Smart Cities in China: How can China Learn a Lesson from the United Kingdom Practice - Assignment Example

Introduction Countries across the globe are becoming united in developing smart cities to combat the pressures of urban living as people from the rural areas move into cities. It is estimated that the smart urban system for transport, energy, healthcare, education, water and waste will amount to $400 billion per annum by 2020 (BIS, 2013). Because of the high population density, China is one such country facing pressure with respect to resource management. It is expected that by 2025, an estimated one billion people will reside in urban China (Liu & Peng, 2014). The country is already facing complexities in terms of road traffic, use of water, energy and power, and challenges in managing urban development. China has been trying to accelerate development through IT adoption and by solidifying its position in the machine-to-machine (M2M) market. The M2M technology wirelessly connects machines, appliances and devices as part of an intelligent network. However, Deakin (2013) citing Hollands, refers to these networked and connected cities as digital cities or intelligent cities which is different from smart cities. These suggest that China is still in the process of evolving from digital cities to smart cities and could possibly learn lesson from the UK practices. Smart City – Definition There is no consensus yet on the definition of smart cities although all agree that smart cities are built on intelligent sensing technology and cloud computing (Liu & Peng, 2014). Cities often claim to be smart but do so without defining what it means to be smart (Deakin, 2013). The claim of a smart city has to be based on something more than just the use of information and communication technology, asserts (Deakin, p1). This assertion is based on the claim of several cities such as San Francisco, Brisbane and Bangalore, to name a few, who use technologies as a means of branding themselves. The rush to become a smart city has gathered momentum and cities across the globe are trying to be smarter. There has to be a transition from an intelligent city to a smart city. This is because an intelligent city would thrive on the use and implementation of electronic and digital technologies in communities and cities, but Deakin (2013, p17) citing Hollands (2008) contends that a smart city is one that uses networked infrastructure to enable social, environmental and cultural development. However, the networks include mobile and landline phones, satellites TVs and computer networks, electronic commerce and internet services. These are the main driving force behind the development of smart cities that can help sustain development. However, smart cities have to start with the human capital side of the equation because for the people it is not the technology that can create smart cities but the ability of such technology to lead to social, environmental and cultural development. Liu and Peng (2014) agree that smart cities enrich material and cultural life, and promote economic and social progress. However, there is no clear and conceptual understanding of “smart”, assert Liu and Peng. The label ‘smart city’ is a fuzzy concept because there is no single template framing the smart city nor is there one definition that would fit all cities that clamour for being ‘smart’. Being smart entails strategic direction, contend Nam and Pardo (2011). The European Smart City initiative is focused on the sustainability issues of the cities and particularly highlights the energy systems According to Fernandes et al (2010) this limits the definition of smart city which is confined to improving the quality of life and local economy through moving towards a low carbon future. Cities in Europe and around the world face the challenge of long-term sustainable development (Pasakaleva, 2013, p117). The performance of cities is influenced by their knowledge and social capacity. Social and environmental capital distinguishes smart cities from the technology-burdened digital or intelligent cities. Simply wired and networked cities cannot be termed smarter cities; it is how its people and communities grow and interact that matters. Instances such as Amsterdam Smart City Initiative, a collaboration between the citizens, government and business to develop smart projects to ‘save’ energy’ and change the world cannot be examples of smart city (p112). Innovative solutions should ensure city utilities first, contends Rick (2014). Digital Cities to Smart Cities Liu and Peng (2014) argue that digital cities are not smart cities. Digital cities simply use technology to integrate data from different sources and create public spaces for people living in the cities. A digital city is founded on remote sensing, a geographic information system, data fusion, virtual and reality and several such technologies. Digital City Amsterdam, Digital City Kyoto and Helsinki Arena 2000 are examples of digital cities. Big data generation can help gather information and data through digital technology but such big data may enrich the experience of how cities function; however, its collective advantage is yet to be seen (Batty, 2013). Smart cities on the other hand integrate technology in everything where sensors are embedded in buildings as well as in pipes which helps individuals and the infrastructure to interact in multiple relationships for mutual benefit. A smart city should enable every citizen to engage with all services on offer, and in a way it best suits his or needs (BIS, 2013). A smart city would bring together hard infrastructure, social capital such as local skills and community institutions as well as digital technologies to help sustain economic development and provide a congenial environment for all. Such transformation of Digital City to Smart City requires handling massive amount of data because the purpose is to enrich the lives of the residents and upgrade urban management while ensuring environmental protection (Liu & Peng, 2014). This is because a city can be termed smart when its people become smart (Batty, 2013). People can be smart when their lives are enriched. Life enrichment includes home and community function, education and healthcare. Benefits of smart city solutions would optimize resources through better information on where the resources are being consumed (BIS, 2013a). This information would help the authorities in better monitoring and management while it also helps consumers in making more informed use of resources and lower their consumption where necessary. All of these can help lower the utility operating costs and also extend the operating life of existing infrastructure. These can be achieved through the application of smart city technologies to address social, economical and environmental goals. Branchi et al (2014) combine all the elements and present a comprehensive definition of smart cities: A space for coexistence among people who, based on the available technologies, can thrive and develop, while taking into account economic, social and environmental sustainability Caragliu et al (2011) believe a city to be smart when investments in human and social capital traditional transport as well as in ICT infrastructure lead to sustainable economic growth, a high quality of life, wise management of resources through participatory governance. Branchi et al (2014) emphasize that the goal of technology should be to respond to the needs of its citizens. The authors suggest that all information and communications technologies must be reviewed that manage and transform cities in the 21st century and their impact should be analysed. Different technologies should be evaluated based on their usefulness and consequences. Characteristics of Smart Cities Based on the various characteristics of ‘smart city’ in the literature, Giffinger et al (2007) illustrate a ‘smart city’ with the following elements: Figure 1 Characteristics of Smart Cities Source: Giffinger et al (2007). Thus a smart city is built on a combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent and aware citizens. Giffinger et al consider smart as performing in a forward-looking way, which includes factors such as awareness, synergy, transformability, self-decisiveness, and strategic behavior. They further elaborate on the different elements and factors that contribute towards making a city smart (Appendix A). An evaluation of 70 medium-sized cities in Europe across all the factors that make a city ‘smart’ revealed that Luxemburg rates above average in all the characteristics. Most studies have used the above smart city model but Nam and Pardo (2011) further integration of infrastructures and technology-mediated services, social learning for strengthening human infrastructure, and governance for institutional improvement and citizen engagement. Their suggested strategic direction for smart city is as follows: Figure 2 Strategic Direction for Smart City Source: Nam & Pardo (2011) Nam and Pardo (2011) assert that towards more progressive smart cities, focus should be on the human capital side and not blindly believing that IT itself can automatically transform and improve cities. A strong approach to awareness, education and leadership can help get rid of barriers related to language, education, culture, skills development and disabilities. Chourabi et al (2012) add to the critical factors of smart city initiatives and include management and organization, and built infrastructure. All the factors are interrelated and have two different levels of influence – the outer factors such as government, people, natural environment, infrastructure and economy are influenced by the inner factors that include technology, management and policy. In agreement with Liu and Peng (2014), Nam and Pardo also emphasize on collaboration among different functional sectors and parties such as the government, business, academics, non-profit and voluntary organizations and others. The government also has a responsibility to share its vision, goals, priorities and strategic plans of the smart city with the public and other stakeholders. Towards focus on smart city initiatives, Fernandes et al (2010) highlight the barriers in transition towards local sustainable energy systems. Market factors are critical but more importantly, the disincentive of city authorities to move towards sustainability or institutional failures are pose barrier in transition towards sustainable energy systems. China’s Smart Cities To sustain its economic growth, focus on developing smart cities is essential. China boasts of a potential market value worth trillions of RMB (Investment Weekly News, 2012). China’s urbanization is a mammoth project because of its sheer population (Zhuhua, 2013). China has been investing heavily in making its digital cities smart and has started with more than 200 pilot smart cities. While China was one of the three IEEE-endorsed global smart city pilots in August 