Podcast transcript: Smart Cities ( 2020/21 Semester 2)
This podcast is part of the UCIL Digital Society course from the University of Manchester running in 2020/21 Semester 2. The story it relates to is hosted on Medium and can be found here.
In this podcast, Jade and George from the Library Student Team review the topic, Smart cities, discussing some of the themes you have raised so far.
TRANSCRIPT
George: Hello, my name is George, from the Library Student Team
Jade: And, I am Jade, also from the Library Student Team. Today we will be discussing your comments on ‘Smart Cities’, which was covered this week. Thank you for actively participating in the discussions about the impact of technology on where we live, work and play. Your comments and suggestions open the doors to lots of great questions and conversations, and we really enjoyed reading them.
George: The topic started off by introducing what we mean by Smart Cities with some possible definitions. Then you were asked to provide your own take on what makes a Smart City, and how they might differ from non-Smart Cities.
Jade: Now, overwhelmingly your responses to this question suggested that Smart Cities aim to make life better for their people (although whether they actually achieve this was questioned). On paper, they “increase quality of life”, “benefit society” and “make life easier.” What’s interesting is that only one of you mentioned that Smart Cities can also “boost the economy.”
George: Yeah, I picked up on this as well, and I would agree, because I think we can’t ignore the fact that in a global free-market economy, cities are somewhat forced to compete with each other to attract and retain investors, developers and businesses which will provide jobs and skilled workers to do those jobs. Implementing Smart City changes could make a city more attractive to these groups who will drive the local economy, which in turn could provide the money to make the city even Smarter. However, will cities that are unable to implement these changes be left behind, becoming less attractive than ‘competing’ cities? If so, we need to consider how we can prevent this from happening.
Jade: Next, you read about the top-down ‘Smart City 1.0’ approach. Two examples included Songdo, South Korea, which arguably failed due to a lack of connection between people and place, and the Rio de Janeiro control room, which in a world that is increasingly concerned about state surveillance, understandably was met with disdain.
George: So if the top-down approach didn’t work, then maybe the bottom-up approach of Smart Cities 2.0, which is supposedly more people-centric, will? An interesting view noted that smart cities built from scratch like Songdo fail because of the significance of space. This keys into a concept known as ‘place attachment’ which is the emotional bond between person and place. It’s the reason why people who have lived in one place for a very long time are reluctant to move and resistant to changes to their neighbourhood. Now, people develop place attachment for lots of reasons such as familiarity, sense of identity or feelings of belonging to a community, and these bonds strengthen over time. Place attachment (or lack of) can have massive implications on people’s mental health as well as the success of a town or city.
Jade: As one of you mentioned earlier, in Smart Cities, “the technology resides in the city’s core, and is used in many different ways for the benefits of the people.” This means we almost have to retrofit existing cities with new technologies to build Smart Cities that people actually want to live and work in. This discussion around instrumenting cities led to the point about Uber and Airbnb being banned in some cities. This is significant, especially in light of many of your responses to the first question. If Smart City technologies are supposed to improve people’s quality of life, then we must not forget about the workers who enable these technologies and systems to operate.
George: We then turned to the challenges to successful implementation of Smart Cities 2.0. The most significant of these seems to be the digital divide that exists across the world, because not everyone is or wants to be online. Along these lines, we asked you to consider how we could reduce the digital divide and ensure everyone benefits from the Smart City. Your suggestions ranged from introducing classes for older people who didn’t grow up around the internet or technology, to resolving data privacy issues, and increasing access to the internet through financial aid and technical support. One of you noted that “showing [the population] how the system works will ensure that they are using the smart city to the best of its capacity, [and that] making the different interfaces simple to use would also be very beneficial…” Indeed, the simpler the system is to use, the more likely it is to be embraced, especially by the older generation who may not be comfortable with the internet or technology. A simple system is nevertheless also likely to benefit the younger generation who may not want to engage with overly complex systems.
Jade: Despite the measures that could enhance the success of Smart Cities 2.0, you acknowledged that reducing the current digital divide is unlikely to be a quick process. This is especially because “there still remains those who do not want anything to do with [technology].” And like you said, some people may not “use it because they simply do not need it. … [Such people may] have spent their entire life living [without technology] and [may therefore] have habits that would become useless if technology was there to substitute it.” You noted nonetheless that “the more action that is taken to equip cities with these technologies, and the more appealing these technologies are made to people, the quicker the process will be.” It’s all about taking it one step at a time, and making sure that no one is left behind and ensuring that everyone has equal opportunities to participate.
George: Thereafter, we highlighted the recent emergence of Smart Cities 3.0. Smart Cities 3.0 aims to create a more positive link between local governments and their people, by empowering the people and improving their wellbeing. With this in mind, we asked whether you feel positively towards Smart Cities, given everything you’ve learned so far. 77% of you said ‘yes’. No one said ‘no’, but 10% of you were ‘unsure’, while 13% said ‘maybe’. This suggests a strong belief that Smart Cities have something to offer everyone, irrespective of the digital divide and how confident people are using technology.
Jade: The current digital divide means that the application of Smart City tech is likely to vary from one place to another, and from time to time. Because of this, we asked you to reflect on how Smart City tech could benefit a location that you are familiar with. You identified congestion, parking, and journey-planning as some of the areas that could benefit most from Smart City tech. Referring to your home village, one of you noted that “smart tech could be introduced with an app or similar that showed when trains would be coming through. Such a technology could [enable] residents [to] plan their day around the train journeys to avoid distraction.” Dave, one of the DigiSoc staff members, highlighted the barriers created by inadequate local broadband infrastructure, given that we mostly have to study and work from home because of lockdown. Depending on where you live, you may have experienced a similar problem. I certainly have! I’ve been cut off a few Teams or Zoom calls because of interruptions to my internet connection. This validates the suggestion you made about improving the internet infrastructure as a means to reduce the existing digital divide.
George: With that, we came to the end of this week’s discussion. Thank you once again for the comments you provided. We hope you found the topic and the views of your colleagues insightful. The topic is still open for discussion, so if you’d like to share any thoughts with us, please feel free to do so on the Medium post. All the best for next week’s topic, and the rest of the course.
Until next time, Good bye!
