Direction for a Transition toward Smart Sustainable Cities based on the Diagnosis of Smart City Plans
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainable and Smart Cities
2.2. Definition and Diagnosis of Smart Cities
3. Method: Building a Framework and Deriving indicators
3.1. Establishing the Concept of a Smart Sustainable City
- the beneficiaries of sustainable development: both current and future generations;
- the purpose of smart sustainable city: securing urban competitiveness and improving the quality of citizens’ lives and urban ecosystem;
- the main means of urban development: advanced technology, including ICT; and
- the desired shape of a city: a city that continues to develop and aims for efficiency and innovation.
3.2. Smart Sustainable City Development Framework
3.3. The Procedure of Deriving Indicators for Smart Sustainable City Evaluation and Diagnosis
- Factual basis: Basic information for planning and implementation (current status and prospects);
- Goals and objectives: Broad objectives to achieve the vision of the plan;
- Policies and strategies: Specific, deliverable means and tools to implement vision and objectives;
- Inter-governmental cooperation and public participation (cooperation and governance): Recognition of various stakeholders for the implementation of the plan and competence for cooperation between them;
- Implementation: Specificity and possibilities for implementing objectives and policies.
3.4. Deriving Indicators for Smart Sustainable City Evaluation and Diagnosis
4. Case Study Analysis and Results
4.1. Target Location and Plan
4.2. Evaluation Method
4.3. Regional Analysis Results
5. Conclusions and Discussions
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Indicator | Purpose and Assessment | Implications | |
---|---|---|---|
ISO | 37120 (Quality of Service and Life in the City) | Focusing on urban services and quality of life and developing sustainability as principle. Consists of 19 categories, 104 indicators in total. | Smartness and resilience are key to urban sustainability. Covers most of urban components (environment, education, safety, leisure, transportation, sewage, water resources, finance, etc.). |
37122 (Smart City) | Measurement of transition to smart city. Consists of a total of 85 indicators in the same category as ISO 37120. | ||
37123 (Resilient City) | Measurement of Urban Resilience from environmental, Social, and Economic Impact and Stress. Same category as ISO 37120. | ||
ETSI (Key Performance Indicators for Sustainable Digital Multiservice Cities) | Evaluate Smart Cities and Smart City Projects separately. Sub-items (76 detailed indicators) classified into people, regional environment, economic growth, governance, and distribution/expansion. | Based on expert evaluation, results are provided through the City Tune service that supports the decision-making process of local governments and administrators for smart city development. The overall direction and framework are the same; however, the indicators are divided into the smart city itself and smart city projects (projects of various spatial hierarchies to make transition to smart city). | |
ITU | 4901 | Focus on ICT application. Criteria: ICT, environmental sustainability, productivity, quality of life, equity and social inclusion, physical infrastructure (48 indicators). | Efforts shall be made not to lose the uniqueness of cities (history, culture, economy, society, politics, etc.) due to the application of uniform evaluation indicators by establishing performance indicators reflecting the characteristics of each region and continuously modifying the evaluation method of performance indicators. |
4902 | Focus on impact of sustainability. Criteria: environmental sustainability, productivity, quality of life, equity and social inclusion, physical infrastructure (30 indicators). | ||
4903 | Focus on Evaluating SDGs. Criteria: economy, environment, society, and culture (52 indicators). | ||
SDG11 | It is a “sustainable city and residence” that contains contents on the creation of inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities and residences. | It is reflected based on the evaluation and standardization index of smart cities abroad. | |
APA, Sustainability Place Assessment | Developed to evaluate the sustainable development of comprehensive urban planning. Evaluate 10 items (85 detailed items). | It has more solid evaluation framework than other urban plan evaluation indicators. | |
Roland Berger, Smart City Strategy Indicators | Development of smart city strategic indicators to measure the city’s comprehensiveness and goals for the core elements of smart city. The criteria are largely divided into planning, infrastructure/policies, and implementation, and a total of 31 detailed indicators are used. | It focuses on smart technology more than any other cases and must be considered from a technical perspective. Need to consider smart technology along with sustainability. | |
K-SDG11 | It corresponds to the Sustainable City and Residence indicators among Korea’s SDGs. | As various stakeholders participate and organize indicators, they reflect detailed indicators considering national characteristics unlike global indicators. | |
KRIHS | As an indicator for evaluating the degree of maturity of smart cities, weights are derived through the evaluation of four existing cities, and a total of 150 final indicators and final guidelines are presented. | Compose evaluation framework by classifying target and means diagnostic indicators. | |
KICT | Classified into ICT, environmental sustainability, productivity, quality of life, equity and social integration, and physical infrastructure. | Evaluation index for the discovery of commercialization model that can lead the smart city. Consideration of service purpose, demand unit service, and element technology. | |
Ubiquitous Urban Planning | It is a guideline for establishing smart city plans. | Establish comprehensive planning to respond flexibly to condition changes in the future, such as the possibility of applying new technologies. | |
Guidelines for Urban Revitalization linked to SDG | Guidelines for urban revitalization linked to SDGs to promote environmental, economic, and social aspects, which are the main pillars of sustainable development, in order for urban regeneration projects to be sustainable. | Suggest planning elements to reflect sustainability in consideration of urban revitalization projects and characteristics of target sites. |
References
- Carneiro Freire, S.; Corban, C.; Ehrlich, D.; Florczyk, A.; Kemper, T.; Maffenini, L.; Melchiorri, M.; Pesaresi, M.; Schiavina, M.; Tommasi, P. Atlas of the Human Planet 2019; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now: Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/gsdr/gsdr2019 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- World Wide Fund for Nature. Living Planet Report 2018. Available online: https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/living-planet-report-2018 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Ernstson, H.; van der Leeuw, S.E.; Redman, C.L.; Meffert, D.J.; Davis, G.; Alfsen, C.; Elmqvist, T. Urban transitions: On urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. AMBIO 2010, 39, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Olsson, P.; Galaz, V.; Boonstra, W. Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bibri, S.E. On the sustainability of smart and smarter cities in the era of big data: An interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary literature review. J. Big Data 2019, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ndugwa, R.; Mwaniki, D.; Beguy, D. Towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities. In A Better World Volume 5; Tudor Rose: Leicester, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 31, 183–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grierson, D. The urban environment: Agendas and problems. Int. J. Environ. Cult. Econ. Soc. Sustain. 2007, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joss, S.; Tomozeiu, D.; Cowley, R. Eco-Cites: A Global Survey 2011; University of Westminster: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Likitswat, F. Future cities: New generation’s visions of sustainability concepts and models. Future Cities Environ. 2019, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Müller, S.M.; Mattissek, A. Green city: Explorations and visions of urban sustainability. RCC Perspect. Transform. Environ. Soc. 2018, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Zeng, X.; Yu, Y.; Yang, S.; Lv, Y.; Sarker, M.N.I. Urban resilience for urban sustainability: Concepts, dimensions, and perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarma, A. Smart City and Urban Sustainability. In Proceedings of the All India Seminar on Tackling Urban Environmental Concerns in Upcoming Smart Cities of our Country, Institution of Engineers, Assam State Centre, Guwahati, India, October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Angelidou, M.; Psaltoglou, A.; Komninos, N.; Kakderi, C.; Tsarchopoulos, P.; Panori, A. Enhancing sustainable urban development through smart city applications. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2018, 9, 146–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. 3rd Comprehensive Smart City Plan 2019–2023; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2019.
- Ringenson, T.; Eriksson, E.; Rivera, M.B.; Wangel, J. The Limits of the Smart Sustainable City. In Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Computing Within Limits (LIMITS ’17), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 22 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hassan, A.M.; Lee, H. The paradox of the sustainable city: Definitions and examples. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2015, 17, 1267–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heymans, A.; Breadsell, J.; Morrison, G.M.; Byrne, J.J.; Eon, C. Ecological urban planning and design: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wheeler, S.M. Sustainability planning as paradigm change. Urban Plan. 2016, 1, 55–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Dizdaroglu, D. Ecological approaches in planning for sustainable cities A review of the literature. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2015, 1, 159–188. [Google Scholar]
- Wheeler, S.M. Planning for metropolitan sustainability. J. Plan Educ. Res. 2000, 20, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neirotti, P.; De Marco, A.; Cagliano, A.C.; Mangano, G.; Scorrano, F. Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities 2014, 38, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, C.; Choi, H.-S.; Ju, M.; Jin, D.; Song, S.; Lee, C. Policy Research Roadmap for the Transition to Smart Eco City. Available online: https://library.kei.re.kr/dmme/img/001/009/014/%EA%B8%B0%EB%B3%B8_2020_03_03_%EB%B0%95%EC%B0%BD%EC%84%9D.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- McKinsey Global Institute. Smart Cities: Digital Solutions for a More Livable Future. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/smart-cities-digital-solutions-for-a-more-livable-future (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Cugurullo, F. The origin of the smart city imaginary: From the dawn of modernity to the eclipse of reason. In The Routledge Companion to Urban Imaginaries; Lindner, C., Meissner, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Finger, M. Smart city—Hype and/or reality? IGLUS Q. 2018, 4, 2–6. [Google Scholar]
- Hajduk, S. The concept of a smart city in urban management, business. Manag. Educ. 2016, 14, 34–49. [Google Scholar]
- Moir, E.; Moonen, T.; Clark, G. What Are Future Cities? Origins, Meanings and Uses; UK Government Office for Science: London, UK, 2014.
- Lee, J. Changes and implications of smart city policy in Korea. Converg. Res. Rev. 2018, 4, 3–37. [Google Scholar]
- Toli, A.M.; Murtagh, N. The concept of sustainability in smart city definitions. Front. Built Environ. 2020, 6, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahvenniemi, H.; Huovila, A.; Pinto-Seppä, I.; Airaksinen, M. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities 2017, 60, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosch, P.; Jongeneel, S.; Rovers, V.; Neumann, H.; Airaksinen, M.; Huovila, A. CITYkeys Indicators for Smart City Projects and Smart Cities. Available online: https://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/CITYkeystheindicators.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- ISO 37120; Sustainable Cities and Communities: Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life. International Organization for Standardization: London, UK, 2018.
- ISO 37122; Sustainable Cities and Communities: Indicators for Smart Cities. International Organization for Standardization: London, UK, 2019.
- ISO 37123; Sustainable Cities and Communities: Indicators for Resilient Cities. International Organization for Standardization: London, UK, 2019.
- Recommendation ITU-T Y.4901/L.1601; Key Performance Indicators Related to the Use of Information and Communication Technology in Smart Sustainable Cities. International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
- Recommendation ITU-T Y.4902/L.1602; Key Performance Indicators Related to the Sustainability Impacts of Information and Communication Technology in Smart Sustainable Cities. International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
- Recommendation ITU-T Y.4903/L.1603; Evaluation and Assessment Key Performance Indicators for Smart Sustainable Cities to Assess the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
- International Standardization for Smart City Interoperable Reference Architecture, Future Skills for Smart Cities; Smart City Standards: London, UK, 2022.
- Guo, L.-H.; Cheng, S.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.; Cai, Y.; Hong, X.-C. Does social perception data express the spatio-temporal pattern of perceived urban noise? A case study based on 3,137 noise complaints in Fuzhou, China. Appl. Acoust. 2022, 201, 109129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turon, K. From the Classic Business Model to Open Innovation and Data Sharing—The Concept of an Open Car-Sharing Business Model. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark Complex 2022, 8, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turon, K. Social barriers and transportation social exclusion issues in creating sustainable car-sharing systems. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2021, 9, 10–22. [Google Scholar]
- Kubik, A. Impact of the Use of Electric Scooters from Shared Mobility Systems on the Users. Smart Cities 2022, 5, 1079–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Shen, Z.; Teng, X. Personal Information Protection and Interest Balance Based on Rational Expectation in the Era of Big Data: A Case on the Sharing of Mobile Phone Signaling Big Data in Smart City Planning. IRSPSD Plan. Strateg. Des. Concepts 2022, 10, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=54725&lang=ENG (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Act on the Promotion of Smart City Development and Industry. 2021. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=56560&lang=ENG (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Special Act on Promotion of and Support for Urban Regeneration. 2020. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=55897&lang=ENG (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- International Telecommunication Union. Smart Sustainable Cities: An Analysis of Definition. Available online: https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-L.Sup18-201510-T!!PDF-E&type=items (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Lee, J. Trends in international standardization of smart cities. Weekly ICT Trends: Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation 2019, 1924, 17–31. [Google Scholar]
- Höjer, M.; Wangel, J. Smart sustainable cities definition and challenges, ICT innovations for sustainability. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Hilty, L.M., Aebischer, B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Recommendation ITU-T Y.4900/L.1600; Overview of Key Performance Indicators in Smart Sustainable Cities. International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
- Huovila, A.; Bosch, P.; Airaksinen, M. Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? Cities 2019, 89, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urban. Smart Cities Habitat Master Planning Framework. Available online: https://www.urban.com.au/news/smart-cities-habitat-master-planning-framework (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Betty, S.; Moe, S.I.; Nutter, M. Energy: Smart Cities Vendor Engagement Framework. DNV.GL. 2017. Available online: https://www.usdn.org/uploads/cms/documents/2_2017_smartcities_vendor_draft4.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Supangkat, S.H.; Arman, A.A.; Nugraha, R.A.; Fatimah, Y.A. The implementation of Garuda smart city framework for smart city readiness mapping in Indonesia. J. Asia-Pac. Stud. 2018, 32, 169–176. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, H.; Park, C.; Shin, D.; Song, S. Direction for a Transition toward Smart Sustainable Cities Based on the Diagnosis of the Smart City Plans. Available online: https://library.kei.re.kr/dmme/img/001/011/010/%EC%88%98%EC%8B%9C_2020_02_%EC%B5%9C%ED%9D%AC%EC%84%A0_%EB%B0%95%EC%B0%BD%EC%84%9D.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Smart Cities Council. Smart Cities Readiness Guide: The Planning Manual for Building Tomorrow’s Cities Today; Smart Cities Council: Reston, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Godschalk, D.; Beatley, T.; Berke, P.; Brower, D.; Kaiser, E.J. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, J.; Peacock, W.; Husein, R. An assessment of coastal zone hazard mitigation plans in Texas. J. Disaster. Res. 2010, 5, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevens, M.R. Evaluating the quality of official community plans in Southern British Columbia. J. Plan Educ. Res. 2013, 33, 471–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.W.; Tran, T. An evaluation of local comprehensive plans toward sustainable green infrastructure in US. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hossu, C.A.; Iojă, I.C.; Mitincu, C.G.; Artmann, M.; Hersperger, A.M. An evaluation of environmental plans quality: Addressing the rational and communicative perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 256, 109984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godschalk, D.; Rouse, D. Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans; American Planning Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, H.; Ahn, S.; Lee, W.; Song, S. The Transformation of Urban Park and Green Space Policy for Sustainability. Available online: https://library.kei.re.kr/dmme/img/001/009/013/%EA%B8%B0%EB%B3%B8_2019_04_%EC%B5%9C%ED%9D%AC%EC%84%A0.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Kim, S.; Kang, T.; Kim, D.; Kim, M.; Kim, B.; Kim, Y.; Kim, H.; Kim, H.; Park, J.; Paik, N.; et al. Development of Framework for KICT Smart City Index. The Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology. Available online: https://www.codil.or.kr/viewDtlConRpt.do?gubun=rpt&pMetaCode=OTKCRK190470 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Lee, J. Indicator-based diagnosis method for improving sustainability of smart cities. Krihs Policy Brief 2017, 639, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Environment. Final Report of Urban Revitalization Guidelines Related to SDGs; Ministry of Environment: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2018.
