Livability in a Smart Environment: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Sirius Huang and Version 1 by Shimaa Basheir Abdelkarim.

Public spaces play a significant role in improving social, recreational and cultural activities that are inclusive. However, smart public spaces are required to save time and costs, and to provide comfort to the public, ultimately enhancing livability. There are various user requirements and demands to respond to.

  • facility management
  • livability
  • public spaces
  • smart city

1. Introduction

The word smart city was initially devised at the start of the nineties from the economic perspective mainly to highlight an urban development that is reliant on innovation, globalization and technological aspects [1]. Nevertheless, the term smart city has become more prevalent in the last decade, particularly in the urban planning field. However, the approaches and definitions are still varied. The name has been used with very many diverse meanings during the last decade, and the concept risks becoming a different “urban label” [2]. It is an uncertain concept, frequently misused [3]. Despite the vast body of literature and studies on this subject, it is hard to uncover an appropriate and a common meaning for the term smart city [4,5][4][5]. It has been highlighted by Giffinger et al. [4] that the term is used for numerous traits that range from a smart city as an IT district to a smart city concerning education or the smartness of its citizens. Many scholars have tried to put together a common idea of a “smart city” and to “bring order” amid the diverse definitions of the smart city concept. Moreover, over the last decade, a new wave of definitions of the term “Smart City” has surfaced [6]. This new wave emphasizes creativity, social inclusion, human capital, learning and governance. With the varied types of foundation of the concept of a smart city, the core meaning of the label has become unclear and is used in inconsistent ways [6]. Despite the absence of an ordinary meaning of the term smart city, the sectors whose identification is well recognized in the scientific literature are documented as follows: smart people, smart economy, smart governance, smart environment, smart mobility and smart living [4,7,8,9][4][7][8][9].
The term smartness in urban planning fundamentally means efficient urban management. It identifies specific strategic policies which facility management adopts to differentiate new policies and development programs in cities. They associate smart to successful projects with sustainable development, the prosperity of economics and the improvement in livability for the people. As more than half of the population in the world lives in cities, and with the great possibility of this number further increasing in the future, it is essential to ensure that cities continue to provide social benefits for the people’s well-being and the city’s sustainability [10]. The concept of livability becomes more crucial for those who live in cities and their quality of life. The main goal of the UN Human Settlement Program is to motivate more initiatives aimed at enhancing the quality of life and promoting citizens’ involvement in urban environments. To define it, livability refers to the satisfactory state of people with their lives; liveable cities are places with adequate living spaces and social and clean natural environments. Urban facilities management (UFM) is considered to be a new alignment with facility management (FM) [11]. The introduction of UFM adapts the principles of FM from a building level (Micro) to a city level (Macro), wherein the city is seen as the facility. This concept creates an efficient foundation to manage the urban environment properly. This harbors concepts like urban development, planning and policy, governance, public transportation and others to promote public participation and sustainable development. The role of the UFM in this field allows for a flexibility that enables a new and innovative integration of the private and public sectors to benefit society. The process of managing urban development addresses social, environmental and economic problems through adequate and integrated planning of long-term strategies that combine different aspects of a smart city; the city would be able to understand and govern problems through innovative technological solutions [12]. Furthermore, cities like London seek to enhance the quality of life by creatively utilizing modern technologies and exploring new ways of bringing people, data and technology together [6]. The UFM in this case plays an essential role in practicing new innovative strategies to improve livability in cities, and especially in smart public spaces.