2014, the survey by Liu and Peng (2013) identified several obstacles to overcome which requires intense cooperation and large-scale implementation. While the study found improvements in sectors such as health and education, or care for the elderly, as the home environments are operating in an intelligent network which has made it possible to interconnect lighting, appliances and security systems, irrespective of the brand. Barriers to Smart City Development The study of Liu and Peng (2013) focuses on smart city development in China but similar issues have been found by other researchers. Liu and Peng (2013) evaluate that the rush to transform the digital cities into smart cities is leading to widespread construction that raises issues. The survey identified that projects are often insular which creates information islands leading to waste of financial resources because of repeated and redundant construction. The authorities are unable to integrate the smart systems scattered over cities because performance is uneven and heterogeneous data systems conflict. This conforms to the findings of a report by BIS (2013a) that smart city technologies being disruptive technologies can yield benefits only when there is system wide deployment (BIS, 2013a). This requires collaboration between multiple actors in the value chain but this is often a barrier in some verticals. Macro guidance and policy planning are unable to keep pace with the speed of development taking place in China, find Liu and Peng (2013). Liu and Peng also point to lack of laws and regulation as well as to imperfect standards that make designs at the national level difficult to implement. Thus, driven by the motivation to construct smart cities, the authorities move ahead without focusing on the end goal of smart cities. Liu and Peng highlight the lack of information security caused by the large technology scale that can cause extensive damage. Key aspects to Smarter Approach A background paper on smart cities by The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills highlights five key aspects to smarter approaches (BIS, 2013a): A modern digital infrastructure, which enables citizens to access the information they need, when they need Ongoing improvement of service delivery by being citizen-centric, which implies placing the citizens’ need at the forefront An intelligent physical infrastructure (Internet of Things) which can enable service providers to use the full range of data both to manage service delivery and to inform strategic investment in the community The openness to learn, experiment and innovate Transparency of outcomes so that citizens can compare and challenge performance Key factors in the UK’s Smart City Solutions Significant business opportunities for UK companies are in store for developing smart cities. By 2020, it is expected that about 40 cities will be classified as smart cities (M2 Presswire, 2012). The UK companies and British expertise play a significant role in the development of smart cities in Asia. As per the report commissioned by The Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), smart city solutions can provide benefits when simultaneous action is taken on five verticals – energy, waste, water, transport and health and there must be coordination and interaction across these five verticals (BIS, 2013a). The government has to play the pivotal role in coordinating with cities, business and academia to help form a vision of how five verticals can benefit from smart city solutions. The departments and regulators in each of the verticals should commit to the vision and jointly develop a roadmap for deployment. China has been lacking this coordination and collaboration across verticals leading to chaos in construction and reconstruction. The UK has been investing in technology but technology alone cannot bring about systemic change. Leadership must have a clear and consistent vision of what it offers to its citizens and whether it meets their needs (BIS, 2013). A smart city would deliver more than specific services and have a citizen-centric approach as shown in Figure 3. It is evident that a two-way interaction between the citizens and service providers is essential. Such an approach would ensure a more personalized approach and a much stronger recognition of, and response to the strategic interdependencies of different services (BIS, 2013). Figure 3 The Smart City Model Source: BIS (2013) Branchi et al (2014) also highlight how citizens were not a part of the smart city model but have only recently been included. Their diagram shows a citizen-centric approach to the development of smart cities: Figure 4: Infrastructure, Operations and People Source: Branchi et al (2014) The UK has certain strengths based on which it can compete in the global market and help China achieve its objectives of developing smart cities. The UK energy industry is well developed and aligned with EU standards as well as with several Common wealth economies such as Singapore, Hong Kong, India and Pakistan (BIS, 2013a). The UK also has internationally recognized expertise in skills that are necessary for innovation particularly in the field of product and service design and user-interface design. The UK is equipped to handle global smart city projects because of the innovative approach, visionary leadership and focus on key challenges faced by urban cities (BIS, 2013). The UK has the ability for continuous development and innovation through a smart cities forum represented by stakeholders from different fields. Besides, the UK stays abreast of global developments and has the ability to seize opportunities as they work with international standard bodies to ensure UK solutions are marketable worldwide. Case Study – Smart City - Copenhagen Copenhagen is considered as one of the most important Smart Cities around the World; it is one of the cities with the best quality of life. With a population of almost 2 million people, Copenhagen has decided to lead the transition to become a green growth economy independent of fossil fuels by 2050 (Smart City Expo, 2014). Copenhagen has been identified as an important smart city for several reasons:  Ninety-eight percent of Copenhageners are connected to district heating  Landowners and developers are willing to engage in test and development  State of the art solution used by urban development districts  They have an ambitious goal of being CO2 neutral by 2025 Billehoj (2006) illustrates how Copenhagen is expected to be CO2 neutral by 2025: Source: Billehoj (2006) The planning appears to be an integration of all functions that lead to smart city. Thus, it has been envisaged that a combination of investments in urban development and technology development together with a focus on growth and employment would result in additional jobs and improved quality of life. This appears to be a citizen-centric approach which is the basic tenet of a smart city (Nam & Pardo, 2011). The case of Copenhagen also demonstrates cooperation and collaboration across functions and departments, which according to researchers, is essential in achieving the smart city objectives. Billehoj (2006) emphasizes on cooperation between public institutions, companies and knowledge-based institutions and organizations (figure below). Figure 5 Cooperation in Copenhagen So It has enhanced its services and thereby sustainability across all dimensions of the smart city model. Thus, Copenhagen has modernized the sewage system with an improved water quality; through adoption of innovative technologies, it has been able to reduce water consumption while protecting the groundwater resources. Cycling is an integral part of urban planning while the public transport system is highly integrated which has helped reduce the levels of congestion and pollution. It sends less than 2% of waste to landfill with most waste being recycled or used to generate heat for the city’s district heating network. Renewable energy infrastructure has been introduced and 22% of its requirements are met through wind turbines. Through its two cooling networks, Copenhagen is expected to save 14,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. The city has also turned the city into a green lab by using its own buildings, utilities, land, procurement, as well as employees. The case of Copenhagen demonstrates an integrated approach in all functions and with the involvement and and engagement of all stakeholders. References Batty, M. (2013). Big data, smart cities and city planning. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 274–279 Billehoj, CB. (2006). Smart City – the CPH Case. Global Challenges: Copenhagen Solutions. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/initiatives/doc/20110621/06_copenhagen_claus_bjorn_billehoj.pdf BIS. (2013). Smart Cities: Background paper. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/246019/bis-13-1209-smart-cities-background-paper-digital.pdf BIS. (2013a). The Smart City Market opportunities for the UK. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smart-city-market-uk-opportunities Branchi, PE. et al. (2014). Analysis Matrix for Smart Cities. Future Internet, 6, 61-75 Caragliu, et al. (2011). Smart Cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18 (2), 65-82 Chourabi, H. et al. (2012). Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society. Deakin, M. (2013). Smart Cities : Governing, Modelling and Analysing the Transition. Chapter I [online]. Routledge. Fernandes, EO. et al. (2010). Smart Cities Initiative: how to foster a quick transition towards local sustainable energy systems. European University Institute. Available from http://www.eui.eu/Projects/THINK/Documents/SmartCitiesInitiative.pdf Giffinger, R. et al. (2007). Smart Cities - Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Vienna University of Technology. Available from http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/37640170/smart_cities_final_report.pdf Nam, T. & Pardo, TA. (2011). Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions. The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. Available from http://demo.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/dgo_2011_smartcity/dgo_2011_smartcity.pdf Paskaleva, M. (2013). Smart Cities : Governing, Modelling and Analysing the Transition. Chapter III [online]. Routledge. Investment Weekly News. (June 30, 2012). Business Opportunities and Development Trends of Emerging Smart Cities in China. Abstract, NewsRx M2 Presswire. (Feb 9, 2012). New Smart Cities in Asia report identifies business opportunities for UK companies. OGL. (2013). New initiative to support $40 billion smart cities in the UK. Press Release. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-initiative-to-support-40-billion-smart-cities-in-the-uk Rick, B. (July 28, 2014). Smart Cities. Transmission & Distribution World. Zhuhua, W. (Oct 22, 2013). European Entrepreneur Bullish on Outlook of Smart City in China. PR Newswire. Read More