- Roland, B. The Smart City Breakaway: How a Small Group of Leading Digital Cities Is Outpacing the Rest. Available online: https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_smart_city_breakaway_1.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Roland, B. Self-Assessment Tool. Available online: https://survey.rolandberger.com/cgi-bin/s.app?A=hkuEfKLL (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- ACT on the Construction, etc. of Ubiquitous Cities. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=17134&lang=ENG (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- The National Council for Sustainable Development. K-SDGs. Available online: http://ncsd.go.kr/ksdgs?content=3#ksdgs11 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Reddy, B.S.; Patil, B. Benchmarking Indian Megacities for Sustainability: An Indicator-Based Approach. SANEI (South Asia Network of Economic Research Institute Working Paper Series). 2013. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/8718310/Benchmarking_Indian_Megacities_for_Sustainability_An_Indicator_Based_Approach (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Lyles, W.M. Stevens. Plan Quality Evaluation 1994–2012: Growth and Contributions, Limitations, and New Directions. J. Plan Educ. Res. 2014, 34, 433–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smart City Korea. Urban Regeneration Revitalization Plan-Sustainable Bupyeong 11th street leading Incheon; Smart City Korea: Incheon, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Smart City Korea. Goyang-si Urban Master Plan 2030; Smart City Korea: Goyang-si, Republic of Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Smart City Korea. Hwajeon-dong, Goyang-si Urban Regeneration Revitalization Plan; Smart City Korea: Goyang-si, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Smart City Korea. Goyang-si Comprehensive Plan for Smart Cities 2020–2024; Smart City Korea: Goyang-si, Republic of Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Smart City Korea. Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Master Plan 2030; Smart City Korea: Incheon, Republic of Korea; p. 2015.
- Smart City Korea. Incheon Metropolitan City Comprehensive Plan for Smart Cities 2020–2024; Smart City Korea: Incheon, Republic of Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.H.; Han, H.; Leem, Y.T.; Yigitcanlar, T. Towards Ubiquitous City: Concept, Planning, and Experiences in the Republic of Korea. In Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era; Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., Baum, S., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2008; pp. 148–169. [Google Scholar]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Lee, S.H. Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable urban form or a branding hoax? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 89, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Main Category | Sub-Category | Indicator | Aspect | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Factual basis | 1.1 Comprehensiveness of current status analysis | Level of comprehensive survey and consideration in various fields (land use, population, environment, transportation, finance, information and communication, smart infrastructure, etc.) | S | M | |
Appropriateness of application of smart techniques, such as big data and spatial information, in comprehensive analysis of current conditions | M | ||||
1.2 Feasibility of future prospects | Appropriateness of future prospects, including population, economy, resource demand, and changes in urban industries and space following the Fourth Industrial Revolution | S | |||
Appropriateness of the use of big data, information, and prediction models for the advancement of future prospects | M | ||||
1.3 Harmony with related plans | Consideration of urban and environment related higher-level plans | S | |||
Consideration of smart city related higher-level plans | M | ||||
2. Goals and objectives | 2.1 Objectivity of goal setting | Appropriateness of current status analysis and future prospects-based goal setting | S | M | |
Appropriateness of prospective of the goal and reflection of regional specialties | S | ||||
2.2 Specificity of detailed objectives | Level of establishment of detailed goals for urban improvement based on smart technology reflecting the concept of sustainable development | S | M | ||
Link and consistency with higher-level planning objectives and indicators | S | M | |||
2.3 Measurement system of objectives | Appropriateness of setting target indicators and appropriateness of systematic and periodic evaluation system | S | |||
Appropriateness of information systems for periodic evaluation of goal execution and appropriateness of securing the system | M | ||||
3. Policies and Strategies | 3.1 Harmonization with nature and environmental impact | Water | Appropriateness of integrated water management plan (quality, aquatic ecosystem health, hydrology, sanitation, etc.) | S | |
Appropriateness of securing ICT solutions for water management such as water quality/hydrological warning system | M | ||||
Air | Appropriateness of the plan considering reduction of air quality pollutant emissions and exposure | S | |||
Appropriateness of securing the emission source management ICT system, such as real-time alarm and monitoring system | M | ||||
Waste | Appropriateness of the plan for collection, treatment, and recycling of waste | S | |||
Appropriateness of the level of management efficiency through the provision of ICT-based waste collection-treatment-recycling solutions | M | ||||
Carbon emission | Appropriateness of plan to reduce greenhouse gas and increase renewable energy usage | S | |||
Appropriateness of ICT-based energy production-demand management and greenhouse gas emission management system | M | ||||
Eco-system | Appropriateness of the plan to expand ecosystem services through the management of protected areas and urban ecosystem restoration. | S | |||
Appropriateness of ICT-based ecosystem monitoring and management system | M | ||||
Noise | Measures for reducing noise level for the areas exceeding noise exposure limits | S | |||
Appropriateness of ICT-based noise level monitoring | M | ||||
Environmental awareness | Level of consideration for online/offline education and policies to improve environmental awareness | S | M | ||
Appropriateness of smart environmental education and nudge policy for environmental awareness improvement | M | ||||
Land use | Detail of green infrastructure expansion plan (green transformation of infrastructure), such as respecting natural topography | S | |||
Appropriateness of ICT-based land-use change, damage, and urban ecosystem management | M | ||||
3.2 Promoting disaster resilience | Disaster damage control | Appropriateness of disaster prevention and damage control plans based on analysis of disaster vulnerability in dangerous areas | S | ||
Vulnerability analysis and plan using big data analysis, etc. | M | ||||
Customized integrated urban disaster crisis management | The level of securing the disaster response and crisis management system, such as protection of vulnerable groups | S | |||
Appropriateness of an efficient step-by-step disaster management system using ICT (alarm/evacuation/emergency rescue/recovery system, etc.) | M | ||||
3.3 Resilient and sustainable economy | Economic sustainability | A plan that takes the economic sustainability of the lower income bracket into account(vocational education programs, social jobs, community jobs, etc.) | S | ||
Level of community-based economic revitalization plan (business support, investment, etc.) compatible with the vision, characteristics, and cultural values of communities, as well as the projects that meet the needs of the region | S | ||||
Appropriateness of promoting innovation in smart city services (creative enterprises, startups, ICT R&D investment, etc.) and ICT-based green industries and jobs | S | M | |||
Economic resilience | The level of consideration for economic recovery plans based on external factors such as disasters | S | |||
Appropriateness of minimizing economic activity restrictions due to disaster using smart technology | M | ||||
3.4 Social inclusion and cohesion | Improvement of the living environment | Identification and improvement of buildings vulnerable to disasters and poor housing (residential environment of vulnerable class) | S | ||
Appropriateness of expansion of green building and green community | S | M | |||
Appropriateness of smart technology application for improvement of (aged) residential environment | M | ||||
Social cohesion | Level of service for community activation | S | |||
Appropriateness of public space planning and design considering the historical nature and culture of the community | S | ||||
Level of securing a smart plan foundation for social cohesion, such as smart living lab and smart neighborhood meeting | M | ||||
3.5 Providing reasonable basic services and improving quality | Water supply | Appropriateness of supply-demand management plan for sustainable water supply | S | ||
Water monitoring using ICT (demand supply: application of water meters, etc.) and technology introduction | M | ||||
Power supply | Appropriateness of a systematic management plan for a sustainable electricity system, such as production-supply-demand management | S | |||
Appropriateness of technical use for power supply and demand management, such as Smart grid and Electrical meter | M | ||||
Transportation | Level of securing public transportation infrastructure considering the mobility of citizens, including vulnerable groups (children, persons with disabilities, senior citizens, etc.) | S | |||
