Methodology
Public administrators have looked to telecommunications, automation, digitalization – under the moniker of “Smart Cities” – to address a wide variety of policy goals, from online integration of municipal services to data-driven vehicular traffic optimization to bridging the digital divide. Governments around the world see the potential to use information technology and digital platforms to generate new opportunities for civic engagement, increase governmental transparency, and improve service delivery while reducing fiscal costs. Most importantly, cities rightfully understand that technology-led industries, along with their economic multiplier effects, are the driving force for regional growth
Cities strive for the prestige of being ranked one of the top Smart Cities in the world. Often publicizing their rankings to attract international business attention and increase civic pride. However, the most recognized ranking systems have some significant shortcomings:
(a) The datasets used are often publicly available information on cities’ inputs, outputs, and/or outcomes. Even variables that purportedly measure the same objective are collected in a variety of different methods across cities, and then compared to each other as if the were collected consistently. Though this data may be usable for internal performance management to show changes-over-time, performing external comparisons on it is intentional misuse.
(b) The datasets used, at best, capture quality-of-life information features that are hardly changed through technology implementation; most are not even a measure of government policy or directly impacted through government decisions. Many are merely descriptive data about the city. Though this information may be interesting, there is nothing “smart” about it.
(c) These smart city indices have opaque methodologies. None of the publicized indices discuss how they weigh different aspects of their datasets to produce their rankings. No formulas were publicly available. Additionally, some indices include interviews of experts, but none of those reveal who their experts were, what qualifications they had, nor explanations on how they arrived at their opinions.
These rankings leave the impression that a cities’ “smartness” is a composition of an arbitrary mix of indicators and expert opinion. This notion that city government policy only has limited impact on these considerations opens the, and the smart cities movement more broadly, to no shortage of critiques based on ambiguity of the concept and how technology could potential be (mis)used.
The Smart Cities movement needs to be re-framed around a local government policymaking paradigm. Putting parameters around “smart city policy” would greatly enhance the usefulness and usability of the term; re-positioning the concept around how tools and technology can achieve policy ends. To accomplish this gap, this research set out to create a Smart City policy menu detailing local government technology solutions for practitioners to understand what their full set of options are. It’s then up to the cities themselves to determine what subset of policies they can and want to implement considering its unique combination of political capital, policy objectives, and administrative constraints.
This research is the first attempt to define the smart city policy space. As shown in Figure 1, cities often have measurements of their inputs, outputs, and outcomes; however, the missing step is the identification of the plans, programs, and platforms in this policy measurement process.
By reviewing smart city planning documents and conversations with practitioners, this research identified 70 unique Smart City policy options that cities around the world are currently implementing. To be included in the list, a policy option had to be an action taken by local government that was made possible by, supplemented with, or greatly improved through modern technology. The option could be provided directly through a public entity, indirectly via a private corporation receiving public support, or through a public-private partnership. Each policy option must be able to be coded as a Yes (1) / No (0) on whether it was being implemented or not. This system does not make any claim to measure the quality or the complexity of the implementation; only that implementation has been started.
As shown in Figure 2, a framework was then developed to place those 70 policy options into 6 different categories. The top row of three categories (Connected, Data-Centric, and Engaged) are essential definitions of what makes a city smart, whereas the bottom row of three categories (Mobile, Safe-Secure, and Innovative) are local government applications of smart city technology. General themes, such as “technology” or “environment”, were not included as categories as these are not definitions or objectives of local government in of themselves; however, every policy identified does have a technology angle to it and many have environmental benefits derived from them.
The Connected City is what physical infrastructure cities are installing. Topics includes streetlights, fiber optic networks, and smart municipal services.
The Connected City is what physical infrastructure cities are installing. Topics includes streetlights, fiber optic networks, and smart municipal services.
The Data-Centric City details how cities are collecting, analyzing, and publishing data to help inform decision making.
The Engaged City looks at how cities are using technology tools to inform, connect, and empower residents to build a more inclusive city.
The Mobile City is how technology is changing urban mobility, from improving roadway safety to public transportation improvement to emerging technologies.
The Safe-Secure City discusses how governments are using technology to create a physical and cyber secure environment, and its corresponding data privacy concerns.
The Innovative City explores steps cities take to contribution to knowledge networks and innovative ecosystems.
A list of 127 cities then were compiled using three of the most publicized Smart City indices (IMD’s Smart Cities Index 2021, IESE’s Smart Cities in Motion 2020, and EDEN’s Top 50 Smart City Governments) to understand what local government policy actions each of these award-winning cities were presently taking. The research team used government websites, news article databases, and professional reports to document primary and secondary evidence on what policy options each city is implementing. Future plans to take action were excluded, as we wanted to take a snapshot of what Smart City building was occurring in the present.
The end result is this database that exhibits different pathways cities take when implementing technology to address urban challenges. Proving, first and foremost, that cites around the world take their own distinct paths in becoming “smart”. Though significant work has been, there is still much more to do.