Smart and sustainable cities? Pipedreams, practicalities and possibilities
Smart and sustainable cities? Pipedreams, practicalities and possibilities
复制标题
智慧且可持续的城市？
DOI：
10.1080/13549839.2019.1624701
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Evans J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Evans J
智慧城市承诺通过数字技术将城市服务和基础设施无缝连接，产生经济，社会和环境价值（荷兰，2008年; Viitanen和金斯顿（2014年）），但很少有证据表明它们能够提高社会福祉，建立公正和公平的社区，减少资源消耗和废物产生，改善环境质量或降低碳排放（Cavada，Hunt和Rogers，2016）。这期特刊探讨了智慧城市的梦想与实践之间的差距，重点关注真实的智慧城市倡议的社会和环境层面，以及它们为创造更公平和进步的城市所带来的可能性。我们认为，社会公平和环境可持续性既不是先验不存在，也不是事实上存在于智慧城市举措的技术设计中，而是必须在特定地方实现时进行创造、培育和维护。这是我们标题中提到的“可能性”，也是特刊关注智慧城市的白日梦和现实之间的差距的重点。在这篇导言中，我们将更详细地展开我们的论点，并在其中阐述我们的六项贡献。智能城市承诺不亚于21世纪的城市乌托邦（Datta 2015）。据估计，到2020年，全球智慧城市市场的价值将达到1.56万亿美元（Frost & Sullivan 2014），这一概念在城市发展的行业、政治和市政话语中迅速崛起（Söderström，Paasche和Klauser 2014）。2015年，de Jong及其同事预测，智慧城市“正在成为城市可持续发展和再生倡议的主要驱动力”。在欧盟，数字创新现在是城市可持续发展资金的主要来源，智慧城市的创建通常被定位为实现城市可持续发展和经济增长的工具（欧洲议会，2014年）。在非洲、南亚、北美和远东地区，各国政府、市政当局和私营公司正在分配大量资源来发展数字创新，他们声称，这些创新将促进城市充满活力的创业文化，通过增加公民参与来促进更公平和公正的社区发展，并解决气候变化等一系列可持续发展问题。智慧城市的白日梦在三个相当独特的方面与其他城市乌托邦不同。首先，智慧城市占据了主流政策和思想，不像世纪的乌托邦式定居点，从定义上讲，它们是反文化的，仅限于进步的殖民运动和工业慈善家的模范村庄。其次，智慧城市乌托邦反映了国家政府和私营企业之间的紧密结合。世纪，科布塞里亚式的乡村塔楼之梦激发了东西方战后许多建筑的灵感，而推动这一梦想的是政府，而不是工业。这些由政府主导的计划伴随着福利国家的出现，而今天的智慧城市愿景则坚定地建立在物质主义和追求利润的公私合作伙伴关系的基础上。最后，虽然以前的城市乌托邦受到明确的政治和社会目标的启发，但智慧城市将经济发展作为实现未来城市的主要驱动力（Haarstad 2017）。当我们开始思考数字技术的力量如何使城市更具可持续性时，这些差异是非常重要的。智慧和可持续城市的理念承诺使用数字技术，
Smart cities promise to generate economic, social and environmental value through the seamless connection of urban services and infrastructure by digital technologies (Hollands 2008; Viitanen and Kingston 2014), but there is scant evidence concerning their ability to enhance social wellbeing, build just and equitable communities, reduce resource consumption and waste generation, improve environmental quality or lower carbon emissions (Cavada, Hunt, and Rogers 2016). This special issue addresses the gap between the pipedream and the practice of smart cities, focusing on the social and environmental dimensions of real smart city initiatives, and the possibilities that they hold for creating more equitable and progressive cities. We argue that social equity and environmental sustainability are neither a-priori absent nor de-facto present in technological designs of smart city initiatives, but have to be made, nurtured and maintained as they materialise in particular places. This is the ‘possibility’alluded to in our title, and where the focus of the Special Issue on the gap between the pipedreams and practicalities of smart cities leads. In this introduction we unpack our argument in greater detail and situate our six contributions within it. Smart cities promise nothing less than an urban utopia for the twenty-first century (Datta 2015). Stoked by estimates of a global smart city market worth up to $1.56 trillion by 2020 (Frost & Sullivan 2014), the concept has risen rapidly to prominence within industry, political and municipal discourses of urban development (Söderström, Paasche, and Klauser 2014). In 2015, de Jong and colleagues predicted that the smart city was ‘on its way to become [the] leading driver of urban sustainability and regeneration initiatives’(12). In the European Union, digital innovations now underpin the majority of urban sustainability funding, with the creation of smart cities commonly positioned as a vehicle to deliver urban sustainability and economic growth (European Parliament 2014). Across Africa, South Asia, North America and the Far East, national governments, municipalities and private companies are allocating considerable resources to develop digital innovations which they claim will promote a vibrant entrepreneurship culture in cities, advance more equitable and just community development through increased citizen participation, and solve a range of sustainability issues such as climate change.The smart city pipedream diverges from other urban utopias in three quite distinctive ways. First, smart cities occupy mainstream policy and thinking, unlike the utopian settlements of the nineteenth century that were by definition counter cultural and limited to progressive colonial movements and the model villages of industrial philanthropists. Second, the smart city utopia reflects a close union between national government and private industry. The Corbuserian dream of towers in the countryside that inspired much post-war building in both the East and West in the twentieth century was driven by the government rather than industry. These government-led programmes accompanied the emergence of the welfare state while today’s smart city visions are based firmly on entrepreneurialism and profit-seeking public-private partnerships. Finally, while previous urban utopias were inspired by explicit political and social goals, smart cities foreground economic development as the main driver to realise future cities (Haarstad 2017). These differences are significant when we start to think about the power of digital technologies to make cities more sustainable. The idea of smart and sustainable cities promises to use digital
登录
查看更多内容
智慧城市内部
DOI：
10.4324/9781351166201
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
影响因子：
--
作者：
A. Karvonen;Federico Cugurullo;Federico Caprotti
通讯作者：
Federico Caprotti
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Kong, Lily;Woods, Orlando
通讯作者：
Woods, Orlando
维持城市流通：基础设施控制的运行逻辑
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Andrés Luque;Simon Marvin
通讯作者：
Simon Marvin
DOI：
10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.005
发表时间：
2018-08-01
影响因子：
12
作者：
Martin, Chris J.;Evans, James;Karvonen, Andrew
通讯作者：
Karvonen, Andrew
公民在未来智慧城市中的地位和作用有人吗？
影响因子：
3
作者：
A. Vanolo
通讯作者：
A. Vanolo