Appropriateness of smart green traffic planning (Intelligent Integrated Traffic Monitoring and Management System, Multimodal Service, Smart Public Bicycle Sharing System, etc.) | M | ||||
Medical service | Level of securing equity and fairness in access to quality health services | S | |||
Appropriateness of the application of ICT-based customized medical assistance measures for basic health care (remote medical treatment, electronic health and medical records, etc.) | M | ||||
Education | Appropriateness of lifelong education service plan considering equity in access | S | |||
Appropriateness of smart systems (network, device, program level, etc.) to expand access to education | M | ||||
Public safety | Appropriateness of safety plan for accidents, crimes, fires, etc. | S | |||
Appropriateness of the application of ICT systems to ensure public safety (digital surveillance cameras, etc.) | M | ||||
Accessibility to green space | Diversity of open parks and green areas and accessibility for all classes | S | |||
Appropriateness of smart technology application for the use and management of parks and green areas | M | ||||
Public facilities/space accessibility | Level of equitable distribution of public facilities and securing accessibility for all classes | S | |||
Appropriateness of application of smart facility management technology to improve visitor utilization and accessibility | M | ||||
History, culture, leisure | Appropriateness of the plan to preserve historical and cultural resources and expand cultural and leisure opportunities | S | |||
Level of securing accessibility, such as online reservation of public recreation services | M | ||||
4. Cooperation (governance) | 4.1 Cooperation system | Gain a foundation for cooperation between various departments and ministries | S | ||
The role and participation level of various stakeholders, such as vulnerable groups and experts, etc. | S | ||||
4.2 Information disclosure and accessibility | Provide an easy-to-understand form of information for all participants | S | |||
Utilization of various communication channels including ICT for information transmission | M | ||||
4.3 E-governance | The level of infrastructure (roadmap, Internet network, etc.) and platform construction for securing the ease of participation of citizens based on ICT (anonymous feedback mechanism, etc.) | M | |||
Appropriateness of organization’s internal work process digitization plan and establishment of foundation (connection technology, competency, etc.) | M | ||||
5. Implementation | 5.1 Policy support system | Secure smart service reliability system (Information security) | M | ||
Securing changeability of regulatory framework for ease of ICT usage (regulatory sandbox) | M | ||||
5.2 Budget | Appropriateness of funding plan proposals for sustainability strategies | S | |||
Appropriateness of the proposal of a financing plan for smart city strategy | M | ||||
5.3 Schedule | Establishing a clear time span, such as the implementation stage of the plan: Sustainability | S | |||
Establishing a clear time span, such as the implementation stage of the plan: Smart city | M | ||||
Total | Total five categories | 73 subcategories | 40 | 40 |
Category | Incheon Metropolitan City | Goyang-si | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | A | B | C | ||||||||
S | M | S | M | S | M | S | M | S | M | S | M | ||
1 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 0.2 |
1.2 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | |
1.3 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 0.0 | |
2 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 0.4 |
2.2 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.6 | |
2.3 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.4 | |
3 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
3.2 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | |
3.3 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 0.4 | |
3.4 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 0.7 | |
3.5 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | |
4 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 2.4 | ||||||
4.2 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 0.2 | |
4.3 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.2 | |||||||
5 | 5.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.2 | ||||||
5.2 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 1.2 | |
5.3 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 |
Category | Plan | Implications |
---|---|---|
Factual basis | A | Some degree of sustainability is considered, but not properly analyzed or not reflecting specific or regional characteristics (1 to mid-2 points). However, the current status analysis is the foundation of the goals and strategies of the plan, so it needs to be more specific. Further, analysis of regional issues and potentials, and clear understanding of future prospects is required. To this end, it is desirable to conduct an analysis using smart technology (big data, etc.), but there is a lack of appropriate application of smart technology in planning. |
B | Compared with the urban master plan, sustainability received similar scores, and smart scores were somewhat higher. Given that the plan focuses on smartness, the smart scores received are not high enough (less than 2 points). The smart urban plan needs to consider sustainability in the current status analysis and reflect adoption of smart technology in future plans. | |
C | Current status analysis and future prospects are not achieved in various aspects owing to the nature of the short-term project, and the analysis using smart technology is limited. The current status analysis is the foundation for the goals and strategies of subsequent projects. Therefore, it is necessary to find smart technologies that can be used for the current status analysis considering the characteristics of urban revitalization projects, such as collecting residents’ opinions through smart living lab, building regional platforms, and data management. | |
Goals and objectives | A | Outlined in terms of sustainability, but not specific or appropriate (high-1 point–2 points). Compared to sustainability in terms of smartness, the goal setting, detailed milestone setting, and target measurement system are not considered.In particular, the target measurement system is associated with the feedback system of the future implementation, monitoring, and improvement direction plan, and it needs to be supplemented. |
B | Sustainability and smartness scores were at similar levels (mid-1–2). As with the basic urban plan, improvement is required because the goal setting, detailed milestone setting, and target measurement system are not fully considered. | |
C | The urban revitalization plan presents specific goals, such as residential improvement and revitalization of the local economy, since the main purpose of the project is urban revitalization. However, considering that these plans aim to promote smart urban revitalization, it is necessary to differentiate them from other types of urban revitalization projects in goal settings related to smartness. | |
Policies and Strategies | A | All three plans focus on physical improvement and supply of infrastructure but do not adequately reflect aspects such as harmony with nature, social equity, inclusion, and resilience. Strategies related to smartness are rarely considered in basic urban and urban revitalization plans. The smart urban plan reflects the smart aspect, but it is difficult to say that it is applied considering sustainability because it only applies smart technology that was introduced from the U-city policy rather than as a means to achieve sustainability. The direction of sustainability and measures to reflect various smart strategies in the plan as a means of sustainability are required. |
B | ||
C | ||
Cooperation(governance) | A | The most inadequate sector alongside the strategies in both basic urban and smart urban plans (1 point range: partially mentioned but not specific or appropriate). The urban revitalization plan receives relatively high scores in establishing a cooperative system given the nature of urban revitalization projects based on residents’ participation. All three plans score close to zero in smartness, indicating that they are rarely considered in the plan. This is due to the lack of smart technologies or planning techniques to promote cooperation systems as well as lack of practical considerations despite the importance of cooperation and governance in planning, so additional related smart technologies and planning techniques are required. |
B | ||
C | ||
Implementation | A | Smartness was hardly reflected in implementation. |
B | Among the detailed areas of implementation, the policy support system scored relatively low and needs to be improved. | |
C | Although it received relatively high scores in implementation compared to the other two plans in terms of sustainability, it is necessary to discover smart technologies and planning techniques that can be used in the implementation due to low scores in terms of smartness. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Choi, H.-S.; Song, S.-K. Direction for a Transition toward Smart Sustainable Cities based on the Diagnosis of Smart City Plans. Smart Cities 2023, 6, 156-178. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6010009
Choi H-S, Song S-K. Direction for a Transition toward Smart Sustainable Cities based on the Diagnosis of Smart City Plans. Smart Cities. 2023; 6(1):156-178. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6010009
Chicago/Turabian StyleChoi, Hee-Sun, and Seul-Ki Song. 2023. "Direction for a Transition toward Smart Sustainable Cities based on the Diagnosis of Smart City Plans" Smart Cities 6, no. 1: 156-178. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6010009