2. Smart Cities and Public Spaces

Despite becoming a controversial topic of discussion at the current time, the term “Smart City” originates back to the late 1990s as an integral part of the “smart growth movement” [6]. The term gained wider popularity after being adopted by multiple international technology corporations, including IBM, Cisco and Siemens. The central focus of these global corporations is managing urban infrastructure and services, effectively using information and communication technologies (ICTs). The term has evolved to harbor any form of technology-driven innovation in the management and operation of cities [6]. Criticism by other scholars like Holland [2] soon emerged, questioning the motive of these corporations in alignment with city-making, resulting in reshaping the conceptual basis of smart cities and concluding with several definitions of the term smart city. By now, technology has made its way into people’s lives, the built environment and public spaces; including a collection of intelligent sensors, gadgets, GPS, smart homes, smart health, smart education, smart buildings and smart mobility, changing the way people live and interact with their surroundings. Furthermore, IBM has identified the smart city as an instrumented, interconnected and intelligent city that indicates the city’s capability in terms of real-time data integration through sensors, meters, intelligent appliances and personal devices. Interconnectedness is defined as effective data integration with computer platforms, allowing for information flow through various city services [6]. The heavy emphasis on technology and instrumented approaches neglects the role of the community and civil society, who shape the cities through their interactions. Ultimately, this would drive the definitions of smart cities to be more humanized. Investments undertaken in social development and infrastructure fuel the city’s sustainable growth and enhance the quality of life [5]. This description is considered the most comprehensive as it incorporates the role of ICTs, quality of human lives and social capital. Furthermore, Herath and Mittal [13] identified intelligent devices’ involvement in the smart city’s different domains, as presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Involvement of intelligent devices in different smart city domains—Source: [13].
Smart City Domain Description Involvement
Smart mobility An innovative mobility network is a network of intelligent transportation and mobility Traffic management, autonomous and sustainable mobility, supply chain resiliency, smart routing and parking
Smart Education Smart education is a learning paradigm tailored to the needs of emerging digital native generations Smart classroom, virtual reality-based learning platforms, student tracking management, learning tools for special needs students, smart library
Smart Healthcare Smart healthcare is a healthcare delivery method that uses wearable tech, IoTs and mobile Internet to constantly access data and connect people, resources and institutions Smart hospital, telemedicine, tele-nursing, smart healthcare tracking, e-health record, patient monitoring, pandemic predictions
Smart environment The concept of creating an environment with integrated sensors, displays and computer devices to let people better comprehend and manage their environment Air quality monitoring, weather monitoring, waste management, water management, smart irrigation, photovoltaics
Smart governance Smart governance is the application of technology and innovation to improve decision-making and planning in governing organizations E-governance, decision-making policies, disaster prevention and management, urban planning
Smart living and Infrastructures Smart living is an approach that uses the city’s infrastructure while simultaneously enhancing people’s quality of life Smart building, smart home, smart education, smart tourism, smart policing
Smart Economy A smart economy is an economy centered on technical innovation, sustainability, a high level of social well-being and resource efficiency as factors for success Smart business, e-commerce, retail, smart shopping, peer-to-peer marketplace, peer-to-peer labor services, smart supply chains, smart sharing services

3. Livability in a Smart Environment

Livability falls under the smart city domain of “Smart Living and Infrastructure,” as presented in Table 1. The smart living and infrastructure domain deals with harmonizing an adequate, comfortable environment that guarantees the presence of all required facilities and services [14]. Furthermore, a smart environment can also contribute to the achievement of liveable cities. It relates to the protection of the environment, waste management and sustainable energy competitiveness. The word “livability” is an unmeasurable characteristic; quantitatively measuring the quality of life in an intelligent public city space is impossible [15]. Cities are becoming the principal environment for living and working; therefore, livability and high quality of life have become critical. Adopting a more sustainable positive behavior in a city’s way of life and management leads toward achieving livable future cities [15]. The definition of a livable city is a place wherein citizens like to live and can afford a living. Furthermore, it describes the frame of conditions by which a decent and proper life is provided for all residents and visitors of the city, including physical and mental well-being. The term livability is based on the principles of smart and sustainable cities, and therefore, it is sensitive to nature and the protection of its resources. The foundations of the idea of “livability” in urban liveable cities, originate from Jacobs’ “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, where Jacob believed that good cities motivate and encourage social interactions [16]. Based on Jacobs’ ideas, other scholars have defined the concept of livability as the city being liveable in terms of public health, comfort and a beautiful living environment [17]. Moreover, Douglass [18] associates livability with the environment and human well-being. The easy access to work and recreational spaces and infrastructure that enable a healthy lifestyle for the people in these public spaces is considered necessary, as per Evans’ study [19]. Researchers have explored many concepts and elements of livability over the years; Table 2 presents the key elements frequently discussed in the literature.
Table 2.
Livability elements/dimensions.
# Reference Element/Dimension of Livability
1 [17,[20,1721]][20][21] Comfort, convenience, beauty
2 [22] Natural environment, neighborhood relationships, community location
3 [18,20][18][20] Environment (fresh air, adequate clean water, ability to deal with garbage, less poverty, improved employment) and human well-being (access to educational and healthcare infrastructure, access to public open space, social connection)
4 [19,23][19][23] Easy access to working and recreational areas, infrastructure, green space
5 [20,21][20][21] Functional infrastructure, accessible parks and interesting cultural activities and identity, sense of community
6 [20] Attractive pedestrian-oriented public realm
7 [21] Freedom and autonomy, influence and respect, purpose and expression
8 [23,24][23][24] Improving transportation
9 [20,21,25][20][21][25] Interaction, social cohesion and human physical activity
10 [26] Increasing accessibility to public open space, environmental issues
11 [23,27][23][27] Fairness, dignity, accessibility, amenity, participation and right of authority
12 [27] Fairness of access to green space, basic services infrastructure, citizen mobility and participation in decision-making
13 [20,21,23][20][21][23] Quality of life, health, sense of safety, security and privacy, cost of living, air quality

References

  1. Gibson, D.; Kozmetsky, G.; Smilor, R. The Technopolis Phenomenon: Smart Cities, Fast Systems, Global Networks; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 1992; pp. 1–380. ISBN 0847677583.
  2. Holland, R.G. Will the Real Smart City Please Stand Up? City 2008, 12, 303–320.
  3. Nam, T.; Pardo, T. Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology People Institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Digital Government Research, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011.
  4. Giffinger, R.; Fertner, C.; Kramar, H.; Meijers, E. Smart Cities: Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities. Centre of Regional Science; Vienna University of Technology: Vienna, Austria, 2007; pp. 7–25. Available online: https://ign.ku.dk/ansatte/landskabsarkitektur-planlaegning/?pure=files%2F37640170%2Fsmart_cities_final_report.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2022).
  5. Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.; Nijkamp, P. Smart Cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2009, 18, 65–82.
  6. Praharaj, S.; Han, H. Cutting Through The Clutter of Smart City Definitions: A Reading into the Smart City Perceptions in India. City Cult. Soc. 2019, 18, 100289.
  7. Komninos, N. Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems and Digital Spaces; Spon Press: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2002.
  8. Shapiro, J. Smart Cities: Quality of Life, Productivity, and the Growth Effects of Human Capital. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2006, 88, 324–335.
  9. Van Soom, E. Measuring levels of supply and demand for e-services and e-government: A toolkit for cities. Smart Cities Res. Brief 2009. Available online: http://www.smartcities.info/research-briefs (accessed on 13 May 2022).
  10. Ma, J. Green Infrastructure and Urban Liveability: Measuring Accessibility and Equity. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Creative Arts and Industries, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 2016; pp. 1–256. Available online: https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/31220 (accessed on 28 July 2023).
  11. Boyle, L.; Michell, K. Urban Facilities Management: A Systemic Process for Achieving Urban Sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2017, 12, 446–456.
  12. Gao, Z.; Wang, S.; Gu, J. Public Participation in Smart-City Governance: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Public Comments in Urban China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8605.
  13. Herath, H.M.K.K.M.B.; Mittal, M. Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Smart Cities: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Data Insights 2022, 2, 100076.
  14. Rachmawati, R. Smart Cities: Progress and Challenge in Establishing Liveable Cities. In AUC 2019, Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements; Huong, L.T.T., Pomeroy, G.M., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2021; pp. 307–316.
  15. Sofeska, E. Understanding the livability in a City through Smart Solutions and Urban Planning toward Developing Sustainable Livable Future of the City of Skopje. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 37, 442–453.
  16. Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities; Vintage: New York, NY, USA, 1961.
  17. Smith, D.L. Amenity and Urban Planning; Crosby Lockwood Staples: London, UK, 1974.
  18. Douglass, M. From global intercity competition to cooperation for livable cities and economic resilience in Pacific Asia. Environ. Urban. 2002, 14, 53–68.
  19. Evans, P. Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2002.
  20. Leby, J.; Hashim, A. Liveability Dimensions and Attributes: Their Relative Importance in the Eyes of Neighbourhood Residents. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2010, 15, 67–91.
  21. Haan, F.; Ferguson, B.; Adamowicz, R.; Johnstone, P.; Brown, R.; Wong, T. The Needs of Society: A New Understanding of Transitions, Sustainability and Liveability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. J. 2013, 85, 121–132.
  22. Lennard, S.H.C.; Lennard, H.L.; Bert, P. Livable Cities: People and Places: Social and Design Principles for the Future of the City; Gondolier Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  23. Kennedy, R.; Buys, L. Dimensions of Liveability: A Tool for Sustainable Cities. 2010, pp. 1–11. Available online: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/38526/1/38526.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2023).
  24. Spinney, J.E.L.; Scott, D.M.; Newbold, K.B. Transport mobility benefits and quality of life: A time-use perspective of elderly Canadians. Transp. Policy 2009, 16, 1–11.
  25. Keles, R. The Quality of Life and the Environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 35, 23–32.
  26. Nasution, A.D.; Zahrah, W. Public Open Space Privatization and Quality of Life, Case Study Merdeka Square Medan. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 36, 466–475.
  27. Palej, A. Architecture for, by and with Children: A Way to Teach Livable City. Presented at the International Making Cities Livable Conference, Vienna, Austria, 4–8 July 2000.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback