The modern mantra among urban planners, developers and governments is building smart cities. But what does creating a dynamic, healthy living and functional space actually entail? A report out last week by Machina Research, specialists in Internet of Things (IoT), tries to offer snapshots on the different definitions prevalent and the three routes that cities can take towards this end.
It zeroes in, from amongst a horde of definitions, on the one offered by a focus group on smart sustainable cities. This is how it goes: “A smart sustainable city is an innovative city that uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) and other methods to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social and environmental aspects.”
Arguing that there are different ways a city can reach this destination and a combination of applications, what is common to all is the use of technology and innovation to achieve these goals. A city could turn smart in a variety of ways, be it by improving operational efficiencies, focussing on its transport, waste and sustainability practices, turning to renewable energy sources or providing citizens e-education and e-governance.
The report groups city-oriented IoT applications into three broad categories: Smart Living applications that would make life easier; Smart Safety applications that would address crime, accidents, natural disasters, pollution, among others; and Smart Sustainability applications that would help reduce the environmental impact.
The report surveys 22 countries (including Delhi and Pune) across the world involved in the exercise of going ‘smart’, assessing them for the above three smart categories. It checks out what stage each one is in and learning from the experiences of many, it suggests three routes that can take cities closer to aim of becoming a ‘mature smart city’.
The first, christened the ‘anchor’ route, requires cities to add working applications in series. “Here a city has a clear and pressing need for its ‘anchor’ application, to which others are then added as priorities dictate”, explains the report.
In the second ‘platform’ route the city focuses on “deploying infrastructure first so that a number of applications can be delivered later”.
In the third ‘beta city’ route, a city must keep experimenting with multiple applications without a finalised plan on how to bring its pilots to full operational deployment. “Beta cities accept that the currently available technologies and business models can only be provisional and prioritise hands-on experience over short-term or medium-term tangible benefits”.
Illustrating the advantages and disadvantages of each of the routes, the report, sponsored by Nokia, emphasises that no one solution is superior to the other and that sometimes cities can employ more than one route to turn ‘smart’. That of course depends on the city’s infrastructure, environment and population status, its priorities and resources.
For instance, in the case of Delhi, only Lutyen’s New Delhi area has been marked out in the government’s 100-city Smart Cities Mission programme. Consultations are underway and the ‘pain points’ for citizens have been identified, including water, electricity, and internet access. The roll out, however, will only address the affluent areas and may be of no benefit to a majority of citizens.
For Pune it is early days. Identified for turning ‘smart’ only in January this year, the second-largest city in Maharashtra is using communication as one of the important tools to identify the views and needs of the public. The report quotes the Municipal Commissioner, Kunal Kumar, who says he is overwhelmed with the desire of citizens to participate in the process.
The report concludes that there is no consensus on the destination of the smart city journey. Besides, there are also wide differences on the route and the mode of travel. In short, this means as it were, to each its own route.