Socio-political aspects of the implementation of smart urbanism projects

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The development and implementation of digital monitoring and management projects in leading urban centers is a current trend in urban development processes and the provision of modern municipal services. Digitalization of urban management processes based on information and communication technologies and artificial intelligence is designed to address issues of digital economy development, improving the comfort of citizens, energy efficiency, and environmental friendliness. However, the implementation of smart urbanism projects also carries significant socio-political aspects associated with a significant transformation of the system and forms of urban policy, issues of forming the public-private nature of urban management, processes related to local identity, as well as in the field of international political activities of cities. The relevance of the study is also due to the intensification of the processes of implementing smart urbanism projects in leading urban centers. Digital urban infrastructure has become almost mandatory for the successful development of global cities. Large cities and capitals of states also implement these projects to one degree or another. Thus, the objective of this research is to study the main socio-political aspects and factors inherent in the concept of a smart city in order to successfully and harmoniously implement these projects.

About the authors

Maksim I. Kolykhalov

Siberian Institute of Management - a branch of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: maxim_kolykhalov@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3137-1889
SPIN-code: 2099-7828
Scopus Author ID: 57204359783

PhD in Political Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of State and Municipal Administration

6 Nizhegorodskaya, Novosibirsk, 630102, Russian Federation

References

  1. Akbari A. Authoritarian smart city: A research agenda. Surveillance and society. 2022;20(4):441–449. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v20i4.15964
  2. Fedonenko MV. Experience of developing “smart” cities in the modern world. Social-­Economic Phenomena аnd Processes. 2019;14(2):61–72. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20310/1819-8813-2019-14-2 (106)-61-72
  3. Sharifi A, Allam Z, Feizizadeh B, Ghamari H. Three decades of research on smart cities: Mapping knowledge structure and trends. Sustainability. 2021;13(13):7140–7142. 10.3390/su13137140' target='_blank'>https://doi.org/doi: 10.3390/su13137140
  4. Luque-­Ayala A, Marvin S. Developing a critical understanding of smart urbanism? Urban Studies. 2015;52(12):2105–2116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015577319
  5. Vuolteenaho J, Leurs K, Sumiala J. Digital urbanisms: Exploring the spectacular, ordinary and contested facets of the media city. Observtorio. 2015;9(4):1–21. https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS002015970
  6. Taylor Buck N, While A. Competitive urbanism and the limits to smart city innovation: The UK future cities initiative. Urban Studies. 2017;54(2):501–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015597162
  7. Firmino R, Duarte F. Private video monitoring of public spaces: The construction of new invisible territories. Urban Studies. 2016;53(4):741–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014567064
  8. Kong L, Woods O. The ideological alignment of smart urbanism in Singapore: Critical reflections on a political paradox. Urban Studies. 2018;55(4):679–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017746528
  9. Baranov AV, Garas LN. “Smart city” in socio-­political projection (the case of Barcelona). Administrative Consulting. 2022;(1):103–114. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2022-1-103-114
  10. Wiig A, Wyly E. Introduction: Thinking through the politics of the smart city. Urban Geography. 2016;37(4):485–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1178479
  11. Farías I, Blok A. Technical democracy as a challenge to urban studies. City. 2016;20 (4):539–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2016.1192418
  12. Kolykhalov MI. Socio-­humanitarian dimension of the concept of “smart city”. Society: Politics, Economics, Law. 2024;(8):45–50. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24158/pep.2024.8.5
  13. Barns S, Cosgrave E, Acuto M, et al. Digital infrastructures and urban governance. Urban Policy and Research. 2017; 35(1):20–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2016.1235032
  14. Odintsov AV. Major risks of implementation of “smart city” concept. Sociodynamics. 2019;(10):1–8. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-7144.2019.10.30636
  15. Townsend A. Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 2013. 400 p.
  16. Shelton T, Zook M, Wiig A. The “actually existing smart city”. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. 2015;8(1):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu026
  17. Vasilenko IA. “Singapore miracle” in the focus of political analysis: Temptation and disappointment in the Asian high-­tech utopia. Vlast`. 2018;26(6):169–175. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v26i6.5907
  18. Kitchin R. Making sense of smart cities: Addressing present shortcomings. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. 2015;8(1):131–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu027
  19. Vanolo A. Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies. 2014;51(5):883–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013494427
  20. Kolykhalov MI. Theoretical aspects of the international activity of megacities in the transnational urban network. Regionology. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2022;30(4):961–979. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.121.030.202204.961-979

Copyright (c) 2024 Kolykhalov M.I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies