centred on the continued and ongoing transformation of human technology, in this century, the digital age, new systems of ICT has allowed globalised systems of communication, economics and culture to develop interconnected around the world. This new form of communication has developed to encompass all other technology in the form of IoT, which has enabled complex system research allowing the interconnected web of systems. Urbanism has always dealt with the social, cultural, political and economic systems that have developed over human history, however with this new form of technology the city faces a new set of technologies that will reshape the city into the digital city, the Smart City. Central to these challenges is the expectation and demand for sustainable, resilient and inclusive cities, where design is centred around the citizen, giving control of the urban landscape to those participating in it. This new social contract is the basis in which future Smart City development must be based for it to succeed.

IoT and ICT in the Smart City context bring with them their own weaknesses and potential issues, with the creation of integrated data sets, these new urban systems become potential points of vulnerability, risking corruption and furthermore degradation of our physical and social infrastructure. As noted by the US national Intelligence committee (Atzori et. al 2010) Smart City technologies have the potential to be the most disruptive technologies of this century. These challenges though also reveal the potential for Smart Cities, as the disruptive nature of these technologies if applied holistically in a citizen centric manner will allow for new polycentric forms of governance allowing systems of community driven development (Colding 2020). It is critical in this way to face these challenges in the integrated approach as seen in DRR, for both physical infrastructure and technological governance require resilient methodologies in their approach to the city. This approach will guide Smart Cities in a socially holistic fashion, as it is noted that inherent risk comes through both autonomous and technology driven systems where threats of economic divide and social stratification become the norm due to Smart City access (Heinrichs et al. 2018; Anttiroiko

et al. 2014).Therefore it is key that, community selfdetermined development of urbanism is essential to activating the resiliency of Smart Cities, as the integration of DRR and Smart City frameworks will allow opportunity for participatory development models giving citizens control of the urban landscape.

Social, cultural and political influences have shaped the approach taken to urbanism throughout human history, Smart Cities allows this system to be transformed allowing participatory approaches to govern the public realm. Though to overcome existing systems of neoliberalism engrained within economies today, as noted by Kitchin (2019), the Smart city does face this threat, were consumer logic has the potential to redefine the citizen. Through influences from private technologies challenges of data mining and technology transparency create concerns that public information is used to create privatised market, and potentially leading technocratic systems of information and data control (Kitchin et al. 2019; Willis 2019; Krivy 2016).

While these threats require addressing, Smart Cities have the potential to create human centric urbanism that allows discourse on initiatives set by publicly integrated responses to development. Interaction between grassroots technologies and policy outcomes are required for the potential socio-economic benefits of the Smart city to come to fruition. Bottom-up models are therefore required for active participation of the new Smart Citizen enabling the potential of these technologies to actively support and improve the community (Kaika 2017; Schliwa 2019).

These challenges that face the Smart City are not unique to this form of urbanism as these inequalities and issues exist presently, however Smart Cities does have the potential to entrench these issues further or provide opportunities to overcome these challenges.

With the global trend towards climate change and an increasing pressure on political and economic instability disaster risk reduction and mitigation is required in all aspects of modern life. DRR is required specifically within the urban, and therefore in Smart Cities, the interconnection of ICT and IoT gives it a unique opportunity to set initiatives to address the challenges set by this new century.

Chapter 4 - Discussion 41

4.2

Discussion Opportunities for DRR within Smart Cities

Disaster Risk reduction is required to deal with the ongoing challenges of this century, an integrated approach of resilience and sustainability is needed within our urban development, while focusing the built environment towards the needs of our communities and planet. Sustainable development under the UN development goals (United Nations 2015) has been set as a priority for all member nations, this framework sets the standards that are required to deal with the changing climate and will enable societies to become more resilient. Additionally, these goals include actions of a sustainable society and culture, which consist of reduced inequalities and increased social inclusiveness (United Nations 2015). Resiliency under this framework, sets the groundwork for discussion around this one concept, as improving the lives of all those within the community through engagement will mitigate the effects of the changing world (Godschalk 2003). Smart cities play a key role in this, as the new urban centric focus of it requires it to address these problems and alleviate the effects of them, as for Smart Cities to work in a contributing manner to communities DRR will be required to address the challenges of this century.

Climate Change is one of the biggest issues of this century that will require a global response to deal with it, our urban spaces will therefore require new design thinking to challenge the existing paradigms that have resulted in these unsustainable spaces. Smart Cities allows a new look at existing planning methods and technologies, enabling further understanding of systems research and providing the ability to track and monitor the cities overall environmental impact. These new methods could enable instantaneous reaction from the city responding to changes as they occur and beginning to track these systems allowing for further intervention to prevent disaster and improve overall resiliency (Goswami 2015; Hayat 2016; Harrison & Williams 2016). Noted by multiple academics is the need for this integration of DRR thinking and urban design, especially in Smart City models, as the systems of Smart Cities could enable technological innovation which will lead to resiliency. When resilient urban strategies are utilised with the connection to ICT this will greater the results that are produced, creating 42 Chapter 4 - Discussion

both a more resilient and smart approach to urbanism (Bansal et al. 2017; Harrison & Williams 2016)). Though what is added to this, and concluded, is that without an inclusive approach to design and participation by the community, the benefits of this approach are lost and overall the projects fail. This is demonstrated in the case studies where, what has been shown is that for Smart Cities to achieve a beneficial outcome for the community it is a requirement that civic engagement and participation be a leading factor in the process, allowing for trust in these new technological systems Participatory approaches are seen as critical in all DRR frameworks forming the basis of design and establishing the development is a self-determined notion that is governed by the community’s needs and choices.

Smart cities as seen in the case studies also requires participatory influences to achieve an interconnection of digital systems with the community. Through the case studies it is seen that when community is left out of the process, development is affected, due to the lack of trust in the system (Gibson 2020; Teale 2020).

This issue of oversight and governance is critical in the future development of Smart Cities, as it is shown that without legitimate bottom up development practices Smart Cities will fail. DRR provides this participatory approach though frameworks that deal directly with living indicators that establish frameworks of global and local socio-environmental equality. Using public indicators that deal with the lived experience, while allowing for grassroots organisation and bottom up policy driven urbanism to establish potential Smart city development (Kaika 2017; Kitchin 2019). It is shown then though the case studies that it is critical for Smart City development to incorporate DRR approaches to design and development practice to achieve an improved urban outcome, which creates an inclusive social, cultural and political equality through development. This is even more critical when seeing the risk associated with climate change and a further globalised society, the focus of DRR principles within Smart Cities will guide urban spaces to be systems of resiliency helping to foster an improved and dynamic society set with the tools to overcome the challenges of this century.

4.3

Discussion of Smart City Solutions within the Context of Pandemics

The need for DRR is even clearer in current global situation, as Covid-19 has brought many cities to a standstill effecting not just the economic situation, but also the social and cultural interconnections of our communities. These disaster scenarios, such as Covid-19 Pandemic, provide examples into the benefits and possibilities that DRR can provide and the potential for Smart Cities to effect change in the way we respond and resist disaster in the future.

Smart City tools have been used previously in similar disaster scenarios such as that seen in Hong Kong and Singapore in the SARS outbreak in 2002-2004 (Fuller 2016), these technologies traced penitent exposure through the city and defined outbreak locations and allowed for localised quarantines.

With Covid we have seen similar tools used such as the COVIDsafe app by the Australian Government (Taylor 2020), all these technologies are examples of DRR adapted Smart city technologies that have shown potential benefit in responding to disaster.

Spatial data in these technologies is used to protect and resit further disaster, however the application of DRR and Smart cities has the potential to effect the urban environment creating holistic community disaster resiliency.

ICT and IoT technologies will allow spatial analysis and urban risk monitoring, these technologies when active in the example of a pandemic scenario will allow for individualised quarantining and infection tracing allow a quicker and less costly recovery. Urban disaster simulations have already proven to be able to predict and conceptualise pandemics (Dibble et al.

2007; Flahault et al. 2006), these technology when applied to Smart City response system will allow quick community response allowing for faster recovery periods. Allowing this technology integration with Smart City concepts could allow for preventative care to exist at the will of the individual, removing the fear of infection and spread to the greater community, allowing for a more controlled quarantine effort, allowing greater concentration of resources and efforts where needed (Beltran-Ramirez et al. 2015; Solanas et al. 2014). Additionally these Smart City systems stem the flow of fear, as once infections are spatialized within the city, providing individuals

with information on infected buildings and locations, allows individuals to self-quarantine certain parts of the city, as seen in Hong Kong during the SARS outbreak (Fuller 2016). Once individual responsibility is given to the citizens, a culture of self-protection and responsibility to disease and therefore disaster became the norm, alleviating fear and making DRR the responsibility of the community giving citizens the agency through Smart City technology.

Smart Cities enables this community response, giving tools of ICT and IoT to the community allowing DRR response and resiliency to be driven by participatory outcomes and decisions. Within current urban policy and planning certain ‘chokepoints’ and ‘tight coupling’ of economic and social systems have been created, furthering vulnerabilities to health crisis’. Smart cities in this way must allow for dynamic decentralisation and recentralisation, determined through the flow of a pandemic or other crisis (Kickbusch & Sakellarides 2006). This dynamism is central in the way we respond to disaster and is critical when forming the basis of smart city developments. Additionally it is critical in any crisis, and is central to smart cities, that strong social and community participation and trust is allowed, as with a pandemic, community trust and involvement is critical in stemming the flow of disease. As has been noted in the discussion it is critical within Smart city frameworks that a strong central participatory approach is taken to achieve a beneficiary outcome for the community, and likewise DRR is required as part of this approach to adapt the city to overcome the challenges that our urban spaces will face in this century.

Chapter 4 - Discussion 43

Chapter 5

Conclusion

44 Chapter 5 - Conclusion

5.1

Conclusion

Smart Cities discourse has had staunch opposition that has developed throughout the discourse, as many see it as the gradual progression in to neoliberal and technocratic society, however others see it as a powerful tool of democratic liberation.

This opposition demonstrated in the literature, exposes that there is clear need for discussion within the framing of the possibility of the future of Smart City development, as these risks and threats to the public domain are critical to the future of our cities. As is noted through the literature review is that by addressing the way development interacts towards participatory methods, will affect the overall development outcome. While also applying Disaster Risk Reduction as a method that sets the groundwork in which Smart Cities can address the issues facing our cities today, will enable solutions to the risks surfacing in our cities today.

These new risks of the city require new techniques and approaches to DRR that allow opportunity for the city to develop in a holistically resilient and sustainable manner, which has been shown to be possible through Smart City technology. In the case studies it is seen how the model of Smart Cities effects the overall outcome of the development process, and that rather by defining the model around participatory outcomes and DRR it could enable resilient Smart city development. Therefore as demonstrated in the case studies and literature is that, it is critical that for Smart City development to improve the lives of communities it is required first that the citizen is given self-determination of their own development model, while furthering the integration of DRR within Smart City models to provide solutions for the risks associated with Smart City models. Though it is also noted in the case studies the importance that bottom-up systems can provide to development, it should also be recognised that it should not overshadow the necessary nature of some top-down methodologies, as noted by Breuer, Walravens and Ballon (2014),

“… relying purely on bottom-up initiatives remains problematic with regards to scalability, interoperability, barriers and incentives to entry.”

This interconnection of model is necessary to deal with the weaknesses and threats facing Smart City development and the promotion of DRR, as without recognition of each’s strengths and weaknesses Smart development will fail. DRR adds to this system giving Smart City strength to its development, while also creating opportunity to provide scope and resources to enable resilient design outcomes.

Therefore for Smart urbanism to address the city of tomorrow it is necessary that Disaster Risk Reduction is integrated into the models that will shape the frameworks of Smart cities, while also provide the change required to relive the risks associated with Smart city development.

Further research and development is required on this interaction between these two fields to strengthen the development of our cities to dynamically respond to the challenges of this century, enabling solutions through the technologies of the future, ICT and IoT, which will shape both DRR and Smart City development.

Chapter 5 - Conclusion 45

Appendix

46

47

Reference List

Ahvenniemi, H, Huovila, A, Pinto-Seppa, I, Airaksinen, M, 2017, ‘What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?’, Cities, Vol. 60, pp. 234-245 Albino, V, Berardi, U, Dangelico, R, 2015, ‘Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives’, Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 3-21 Allama, Z, Dhunny, Z.A, 2019, ‘On big data, artificial intelligence and smart cities’, Cities, Vol. 89, pp.80-91 Al Nuaimi, E, Al Neyadi, H, Mohamed, N, Al-Jaroodi, J, 2015, ‘Applications of big data to smart cities’, Journal of Internet Services and Applications, Vol. 6, No. 25 Angelidou, M, 2015, ‘Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces’, Cities, Vol. 47, pp. 95-106 Anttiroiko, A.V, Valkama, P, Bailey, S.J, 2014, ‘Smart cities in the new service economy: building platforms for smart services’, AI & Soc, Vol. 29, pp. 323-334 Atzori, L, Iera, A, Morabito, G, 2010, “The Internet of Things A survey”, Computer Networks, Vol.54, pp. 2787–2805 Bakıcı, T, Almirall, E, & Wareham, J, 2013, ‘A smart city initiative: the case of Barcelona’, Journal of the knowledge economy, Vol.4, Iss.2, pp.135-148 Bansal, N, Mukherjee, M, Gairola, A, 2017, ‘Chapter 8: Smart Cities and Disaster Resilience’, From Poverty, Inequality to Smart City, Springer, pp.109-122 Barcelona en Comu, n.d, “Code of political ethics”, accessed on 31 May 2020, <https:// barcelonaencomu.cat/sites/default/files/pdf/codi-etic-eng.pdf> Batlle J, 2010, “Barcelona Smart City: paving the way”, Ajuntament de Barcelona Batlle J, Majo A, Ventura JL, Vila M, Ponti I, 2011, “Interviews”, Barcelona City Council Batty, M, 2018, ‘Artificial intelligence and smart cities’, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, Vol. 45, Iss. 1, pp. 3-6 Batty, M, Axhausen, K.W, Giannotti, F, Pozdnoukhov, A, Bazzani, A, Wachowicz, M, Ouzounis, G, Portugali, Y, 2012, ‘Smart cities of the future’, The European Physical Journal, Vol. 214, pp. 481-518 Beltran-Ramirez, R, Maciel-Arellano, R, Gomez-Barba, L, Sokes, L, Gonzalez-Sandoval, C, 2015,’ Mobile Applications utilised for the prevention of potential epidemics in Smart Cities’, In 2015 IEEE First International Smart Cities Conference, pp. 1-4 Breuer, J, Walravens, N, Ballon, P, 2014, “Beyond Defining the Smart City. Meeting TopDown and Bottom-Up Approaches in the Middle”, TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, pp.153-164 Bowden, Nick, 2018. “Introducing Replica, a next-generation urban planning tool” Medium, April 6, <2018.https://medium.com/sidewalk-talk/introducing-replica-a-next-generationurban-planning-tool-1b7425222e9e> 48 Appendix

Reference List cont.

Cardoso, T, O’Kane, J, 2019, “Sidewalk Labs document reveals company’s early vision for data collection, tax powers, criminal justice”, The Globe and Mail, 30 October 2019, <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sidewalk-labs-document-revealscompanys-early-plans-for-data/> Chourabi, H, Nam, T, Walker, S, Gil-Garcia, J, Mellouli, S, Nahon, K, Pardo, T, Scholl, H, 2012, ‘Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework’, 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2289-2297 Colding, J, Colding, M, Barthel, S, 2020, “Applying seven resilience principles on the Vision of the Digital City”, Cities, Vol. 103 Cooke, P, De Propis L, 2011, “A policy agenda for EU smart growth: The role of creative and cultural industries”, Policy Studies, Vol. 32, Iss. 4, pp.365–375 Decode, n.d., “What is DECODE”, accessed 31 May 2020, <https://decodeproject.eu/whatdecode/> Decidim, n.d, accessed 31 May 2020, <https://decidim.org/> Dibble, C, Wendel, S, Carle, K, 2007, ‘Simulating pandemic influenza risks of us cities’, Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference Doctorow, C, 2019, “Leaked document reveals that Sidewalk Labs’ Toronto plans for private taxation, private roads, charter schools, corporate cops and judges, and punishment for people who choose privacy”, BoinBoing, 30 October 2019, <https://boingboing. net/2019/10/30/citizen-scores-eh.html> EIP-SCC, n.d, “Cluster Description, Citizen Focus”, EIP-SCC, accessed on 25 May 2020, https://eu-smartcities.eu/clusters/3/description European Commission, 2011, “Commission staff working paper: Executive summary of the impact assessment”, Brussels, 30 November 2011, Vol 1 European Commission, n.d, “Smart Cities”, accessed on 23 May 2020, <https://ec.europa. eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/cityinitiatives/smart-cities_en> Farr, C, D’Onfro, J, 2018, “Google sister-company Sidewalk has a secret ‘yellow book’ with its plans to reinvent cities, plus possible sites beyond Toronto”, CNBC, 27 June 2018, <https:// www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/alphabet-sidewalk-yellow-book-secret-plans-sites.html> Ferrrara, R, 2015, “The Smart City and the Green Economy in Europe: A Critical Approach”, Energies, Vol. 8, Iss. 6, pp. 4724-4734

Appendix 49

Reference List cont.

Flahault, A, Vergu, E, Coudeville, L, Grais, R, 2006, ‘Strategies for containing a global influenza pandemic’, Vaccine, Vol. 24, pp. 6751-6755 Fuller, H, 2016, ‘Pandemic cities: Biopolitical effects of changing infection control in post SARS Hong Kong’, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 182, No.4, pp. 342-352 Gibson, E, 2017, “Alphabet’s Sidewalk Labs to create high-tech “future city” on Toronto waterfront”, Dezeen, 19 October 2017, <https://www.dezeen.com/2017/10/19/alphabetgoogle-sidewalk-labs-high-tech-future-city-toronto-waterfront/> Gibson, E, 2020, “Sidewalk Labs abandons Toronto smart city during pandemic”, Dezeen, 7 May 2020, <https://www.dezeen.com/2020/05/07/sidewalk-labs-abandons-toronto-smartcity-coronavirus-pandemic/> Godschalk, D.R, 2003, ‘Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities’, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 3, pp. 136-143 Goswami, P, 2015, ‘Matrix for a smart city’, Current Science, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 245-246 Haarstad, H, 2016, “Who Is Driving the ‘Smart City’ Agenda? Assessing Smartness as a Governance Strategy for Cities in Europe”, Services and the Green Economy, Palgrave Macmillan, London Harrison, C, Williams, P, 2016, ‘A systems approach to natural disaster resilience’, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, Vol. 65, pp. 11-31 Hayat, P, 2016, ‘Smart Cities: A Global Perspective’, India Quarterly, Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 177191 Heinrichs, D, Rupprecht, S, Smith, S, 2018, ‘Making Automation Work for Cities: Impacts and Policy Responses’, Road Vehicle Automation 5, Springer, pp.243-252 Hollands, R, 2008, ‘Will the real smart city please stand up?’, City, Vol. 12, No. 3, 303-320 Joss, S, Sengers, F, Schraven, D, Caprotti, F, Dayot, Y, ‘The Smart City as Global Discourse: Storylines and Critical Junctures across 27 Cities’, Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 26, Iss. 1, pp. 3-24 Kaika, M, 2017, ‘Don’t call me resilient again!’: the New Urban Agenda as immunology … or … what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with ‘smart cities’ and indicators’, Environment & Urbanization, Vol 29, Iss. 1, pp. 89–102 Kickbusch, H, Sakellarides, C, 2006, Flu City—Smart City: applying health promotion principles to a pandemic threat’, Health Promotion International, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 85-87 Kitchin, R, 2019, ‘Toward a Genuinely Humanizing Smart Urbanism’, The Right to the Smart City, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 151-164 50 Appendix

Reference List cont.

Kitchin, R, Cardullo, P, Feliciantonio, C.D, 2019, ‘Citizenship, Justice, and the Right to the Smart City’, The Right to the Smart City, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 1-24 Krivý, M, ‘Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control’, Planning Theory, Vol. 17, Iss.1, pp.8-30 McFarlane, C, 2011, “The City as Assemblage: Dwelling and Urban Space”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 29, Iss. 4, pp. 649-671 Mercer, J, Kelman, I, Llyod, K, Suchet-Pearson, S, 2008, “Reflections on use of participatory research for disaster risk reduction”, Area, Vol. 40, Iss. 2, pp. 172-183 Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, June 2015, Smart Cities Mission Statement & Guidelines, Smart City Mission transform-nation Miorandi, D, Sicari, S, Pellegrini, F,D, Chlamtac, I, 2012, “Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges”, Ad Hoc Networks, Vol. 10, pp. 1497-1516 Mitchell, T, Van Aalst, M, Silva-Villanueva, P, 2010, ‘Assessing Progress on Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Development Processes’, Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 2, University of Sussex, Brighton Paolo, C, Kitchin R, 2018, “Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe”, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, Vol. 37, Iss. 5, pp. 813-830 Sentilo, n.d, “What Is”, accessed 31 May 2020, <https://www.sentilo.io/wordpress/sentiloabout-product/what-is/> Schliwa, G, 2019, ‘Smart Cities by Design? Interrogating Design Thinking for Citizen Participation’, The Right to the Smart City, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 151-164 Side Walk Toronto, n.d., “Toronto Tomorrow: A new approach for inclusive growth”, accessed May 2020, https://www.sidewalktoronto.ca/ Side Walk Labs, 2019, “MIDP Vol. 1 Plans, Toronto Tomorrow”, Side Walk Toronto, https:// www.sidewalktoronto.ca/documents/ Söderström, O, Paasche, T, Klauser, F, 2014, ‘ Smart cities as corporate storytelling’, City, Vol.18, No.3, pp. 307-320 Solanas, A, Patsakis, C, Conti, M, Vlachos, L, Ramos, V, Falcone, F, Postolache, O, PérezMartínez, P, Pietro, R, Perrea, D, Martínez-Ballesté, A, 2014, ‘Smart Health: A Context-Aware Health Paradigm within Smart Cities’, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol.52, no. 8, pp.7481 Appendix 51

Reference List cont.

Tan, L, Wang, N, 2010, ‘Future Internet: The Internet of Things’, 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering, pp. 376-380 Taylor, J, 2020, “Covidsafe app: how Australia’s coronavirus contact tracing app works, what it does, downloads and problems”, The Guardian, 15 May 2020, https://www.theguardian. com/australia-news/2020/may/15/covid-safe-app-australia-how-download-does-it-workaustralian-government-covidsafe-covid19-tracking-downloads Tierney, T.F, 2019, ‘Big Data, Big Rhetoric in Toronto’s Smart City’, Architecture and Culture, Vol. 7, Iss. 3, pp. 1-13 United Nations, 2015, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, General Assembly, 21 October 2015 Visvizi, A, Lytras, M. D, & Mudri, G, 2019, Smart Villages in the EU and Beyond, Emerald Publishing Limited Weber, R,H, 2010, “Internet of Things – New security and privacy challenges”, Computer Law & Security Review, Vol. 26, pp. 23-30 Williams, J, 2017, “Google wants to build a city”, State Scoop, <https://statescoop.com/ google-wants-to-build-a-city/> Willis, K.S, 2019, ‘Whose Right to the Smart City?’, The Right to the Smart City, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 27-41 Zanella, Al Bui, N, Castellani, A, Vangelista, L, Zorzi, M, 2014 ‘Internet of Things for Smart Cities’, Internet of things Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 22-32

52

53

54