Can Smart Cities Really Deliver Urban Sustainability?

Governance Networks, Sensor-

based Big Data Applications, and the Citizen-driven Internet of Things
Author(s): Kim Wener
Source: Geopolitics, History, and International Relations , Vol. 11, No. 1 (2019), pp. 104-
109
Published by: Addleton Academic Publishers

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26805983

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26805983?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Addleton Academic Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Geopolitics, History, and International Relations

This content downloaded from

103.23.103.97 on Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:04:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 11(1), 2019
pp. 104–109, ISSN 1948-9145, eISSN 2374-4383

Can Smart Cities Really Deliver Urban Sustainability?

Governance Networks, Sensor-based Big Data Applications,
and the Citizen-driven Internet of Things

Kim Wener
k.wener@aa-er.org
The Cognitive Labor Institute,
New York City, USA

ABSTRACT. Empirical research provides mixed results regarding whether smart cities
really deliver urban sustainability. Using and replicating data from Black & Veatch, ESI
ThoughtLab, Grand View Research, PwC, and Statista, I performed analyses and made
estimates regarding the most effective financing model for smart city initiatives (%), the
global smart city market (US$ bn, 2018–2025), Internet of Things connected devices
installed base worldwide (2015–2025, in billions), installed base of connected things within
smart cities (2015–2020, in billions), and installed base of connected things within the
public service sector of smart cities (2015–2020, in millions). Data were analyzed using
structural equation modeling.
Keywords: smart city; urban sustainability; citizen-driven Internet of Things; governance
How to cite: Wener, Kim (2019). “Can Smart Cities Really Deliver Urban Sustainability? Gover-
nance Networks, Sensor-based Big Data Applications, and the Citizen-driven Internet of Things,”
Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 11(1): 104–109. doi:10.22381/GHIR11120196
Received 22 December 2018 • Received in revised form 14 May 2019
Accepted 20 May 2019 • Available online 1 June 2019

1. Introduction
Sensor-based big data applications facilitated by the Internet of Things for environ-
mental sustainability and associated information processing platforms and computing
patterns are instrumental in the framework of smart sustainable cities. (Bibri, 2018)
The Internet of Things epoch is advancing into sensor-established, actuation-led, and
machine statistics-based decision making platform for smart urban areas. (Habib-
zadeh et al., 2018) Smart city proposals are an effective determinant for investigating
incipient issues of current cities via the perspective of emerging technologies, but
the conversion of such prospects into concrete urban enactments frequently does not
assign the citizen practice a leading position due to the coherence and enhancement
of metropolitan operations and systems. (Andreani et al., 2019)
104

This content downloaded from

103.23.103.97 on Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:04:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2. Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
Smart city technologies devised to catalyze urban flexibility and diminish risks are
exposing the metropolitan systems designed to enhance to groundbreaking types of
liability and threat: city infrastructure and services are precarious, friable, and open
to pervasive kinds of destruction, disorder, and lawbreaking misuse. (Kitchin and
Dodge, 2019) Facilitated by the Internet of Things as a form of ubiquitous com-
puting, big data applications are extremely relevant to smart sustainable cities
regarding their operational activity and organization to strengthen their influence to
the objectives of environmentally sustainable advancement. (Bibri, 2018) A smart
city system pursues a smooth and reliable link of sensors, actuators, and information
processing resources to provide digital, coherent, and secure services. (Habibzadeh
et al., 2018) City governments should concentrate on establishing regulatory and
facilitative settings for the most important stakeholders in the ecosystem to
stimulate and further citizen-led Internet of Things interferences that would lead to
setting up inclusive smart cities. (Kummitha and Crutzen, 2019)

3. Methodology and Empirical Analysis

Using and replicating data from Black & Veatch, ESI ThoughtLab, Grand View
Research, PwC, and Statista, I performed analyses and made estimates regarding
the most effective financing model for smart city initiatives (%), the global smart
city market (US$ bn, 2018–2025), Internet of Things connected devices installed
base worldwide (2015–2025, in billions), installed base of connected things within
smart cities (2015–2020, in billions), and installed base of connected things within
the public service sector of smart cities (2015–2020, in millions). Data were analyzed
using structural equation modeling.

4. Results and Discussion

As smart city technologies depend on networked digital computation, malicious
software can take advantage of their weaknesses at distance and intrusions can be
undetectable, diminishing the risk of identification and imprisonment for wrong-
doers. (Kitchin and Dodge, 2019) Adjusting current communication conventions and
infrastructures to connect vastly utilized sensors and information processing/
storage resources creates unprecedented network challenges for smart urban areas.
(Habibzadeh et al., 2018) Internet of Things constitutes an emerging technology for
smart cities that links diverse digital devices online, thus supplying numerous
innovative facilities. (Sodhro et al., 2019) Because cities all over the world seek to
utilize digital technologies to their advancement, growing attention resides on the
possible difficult tasks and issues associated with data-driven urban routines.
(Bunders and Varró, 2019) (Tables 1–8)

105

This content downloaded from

103.23.103.97 on Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:04:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 1 The most effective financing model for smart city initiatives
(Select all that apply, %)
Public–private partnerships 62.9
Government grants/subsidies 54.6
Tax incentives 40.2
Property taxes 19.9
Self-funded 11.2
Only municipal funds 8.6
Only private funds 6.8
Sources: Black & Veatch; my survey among 5,600 individuals conducted November 2018.

Table 2 Which of the following did your municipality/administration

collaborate with to help determine the focus of your
smart city initiatives? (%, Select top two choices.)
Utilities 43.1
State or regional organization 33.6
Elected officials 32.1
Private companies 30.4
Academia 23.6
Non-profit, non-government organizations 23.3
Individual community members 21.8
Sources: Black & Veatch; my survey among 5,600 individuals conducted November 2018.

Table 3 The global smart city market (US$ bn, 2018–2025)

Revenue Growth rate (%)
2018 738 16.3
2019 860 17.5
2020 1,010 18.5
2021 1,196 19.5
2022 1,431 20.6
2023 1,726 21.8
2024 2,099 23.1
2025 2,582 26.2
Sources: Grand View Research; PwC; my 2019 data.

Table 4 Overall, how well prepared is your city for cyberattacks?

Beginner Transitioning Leader
Slightly prepared 74 7 1
Moderately prepared 32 59 28
Well prepared 1 39 50
Very well prepared 1 7 32
Sources: ESI ThoughtLab; my survey among 5,600 individuals conducted November 2018.

106

This content downloaded from

103.23.103.97 on Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:04:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 5 Please indicate your level of agreement
with the following statements. Select one in each row
Citizens’ views on the cities they live in Leader Transitioning Beginner
Information about city programs and services 67 64 46
is widely available.
My city is well managed and makes 66 62 43
effective decisions.
My city provides efficient services 60 59 40
to its citizens.
My city is a good place to work 62 67 53
and start a business.
My city government is open to new, 59 64 49
innovative technology and ideas.
My city is a good place to live 56 70 53
and raise children.
The overall quality of city services is high 55 62 40
and delivered with the citizen in mind.
My city government cares about citizens 52 57 37
and invests in my community.
It is easy to interact with city departments 57 60 38
and agencies.
There are effective channels for citizens 53 56 35
to give their input into city decisions.
I would be happy to pay a premium 52 62 62
for improved city services.
My city’s government suffers from corruption. 41 54 64
I plan to move out of my city over 34 42 47
the next five years.
Sources: ESI ThoughtLab; my survey among 5,600 individuals conducted November 2018.

Table 6 Internet of Things connected devices installed base worldwide

(2015–2025, in billions)
2015 15.41
2016 17.68
2017 20.35
2018 23.14
2019 27.12
2020 31.47
2021 36.14
2022 43.39
2023 52.66
2024 63.77
2025 76.59
Sources: Statista; my estimates.

107

This content downloaded from

103.23.103.97 on Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:04:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 7 Installed base of connected things within smart cities (2015–2020, in billions)
2015 1.21
2016 1.79
2017 2.64
2018 3.89
2019 4.64
2020 5.26
Sources: Statista; my estimates.

Table 8 Installed base of connected things within the public service sector
of smart cities (2015–2020, in millions)
2015 79.2
2016 104.8
2017 134.9
2018 168.8
2019 170.2
2020 172.6
Sources: Statista; my estimates.

