Rescaling and refocusing smart cities research: from mega cities to smart villages

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to rethink the focus of the smart cities debate and to open it to policymaking and strategy considerations. To this end, the origins of what is termed normative bias in smart cities research are identified and a case made for a holistic, scalable and human-centred smart cities research agenda. Applicable across the micro, mezzo and macro levels of the context in which smart cities develop, this research agenda remains sensitive to the limitations and enablers inherent in these contexts. Policymaking and strategy consideration are incorporated in the agenda this paper advances, thus creating the prospect of bridging the normative and the empirical in smart cities research. Design/methodology/approach This paper queries the smart cities debate and, by reference to megacities research, argues that the smart city remains an overly normatively laden concept frequently discussed in separation from the broader socio-political and economic contexts in which it is embedded. By focusing on what is termed the normative bias of smart cities research, this paper introduces the nested clusters model. By advocating the inclusion of policymaking and strategy considerations in the smart cities debate, a case is made for a holistic, scalable and human-centred smart cities agenda focused, on the one hand, on individuals and citizens inhabiting smart cities and, on the other hand, on interdependencies that unfold between a given smart city and the context in which it is embedded. Findings This paper delineates the research focus and scope of the megacities and smart cities debates respectively. It locates the origins of normative bias inherent in smart cities research and, by making a case for holistic, scalable and human-centred smart cities research, suggests ways of bypassing that bias. It is argued that smart cities research has the potential of contributing to research on megacities (smart megacities and clusters), cities (smart cities) and villages (smart villages). The notions of policymaking and strategy, and ultimately of governance, are brought into the spotlight. Against this backdrop, it is argued that smart cities research needs to be based on real tangible experiences of individuals inhabiting rural and urban space and that it also needs to mirror and feed into policy-design and policymaking processes. Research limitations/implications The paper stresses the need to explore the question of how the specific contexts in which cities/urban areas are located influence those cities/urban areas’ growth and development strategies. It also postulates new avenues of inter and multidisciplinary research geared toward building bridges between the normative and the empirical in the smart cities debate. More research is needed to advance these imperatives at the micro, mezzo and macro levels. Practical implications By highlighting the connection, relatively under-represented in the literature, between the normative and the empirical in smart cities research, this paper encourages a more structured debate between academia and policymakers focused on the sustainable development of cities/urban areas. In doing so, it also advocates policies and strategies conducive to strengthening individuals’/citizens’ ability to benefit from and contribute to smart cities development, thereby making them sustainable. Social implications This paper makes a case for pragmatic and demand-driven smart cities research, i.e. based on the frequently very basic needs of individuals and citizens inhabiting not only urban but also rural areas. It highlights the role of basic infrastructure as the key enabler/inhibitor of information and communication technology-enhanced services. The nested clusters model introduced in this paper suggests that an intimate connection exists between individuals’ well-being, their active civic engagement and smart cities sustainability. Originality/value This paper delineates the relationship between megacities and smart cities research. It identifies the sources of what is termed normative bias in smart cities research. To address the implications of that bias, a nested clusters model for smart cities is introduced, i.e. a conceptual framework that allows us to redraw the debate on smart cities and establish a functional connection between the array of normatively laden ideas of what a smart city could be and what is feasible, and under which conditions at the policymaking level.

On the sustainability of smart and smarter cities in the era of big data: an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary literature review

“…Also, it presents a sort of basis for stimulating more in-depth research on smart and smarter cities and big data computing in the form of both qualitative analyses and quantitative investigations focused on establishing, uncovering, substantiating, and/or challenging the assumptions and claims underlying the relevance and meaningfulness of big data applications as technological advancements with regard to advancing sustainability. For example, owing to the disciplinary origins of ICT-oriented literature which resorts to what is labelled 'normative bias' of smart city research [135], and thus respective authors' literacy in advanced sophisticated technologies, there is a fertile area of research that may challenge the promises and claims that new discoveries in big data computing as futuristic advances in ICT hold for urban spaces at the expense of the basic consideration of factors that hamper or facilitate the implementation of big data applications. Indeed, attempts at dwelling at this intersection regarding technological advancements exist in the body of research on smart cities (e.g., [57,89,131,136]).…”

It’s Not a Fad: Smart Cities and Smart Villages Research in European and Global Contexts

“…As argued elsewhere significant differences exist between the research on smart cities and smart villages [1], yet both fields can benefit from each other. This review seeks to delineate the conceptual boundaries of the concept, and shed light on the corresponding field of research, while highlighting issues and topics that should be prioritized in research and policymaking.…”

“…Accordingly, an opportunity is created for research on smart villages to go beyond the ICT-hype and embark on a problem-driven, solution-oriented, pragmatic research. In this way, research on smart villages stands to avoid the loop of 'normative bias' [1] characteristic to considerable body of smart cities research. Indeed, all too frequently, research on smart cities builds upon the assumption that smart city services will contribute to wellbeing and quality of life of cities' inhabitants, thus disregarding the basic fact that the assumed users of services that advances in ICT make feasible are unwilling or unable to use them [2].…”

“…Even if, what we term, an interdisciplinary turn in the research on smart cities is under way [1,3], and paves the way toward more interdisciplinary approaches in smart cities research, this research represents a relatively well-delineated field. To retain its sharpness, relevance and usability, a careful reflection on the research agenda is needed today.…”

“…As a result, when advances in sophisticated information and communication technology (ICT) have led to the emergence of research on smart cities, the application and usability of ICT in the context of a village remained underdiscussed in the literature. Today, this Special Issue, and related research [1], essentially introduce the idea of the 'smart village' into the debate. Against this backdrop, the objective of this opening review is three-fold: (i) To outline the conceptual boundaries of the term smart village, (ii) to highlight the thrust of the challenge inherent in smart villages research, and (iii) to shed light on the smart village research agenda as it unfolds.…”