5. Conclusions and Implications

The prospects of the Internet of Things and its indispensable big data analytics reside
in facilitating smart cities to capitalize on their informational setting by utilizing,
carrying out, and integrating the associated ecosystems (Balica, 2018; Jouët, 2018;
Neary et al., 2018; Nica, 2018a, b; Pilkington, 2017; Popescu Ljungholm, 2017,
2018) to improve their operations, designs, and services according to the concep-
tualization of environmental sustainability. (Bibri, 2018) Prevalence of smart city
services are effected by the networking of communication and sensing technologies,
while their soundness and flexibility require adapted security and privacy ways out.
(Habibzadeh et al., 2018) Smart cities’ service suppliers may use widespread
formidable Internet of Things technology platforms. (Abbate et al., 2019) Smart
city represents an omnipresent paradigm shift which has restructured the whole
setting with the backing of data and communication technology, sensor-enabled
Internet of Things devices. (Sodhro et al., 2019)

Funding
This paper was supported by Grant GE-1894472 from the Social Analytics Laboratory, Los
Angeles, CA.

Author Contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
108

This content downloaded from

103.23.103.97 on Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:04:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REFERENCES

Abbate, T., F. Cesaroni, M. C. Cinici, and M. Villari (2019). “Business Models for
Developing Smart Cities. A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of an IoT
Platform,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 142: 183–193.
Andreani, S., M. Kalchschmidt, R. Pinto, and A. Sayegh (2019). “Reframing Technologically
Enhanced Urban Scenarios: A Design Research Model towards Human Centered Smart
cities,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 142: 15–25.
Balica, R. (2018). “Big Data Learning Analytics and Algorithmic Decision-Making in
Digital Education Governance,” Analysis and Metaphysics 17: 128–133.
Bibri, S. E. (2018). “The IoT for Smart Sustainable Cities of the Future: An Analytical
Framework for Sensor-based Big Data Applications for Environmental Sustainability,”
Sustainable Cities and Society 38: 230–253.
Bunders, D. J., and K. Varró (2019). “Problematizing Data-driven Urban Practices: Insights
from Five Dutch ‘Smart Cities,’” Cities 93: 145–152.
Habibzadeh, H., T. Soyata, B. Kantarci, A. Boukerche, and C. Kaptan (2018). “Sensing,
Communication and Security Planes: A New Challenge for a Smart City System
Design,” Computer Networks 144: 163–200.
Jouët, J. (2018). “Digital Feminism: Questioning the Renewal of Activism,” Journal of
Research in Gender Studies 8(1): 133–157.
Kitchin, R., and M. Dodge (2019). “The (In)Security of Smart Cities: Vulnerabilities,
Risks, Mitigation, and Prevention,” Journal of Urban Technology 26(2): 47–65.
Kummitha, R. K. R., and N. Crutzen (2019). “Smart Cities and the Citizen-driven Internet
of Things: A Qualitative Inquiry into an Emerging Smart City,” Technological Fore-
casting and Social Change 140: 44–53.
Neary, B., J. Horák, M. Kovacova, and K. Valaskova (2018). “The Future of Work: Dis-
ruptive Business Practices, Technology-Driven Economic Growth, and Computer-
Induced Job Displacement,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics
6(4): 19–24.
Nica, E. (2018a). “Gig-based Working Arrangements: Business Patterns, Labor-Management
Practices, and Regulations,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 13(1):
100–105.
Nica, E. (2018b). “Will Robots Take the Jobs of Human Workers? Disruptive Technologies
that May Bring About Jobless Growth and Enduring Mass Unemployment,”
Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management 6(2): 56–61.
Pilkington, O. A. (2017). “Structural Complexity of Popular Science Narratives of Dis-
covery as an Indicator of Reader-awareness: A Labov-inspired Approach,” Linguistic
and Philosophical Investigations 16: 7–28.
Popescu Ljungholm, D. (2017). “Global Policy Mechanisms, Intergovernmental Power
Politics, and Democratic Decision-Making Modes of Transnational Public Admin-
istration,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 9(2): 199–205.
Popescu Ljungholm, D. (2018). “Employee–Employer Relationships in the Gig Economy:
Harmonizing and Consolidating Labor Regulations and Safety Nets,” Contemporary
Readings in Law and Social Justice 10(1): 144–150.
Sodhro, A. H., S. Pirbhulal, Z. Luo, and V. H. C. de Albuquerque (2019). “Towards an
Optimal Resource Management for IoT Based Green and Sustainable Smart Cities,”
Journal of Cleaner Production 220: 1167–1179.

109

This content downloaded from

103.23.103.97 on Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:04:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms