1

LocationawarenessandUbiquitousCities:

AreporttotheUCityResearchInstitute,YonseiUniversity,S.Korea

Prof.MikeJackson,DrZoeGardnerandDrThomasWainwright,

CentreofGeospatialScience,

TheUniversityofNottingham

Nottingham,NG72TU

UK

30June2011

2

ExecutiveSummary

TheresearchundertakenforthisReportaddressesthequestion:

Does the convergence of previously discrete strands of information and communicationstechnology(ICT),throughthemediumof locationawareness,offeran integratingframeworkfortheimplementationofcitizenfriendlyubiquitouscities?

In attempting to answer this question the report examines the different concepts of theubiquitouscityandcloselyalignedconceptssuchasthedigitalcity,intelligentcityandambientsociety,inordertoexplore:

(i) howUCitiesaredifferenttoearliertechnologicalcities,and

(ii) whatchallengesandopportunitiesUCitiesbring.

The report reviews existing city and interoperability case studies and argues that recentdevelopments in theconvergenceof ICTand locationaware technologyarenowmaking theUCityvisionarealisablegoal.

TheUCityconcepthasbeenheavilypredicatedonthedevelopmentofinteroperabilitystandards.Thesestandardsareenablingtheblendingofmultiplestrandsofinformationandcommunicationstechnologyandeservicestocaptureanddistributerich,contextrelateddata.

Thereportalsooutlinessomeofthepotential limitationsexperiencedbydigital, intelligent,andambient cities that may affect UCities. It makes recommendations regarding the future oflocationaware ICT inurbanplanningandmanagement. Finally, itexamines the roleof crowdsourcing and public participation in the acquisition and sharing of data and the consequentimplicationsfortheroleofgovernmentinurbangovernance,planningandmanagement.TheReportsfindingsandrecommendationsare:

Finding (1): UCitiesmaybe viewed as a further evolutionof the generic intelligent cityconcept.Assuch,lessonscanbelearnedfrompreviouscasestudiesandfromthefailingsofsomeoftheearlierEUdigitalcitiesofthe1990s.These lessons includeenablingcitizenstotakepartinthemanagementanddevelopmentofcityprojectsandplanning. Thishelpstoensure that technological services incitiesserve theprioritiesasperceivedby thecitizensinvolvedaswellasthegovernmentorcityagencypriorities.

3

Recommendation (1): It is recommended that a joint study ispursued,buildingon thisreport, that examines in detail the successes and failures of both European and SouthKoreanIntelligentCityprogrammessoastoshareexperiences,extractmorebenefitfrompastprogrammesandprovidethebasisofpotentiallynewcollaborativeresearch.

Finding(2):TheabilitytobreathelifeintothetechnologicalconceptoftheUCityrequiresadvances in the understanding of the dynamics of how virtual, physical and emotionalroutinesofworkandleisureareplayedoutintheeverydaycity.Currentmobilelocationawaretechnologyandadvancesinspatialdatacapture,whichencouragesbothdirectedandincidentalcrowdparticipation,providestheinfrastructurefortheresearchnecessarytogainthisunderstanding.

Recommendation(2):Avigorousprogrammeofresearchshouldbeprogressedusingthelatest and emerging developments in mobile location aware technology and crowdsourced data to gain a deeper understanding of the separate and interacting spatialpatternsofwork,familyandsocialactivityinUCities.

Finding (3): Data harmonisation and interoperability between data, services and service

components is critical for success in the implementation of UCity policies. Thisharmonisationandinteroperabilityneedstoembracenewsourcesofdatafromsensorwebandcrowdsourcedinputs.

Recommendation(3):TheUCitiesprogrammeshouldbuildsolutionsthatarecompatiblewith the leadingde jureandde facto standards for geospatialdata and services, thesebeing the standardsof the InternationalStandardsOrganisation, TechnicalCommittees211 and 204 [TC211/TC204] and the Open Geospatial Consortium organisation,respectively. These standards, however, will need to be extended to incorporate newsources of data (e.g. crowdsourced) and new technological developments (seeRecommendation4).

Finding (4): There is an inevitable tension between the rapid evolution of the locationawaretechnologiesthatarecentraltotheUCityvisionandtheneedforstandardisationtoaidharmonisationand interoperability. SouthKoreanorganisationshaveplayedakeyroleinthestandardsdevelopment[e.g.intheevolutionofISO19157DataQualityStandardandinProject19154onUbiquitousPublicAccess)anditwillbeimportantthattheycontinuetodoso,sothatfutureUCitydevelopmentscanbebuiltongloballyagreedstandards.Recommendation(4):SouthKoreanorganisationsshouldcontinuetoplayanactiveroleintheISOandOGCdevelopmentofstandardsandcontributetheiruniqueUCityexperiencetowards the widening of the standards to address crowdsourced data and ubiquitouspublicaccess.

4

Contents PageExecutiveSummary 2

Contents 4

ListofTables 6

1:Introduction 7

1.1Background

1.1.1AimsoftheReport 9

1.1.2ReportStructure 10

1.2(Re)definingtheCity:AComparativeViewofTechnologicalCityParadigms 11

1.2.1LookingInsidetheIntelligentCity:HistoricalDevelopmentofAmbient

andUbiquitousTechnologies

11

1.2.2TheDigitalCity 12

1.2.3TheSmartCity 13

1.2.4TheAmbientCity 14

1.2.5TheUbiquitousCity 16

1.2.6TowardsaComparativeTypologyofIntelligentCities 18

2:ICTandurbanplanning:ExamplesfromEurope,AsiaandtheUnitedStates 20

2.1ICTandUrbanPlanninginEurope 20

2.1.1EuropeanDigitalCities 20

2.1.2AmbientTechnologies 22

2.1.3CityWideProjects 23

2.1.4CrossborderInitiatives 23

2.1.4.1TheINSPIREDirective 23

2.1.4.2GIS4EU 24

2.1.4.3UCityRelevance:WesttoEast 25

2.1.5Summary:CharacterisingEuropeanApproachestotheKnowledge

BasedSociety

26

2.2ICTandurbanplanninginAsia 27

2.3ICTandUrbanPlanningintheUS 28

2.4ComparingAsian,EuropeanandUSApproaches 28

5

3:IssuesandCritiques:LessonsLearnedfromEuropean,AsianandUSModels 31

3.1GovernanceIssues 31

3.1.1EuropeanDigitalCitiesProject 31

3.1.2DigitalCityAmsterdam 32

3.2ComparativeCritiquesofAmbientandUbiquitousComputing 34

3.3Technology,CultureandSociety 36

4:TheUCityModel:TechnologiesandAlternativeApproaches 36

4.1:TheLocationawareInformationandCommunicationsTechnologiesofU

Cities

36

4.2:TheFutureofUbiquitousComputingandUrbanGovernance 38

4.2.1TheGrowthofCrowdsourcinganditsPotentialuseinUCitiesofthe

Future

38

4.2.2TheRiseandPotentialRolesofNeogeographyinUCities 40

4.2.3UrbanPlanningandCrowdsourcing 41

4.2.4TheFutureRoleofMunicipalGovernmentinaCrowdsourcedEra 42

5:Recommendations 44

ReferencesandFurtherReading 46

Appendix1:EastAsianTechnologyCities 57

Appendix2a:EuropeanCitywideProjects 62

Appendix2b:EuropeanCrossborderInitiatives 65

Appendix2c:OtherApplicationsofAmbientTechnologies 67

Appendix3:NorthAmericanCaseStudies 69

6

ListofTables Page

Table1.2TowardsaComparativeTypologyofIntelligentCities

19

7

1.Introduction

1.1BackgroundIn2008constructionbeganonSongdoNewCityinSouthKorea.Withaplannedcompletiondateof2014(OConnell,2005;Duffin,2008),Songdoisconsideredtobetheworldsfirstubiquitouscity,orUCity;avisionofafutureurbanenvironmentwherecityspecificinformationandservicescanbeaccessedanywhere,anytime through InformationandCommunicationsTechnology (ICT). Songdo,the outcome of a partnership between the South KoreanGovernment and the private sector, isbeingbuiltonreclaimedlandintheIncheonFreeEconomicZone(IFEZ)nearSeoul1.OtherplannedUCitydevelopmentswill include theDongtanareaofHwaseong (plannedcompletiondate2010)2andDaejeon,butneitherwillrivaltheproposedsizeandcomplexityofSongdo.ASouthKoreanstimulatedconcept,UCity,describesauniqueurbanenvironmentwherethecitysphysical infrastructuresareembeddedwithcomputingdevicesacross theentirecitymaking thempresent intheeveryday livesofcitizens inaway inwhichtheyarebothomnipresentand invisible.These technological devices are fully integrated through interoperability, connected throughwirelessnetworkswhereeveryone,anywhereinthecity,willhaveaccesstocomputingpower,theInternet and various applications at any time of the day. Residential,medical, government andbusinesscomputerswillallbeconnected througha seriesofallencompassingwirelessnetworks,broadbandsystemsandubiquitoussensorynetworks.Thisnewwayofengagingwiththecitizenry(traditionallyreferredtoasegovernment)wherefunctionsandservicesaredeliveredthroughtheInternetisconsideredtooffernewformsofparticipationandsubsequentlyincreasedtransparencyanddemocratisationofservices.Assuch,theSouthKoreanGovernmentenvisagesthatubiquitouscomputingwill provide the residents of Songdowith a convenient, environmentally friendly andsecure lifestyle, promising increased convenience, awareness, transparency and access toinformationandsocialopportunities (Yigitcanlar,2008:2).TheUCitywillalsoproduceeconomicbenefitsforexistingbusinessesthroughthedevelopmentofnewtechnologywhilstatthesametimeattractingnewbusinesstotheareathusstrengtheningtheeconomiccompetitivenessoftheregion3,(Heywood, 2008;Maynard, 2008). The UCity concept has become embeddedwithin the SouthKoreanurbanplanningframeworkand legislationhasbeenenactedtosupport itsprogressionandimplementationwiththeActofUbiquitousCityConstruction,alegalsteptowardstherealisationofthe UCity concept in South Korea (Kim et al., 2009). Given this previously unseen level ofinteroperabilityanddueto itsscaleandcomprehensiveuseofcomputingtechnologiesembeddedwithinitsurbanenvironment,Songdocanbeconsideredasoneoftheleadingtechnologicalcitiesintheworld.WhilstSouthKoreamayhave themostadvanced technological citiesunder construction,Ucitiesrepresentthepresentmanifestationofwhatareknowngenericallyasintelligentcities.Intelligentcities, designed around comprehensive IT platforms and which utilise intelligent managementcentres and infrastructures to assist dailymanagement and city planning, exist in various guiseswithinAsia,EuropeandNorthAmerica.Althoughintelligentcitiesasagenericconcepthavea longhistory, previous manifestations are less technologically advanced. Earlier examples, however,demonstratehow ICT has, in the last twodecades,become increasingly incorporated intourbanplanninganddesign.This ispartof theemergenceonaglobal scale,over the firstdecadeof thetwentyfirstcentury,ofaconceptknownastheknowledgebasedsociety,anemergingparadigminurban planning that draws on the knowledge base of cities and in particular innovations in ICT(Yigitcanlar et al., 2008b) and is part of a wider strategic planning policy for sustainable and

1SeeAppendix12http://www.udongtan.or.kr/english/cyber/cyb_01_7.aspx(Accessed18/12/09)3http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7425192.stm(Accessed15/10/09)

8

intelligent cities, incorporating ideas of ecological city planning and future urbanism (Kim et al.2009).Knowledgebasedurbandevelopmentisconsideredthefuturewayforwardinurbanplanning(seeforexampleYigitcanlaretal.,2008a;2008b):an idealmedium inwhichtogrowmore liveablestimulating, cleaner, intelligent, enlightened, tolerant and meaningful communities and citiesworldwide (Yigitcanlar, 2007). Central to this idea is the positive exploitation of the talent andcreative resources of a citys inhabitants. From an economic perspective, creativity can beconsidered as the generation of new ideas that form themajor source of innovation and neweconomic activities. In the early twentyfirst century, the source of new innovation canoverwhelminglybeattributed to theuseof increasinglysophisticatedandconstantlyevolving ICT.Given the potential of ICT in shaping the development of urban regions and in particular urbaneconomicopportunity,creativityinrespectofICThasbecomeakeyconceptontheurbanagendaasmanagersandplanners lookfornewformsofurbanandeconomicdevelopment(Yigitcanlaretal.,2008a).InnovationinICTiscentraltothedevelopmentofintelligentcities.Rapidtechnologicaladvancementof information and telecommunications technology has created new kinds of socioeconomicactivitieswhichinturnhashadprofoundimplicationsforthefutureofurbanmanagement.Duetothe instantaneous reach of information technology and the pressures of change in urban andmetropolitanareasthatthisbrings,newstrategiesofurbanplanningarerequired(Heywood,2008;Yigitcanlar,SayginandHan,2008).Over thepastdecadedevelopments in ICTandurbanplanningandgovernancehavebegunto incorporategeoreferenceddata (seeMaynard,2008)aseffortstodevelopand integrateplanning supportmechanisms intoexistinggeographic information systemshave beenmade (Yititcanlar, Saygin and Han, 2008). The role of georeferenced data has beenrecognisedgiventherelationshipbetweentechnologicaladvancementandacorrespondingrapidlyincreasing scaleof thephysical impactson society and the environment [which] is resulting ineffects likeglobalwarming, irreversibledeforestation,pollutedandprivatisedcoastlines,acid rainanddyinglakes(ibid.).Forthesereasonsalone,Heywood(2008)arguesthatpositivehumanactionisnecessarytoensuresustainability,theincorporationofgeoreferenceddatabeinganexample.CorrespondingtechnologiessuchasWebbasedGIS,whichenablesgeographic informationsystemfunctionalitiesthroughthe Internet,havebeendeveloped.Suchtechnologiesenableuserstoviewplansandrelatedinformationonlineofteninaneasytoassimilatemapormultimediabasedform,offering greater transparency, participation and democratisation as advocated by commentatorssuchasYigitcanlar(2008).Theyalsounderpintheconceptofknowledgebasedurbandevelopment,asdiscussedabove,whichisanemergingparadigmincurrentandfuturemodelsofurbanplanningand development across the competing global urban environment4 and inwhich the concept ofintelligentcitiesnestles.To fully achieve this goal, however, the various information subsystems and services must becapableof interoperating inasmoothandeffortlessmanner. Theparallelandbespokenatureofmanyoftheearliertechnologicalimplementationsfailedtoachievethisandonlyrecentlyhasmajorprogress been made here through the standardisation and harmonisation efforts of standardsbodiessuchastheOpenGeospatialConsortium,OASISandISOTC211.

4SeeforexampleYigitcanlaretal.,2008a;2008b

9

1.1.1AimsoftheReport

Thisreporthasthreekeyaims.

I. Tocomparethedifferenttermsusedtoconceptualisetheintelligentcity.Theseincludecloselyaligned concepts such as the digital city, intelligent city and ambient society. Thiswillenable a clearer understanding of the historical development of the UCity concept andinform, through the examination of European, Asian and North American successes andfailures,howfutureUcitiesmightbebetterplannedandgoverned.

II. Tounderstandtherelationshipbetweenthe intelligentcityconceptsoutlinedaboveandtheblending ofmultiple strands of information technology and eservices for the capture anddistributionofgeoreferenceddata.Thereportreviewsexistingcityand interoperabilitycasestudiesandshowsthatrecentdevelopmentsintheconvergenceoflocationawaretechnologyarenowmakingtheUCityvisionarealisablegoalaswitnessed incities inSouthKorea.Thepotentiallimitationsexperiencedbydigital,intelligent,andambientcitiesthatmayalsoaffectUCitiesarealsoexamined.

III. ToexplorenewandalternativemodelsthatcouldbeusedtosupplementUCityspatialdatamanagementstructures.Thiswill include Crowdsourcingby thecitizensofUCities throughconsumerdevicessuchasmobiletelephones.SuchdatacouldbeusedtocomplementexistingUCitydataandassistcityofficialsindecisionmakingwithregardtoplanningandgovernanceissues.

Theseaimswillbemetbyansweringthefollowingfourkeyresearchquestions:

I. Howdoubiquitouscitiescomparetoothertypesof intelligentcities, inparticularEuropeanexamples?

Inordertoidentifysuccessesandfailuresthatcouldbeusedtoassistthesuccessfulplanningand development of UCities, the report will explore the extent to which UCities arehistoricallysimilartoearlierdevelopmentsaroundtheworld,wherecitieswerecreatedwithITandtechnologyatthecentreofthedesign.

II. How important is interoperabilityandwhat ICT technologiesarekey to the functioningofubiquitousandotherintelligentcities?

Selected interoperability projects in Europe are examined as a guide to what paralleldevelopments are underway and what is achievable in terms of data and service levelinteroperabilitywhichisintegraltothefunctioningofUCities.

III. Howmightnewtechnologiesandconceptsshapethefutureofubiquitouscities?

Thereportexaminesanumberofdevelopmentswhichmay impacttheefficientoperationofUCities.

IV. WhatrolecancrowdsourcingplayinthefutureofUCities?

The reportdiscusses the emergenceof bottomup citizendrivendevelopments thathaveemerged along with the neogeography movement. It considers whether it would beadvantageous for new democratic technologies and models to be adopted by UCityauthoritiesinordertoprovidethemwithnew,richsourcesofgeoreferencedcitydataandtoassisttheminthegovernanceoftheUCity.

10

1.1.2ReportStructureTheremainderofthisreportisstructuredasfollows:ThesecondpartofthisintroductorysectionprovidesahistoricalcontexttotheuseofICTinurbanplanning and the evolution of the intelligent city. It examines the different descriptors of theintelligent city, including smart city, digital city, ambient city and UCity. This section alsoreviewshowthesetermshaveevolvedovertimeandoutlinesthecharacteristicsofthesecityterms.Section tworeviewsexamplesof thesemodels inEurope,Asiaand theUnitedStatesandoutlineshow their characteristics andapproachesdiffer.Theapproaches include centralised, statedriven,technological development models from Asia, commerciallydriven technological developmentmodelsfromtheUSandEuropeanhybridmodels.SectionthreeconsiderswhatlessonsmightbelearnedforfuturemodelsofICTandurbanplanningbyexploringhowearlydigitalcity initiativesweregovernedanddeveloped inEurope. Ithighlightsimplementation issues, limitationsandsuccesses.Thissectionalsoconsiderscritiquessurroundingthe implementation of ambient and ubiquitous technologies. The effect of nontechnologicalimpactsthatmustbeovercomeinordertodevelopasuccessfulUCityarediscussedasthesefactorshave impeded thesuccessofother technologicalcities,suchasdigitalcities,orhavesubdued theadoption of ubiquitous technologies in other regions of theworld outside ofAsia. These factorsinclude(i)political issuesthatshapethedevelopmentofUCitiesand(ii)socialandculturaltrendsthataffecttheuptakeofnewtechnology,whicharerelatedtoethicalconcernsandhaverestrictedthesuccessofsomeubiquitoustechnologydevelopments.Section four considers the future of the ubiquitous city (UCity)more specifically. It considerspotentialtechnologiesandoutlinessomeoftheproductsandservicescentraltothedevelopmentoflocationbasedservicesinUCities.Itpointstowardsanorganicratherthanplannedapproachbyintroducing new practices in neogeography which may materially change the UCity modelspredominantlytopdownapproach.Thismaybedrivenbydemocraticallygeneratedcrowdsourceddatamodels which will becomemore important as geospatial data is collected by citizens andprivateserviceproviders.SectionfivewillmakerecommendationsforUCitypractitionersbaseduponthereportsfindings.

11

1.2(Re)definingtheCity:aComparativeViewofConceptsoftheTechnologicalCityThis section defines the concept of the ubiquitous city and explores how it is different to otherconceptualisations of contemporary global cities that also make innovative uses of newtechnological infrastructure anddevices. Itdistinguishes the key characteristicsof thesedifferenttypesoftechnologicalcitiesandexploreswhatimpacttheyhaveonthecitizensoftheseinnovativeurbanenvironments.Somecitymodelsarenoteasilydefinedandsubsequentlythereisadegreeofoverlap,especiallyas citieshave continued to changeandadoptnew technological systemsovertime.Threetermsareproposedtoprovidethemostappropriateterminologyintermsofconceptualisingthedifferent typesof citiesemergingaround theglobe: thedigital city, theambient cityand theubiquitouscity.Abriefhistoryofthesethreecityconceptsfollows. Throughcomparativeanalysis,definitionsaredeveloped foracomparative typology that is thenused in the report tocategoriseexistingcityprojects.1.2.1. Looking Inside the Intelligent City: Historical Development of Ambient and UbiquitousTechnologiesBetween1850and1960western citiesmadeageneralmovement to integrateandexpand theirurbaninfrastructures.Gas,water,electricityandtelecommunicationnetworkswerecoordinatedbycentral andmunicipal governments to improve the quality of life for their citizens (Graham andMarvin,2001). IntheUS,experiments inandtheenhancementofcommunicationnetworks ledtothedevelopmentof theAdvancedResearchProjectsAgencyNetwork (APRANET) in1969, formingtheUS first information infrastructure, fromwhich the Internetwould lateremerge (Shin,2008).Since the early innovations in technology and communications, ICT products and devices havebecomeprogressivelyembeddedintotheurbanfabricofcities.TheinstallationofCCTVandanticrimesystemsinLondonsRingofSteel,privateInternetaccessinNew York or intelligent buildings controlling select Japanese office blocks, or residential smarthomescontrolledbyhomecomputers,haveledsomeacademicsviewcitiesascyborgs,wherecitieshave become densely networked entities (Graham and Marvin, 2001). The embedding of thistechnology into urban areas has been widely documented by the media and has spawned asubstantialanddiverse setofwritings, fromdifferentacademicdisciplines. Forexample,GrahamandMarvin (1996) listaselectionofthemanyneologismsusedtodaytodescribecities, including:the informationalcity,wiredcity, invisiblecity,thetelecity,the intelligentcity,thevirtualcity,thenonplaceurbanrealm,teletopiaandcyberville.Thewide diversityof these literatures reflects the broad rangeof individuals and groupswritingabout these cities, their backgrounds and politics. Stakeholders have, and continue to include,government technocrats, private sector engineers and executives, consortiums of standardsproducers,computerscientists,GISpractitionersandengineers.More recently these debates have been accompanied by academic disciplines that view thetechnological development of cities through a social lens. These disciplines include geography,planning,architecture,urbanstudiesandproponentsofsociologyandculturalstudies.Sucharichpedigreeofcontributorshasthebenefitofbringingnewinsightandideastointellectualdebatesandplanning,butis,however,oftencomplicatedbythesheervolumeofdifferentviewsandcompetingterminologies.

12

Ageneralinterpretationofthetermintelligentcity(includingsmartcity)mightinitscrudestformbe that which has applied information technologies and virtual spaces to urban functions andactivities (Komninos,2002).However,bothCouclelis(2004)andKomninos(2006)havehighlightedtheproblemof a lackof consensus regardingdefinition. Komninos (2006) identifies at least fourdifferentmeaningsforthetermintelligentcities:

virtualcitiesthatarecreatedtomirrorarealcityincyberspace,

asusedbytheWorldFoundationforSmartCommunitieswhichseesdigitalcitiesandITasastrategytotransformandimprovelifeandworkingarrangementsinaregioninasignificant,nonincrementalway.

territoriesthatuseITandcommunicationtechnologiestointeractwiththephysicalworlds,

withtheuseofsensors.

territories that use ICT and the creativity of local labour pools to enhance learning andinnovation.

Thediversityofmeaningofthetermintelligentcitybydifferentstakeholdersanddisciplineslimitsits value for this report. The terms digital, ambient and ubiquitous cities, are more useful inseparatingthedifferentcharacteristicstodefinedifferenttypesofcities.1.2.2.TheDigitalCityCouclelis (2004:5)providesahelpfulstartingpoint forseparatingthedifferenttypesofelectroniccitybydefiningthedigitalcityas...acomprehensivewebbasedrepresentation,orreproduction,ofseveral aspects or functions of a specific real city, open to nonexperts.Digital cities effectivelyprovide an arena where members of local communities can access information from the localgovernment,shareknowledge,experiencesandmutual interests inanonlineversionof theircity,which integratesurban information intopublic spaceson the Internet, thatcanalsobevisitedbytouristsandbusinesspeople (Ishida,2000).Thedigital city is the intersectionbetweenaphysicalurbanareaandthecommunitiesofpeoplethatareassociatedwiththatarea,whichisusuallyboundbyopportunitiesandconstraintsemergingfromtechnologicalandsociologicalissues.Thedigitalcityisdifferenttotheambientcityandubiquitouscity,inthatthedigitalcityisanelectronicmetaphor,or reflection,of aphysical city,whereas theusers experienceof interactionswith technology inambientandubiquitouscitiesisrealandembeddedwithinthephysicalcity.Digitalcitieshaveadiverserangeofstakeholders,whichfallbroadly intothreecategories:privatecompanies,privatepubliccompanyinitiativesandusergroups.Forexample,intheUS,theInternetserviceproviderAOLdevelopedmanyof theearlyUSdigital cities,asaprivate company.On theother hand, Digital Amsterdam was created through a publicprivate partnership between localauthorities and telephoneproviders.User groups are also key stakeholders thatmake thedigitalcitiesviablebyusingthem,butalsobyparticipating inthebuildingofvirtualcommunities.Privateand publicprivate stakeholders have different interests and politics, which is reflected in therationalesthatdrivethedevelopmentofdifferentdigitalcitiesandtheaimsandservicesprovided.Thesedifferencesvarybygeography,asEuropeanandAsiandigitalcitiesseek toprovideapublicservice,whilstNorthAmericandigitalcitiestendtofocusonprofitabilityfortheprivatecompaniesthatoperate them.Forexample,theEuropeandigitalcityDigitalCityAmsterdamwasdesignedtodevelopcommunitynetworksandtoallowthemunicipalgovernmenttocommunicate informationto itscitizens,whilstHelsinkisought todevelopan interactive3Dmodelof thecity (Ishida,2000).Thekeyaimforthesedigitalcitiesattemptedtoprovidecitizenswithaccesstoinformationonlocal

13

services.Ontheotherhand,USdigitalciteshavefocussedmoretowardsthedevelopmentofonlinespaces through the provision of news and shopping and entertainment information.Whilst theoutcome isthedeliveryof informationtocitizensthroughdevelopmentofonlinecommunitiesthedriveristhegenerationofrevenuebyadvertisingthroughthedigitalcity.TheaimsunderpinningthedevelopmentofAsiandigitalcitieshavemirroredthoseoftheEuropeanmodels. For example, Digital Kyoto seeks to provide information to citizens and to foster thedevelopmentofcommunitieswithresidentsandtourists,withthe intention thatcommunitieswillhave a contribution in city planning, providing a bottomup mode of governance. Singaporesprogrammetoturnitselfintoadigitalcitysoughttoprovideitscitizenswithaccesstogovernmentservices,allowingthemtomanagetheirlivesonline(ArunandYap,2000).Digitalcitiesbegan toemerge in theearly1990sas the Internetbecameaccessible to thegeneralpublic. In1993 theUSgovernment,under theClintonAdministration,announced its intention todevelop what they called the Internet superhighway (Shin, 2008). The subsequent increase inInternetaccess to consumersprovided the infrastructure thatwouldmakedigital cities in theUScommerciallyandpracticallyviable.ThiswassoonfollowedbyinitiativesinEurope,promotedbytheEuropeanUnionthatbegantosponsordigitalcitiesconferences in1994(Ishida,2000),toevaluateandpromote thedevelopmentofdigitalcities inEurope.The resultwas theemergenceofDigitalCityAmsterdamandVirtualHelsinki,whichwere sponsoredby localauthorities (Couclelis,2004).SimilarinitiativesbegantolaterdevelopinAsia,inJapan(Ishida,2000)andSingapore(ArunandYap,2000).Themediumsthatunderpindigitalcitiesareeffectivelywebsitesthatcontaindigitalmapsofacity,information about services or events and online access to government services.Access to thesedigitalcitiescanbeobtainedover the Internet throughapersonalcomputer,orhandhelddeviceslikemobilephones,acrossstandardbroadbandortelephonenetworks.Thelevelofinteroperabilitywaslow,withcompatiblesoftwareaccessingacentralisedserverwherethedigitalcityismaintainedasasinglesystem.Althoughdigitalcitiesmayprovidecoverageofanentirephysicalcity,enablingcitizenstoenhancetheirengagementwithpublicservicesoraccess informationonentertainmentandshopping,thosewhoarecomputer illiterate, inparticular,theelderlyareunabletoaccessthecity (ArunandYap,2000),whilst thosewho cannotafforda computeror remoteaccess throughmobiledevicesarealsoexcluded(Shiode,2000;Crangetal,2006).1.2.3.TheSmartCityTheconceptofthe smartcityemerged intheUSandEurope inthe late1990s.More thanotherconceptualisationsofthe intelligentcity, smartcitiesspecificallyaimedto includethehumanaswellastechnologicalresourcesofacity:Drawingmoreexplicitlyontheircreativeresourcessmartcitieschampionedthecreativeandacademicindustriesandinformation/knowledgebasednetworksembeddedwithincities.IntheUS,theideaofthesmartcitygainedcredencefromthelate1990sthrough the Smart Community initiative established in California (Komninos, 2002).Although theproject identified thepotentialof incorporating ICT togovernmentandbusiness functionality, thenecessity of human interaction and social cooperation for the success of the model was alsorecognised.Informationtechnologieswereutilisedtoestablishdigitalnetworks,infrastructuresandapplications,accessiblebythecitizen.Likethedigitalcity,despiteprogressintheimplementationofdigitalservices,applicationswerelimitedtothedisseminationofinformationviadigitalnetworksrather than the provision of advanced services online (Komninos, 2002). Building on the idea ofsmart communities, similar concepts andmodelsof smart cities,which embraced the valueofhumanknowledgeandinnovationasaneconomiccommodity,werewitnessedinEuropeandother

14

globalregionsfromthelate1990s5.ThesearedifferentiatedfromdigitalcitiesbytheirinclusionofresourcesandfunctionalitiesotherthanthoseassociatedwithICT.Forexample,theEuropeanSmartCities researchproject considered intelligence in termsof a cityseconomy,people, governanceandissuesofenvironmentalsustainability(seeGiffinger,2007).In order for digital cities to become smart cities they therefore need to incorporate a newcategoryofapplications;thatoftherealcommunityofpeopleandproducerscharacterisedbyahighlevelofknowledgeandinnovationuse.SmartcitiescombinetheseaspectswiththeITapplicationsandknowledgemanagement toolswhichmakeup digital cities.Todifferentiate the digital cityfrom the smartcity,everydigitalcity isnot intelligent,butevery intelligentor smartcityhasadigitalcomponent(Komninos,2002).Komninos (2002) argues however that it is not enough to simply develop an infrastructure fortransferring information inordertocharacteriseanareaastruly intelligent,orsmart.Inorderforthistobeachieved,threebasicelementshavetobecomeinterconnected:theislandofinnovation,thedigitalcommunicationsenvironmentand the tools/technologies formanagingknowledge.Thefollowing section deals with a category of intelligent city that has developed this level of ICTinterconnectednesstothenextlevelandincorporatedtheconceptofambienttechnologies.1.2.4.TheAmbientCityThe 1990s were characterised as the decade of emerging virtual worlds as academics becameinterestedintheusesandpossibilitiesoftheInternet.DespiteenthusiasticclaimsthattheInternetgivespeople access to an informationalworldwithout borders virtualworlds areonly accessiblewhen there is access to the necessary infrastructure (Graham and Marvin, 2001). Cities areembeddedwith technological infrastructure, but research hasmove on from studies of Internetaccesstotheemergenceandembeddingofsocalledubiquitoustechnologiesintothefabricofcitiesthatentwinepeople,placesandsoftwareincomplexways(CrangandGraham,2007).Theconceptoftheubiquitouscitywascirculated in1991byMarkWeiser,partofateamofresearchersattheXeroxPaloAltoResearchCentre inCaliforniaduringthe1980s(Galloway,2004).Weisersoughttomovebeyond theparadigmof the time,which focussedonpersonal computing.Weiserbelievedthat personal computingwouldbedisplaced in favourofnew computationaldevices thatwouldenable computing access be obtained anywhere, by anyone: ...computing access will beeverywhere:inthewalls,onyourwrist,andinscrapcomputers(likescrappaper)lyingabouttobeusedasneeded.Hence,ubiquitouscomputing(Weiser,1993:71).Ubiquitous computing, or ubicomp,was seen as an idea thatwould free people from desktopcomputingand the isolationofvirtualreality (Galloway,2004). Thewidescale implementationofubiquitouscomputingischallengingand,withafewexceptionsdiscussedin1.2.5,whilstmanycitieshaveadoptedsomeubiquitoustechnologiestheyarenotaccessibletoeveryoneeverywhere.Thesecitieshavebecomeknownasambientcities,whereBohn,etal.(2003)usesthedefinitionofambientintelligence, used by the EU Information Society Technologies Program (1999), to describe howpeoplearesurroundedbyintelligentandintuitiveinterfacesthatareembeddedineverydayobjectswhichrespondtoindividualsinaninvisibleway.Weisersoriginalvisionwasthatcomputerswouldbecomebuiltintotheurban,physicalenvironment,whichisoneofthekeydifferencesthatambientcitieshavewithdigital cities.Digital cities are a virtual representationof aphysical city, throughonlinecommunities,orvirtual reality,but theuseofubiquitouscomputing integrates informationandtechnologyintotheeveryday,physicalworld(Weiser,1993).Subsequently,digitalcitiescanbeseenasmapsthatsimulatetheworld,whereasubiquitouscomputingisembeddedintheterritoryoftherealworldwiththeaimofactuallyenhancingit. 5Seehttp://www.smartcities.eu;http://www.intelligentcommunity.org/

15

Ubiquitouscomputingtechnologyisthecentralfocusoftheliteraturereviewedhere.Theemphasisinpublicationshasbeenonspecificcommercialproductsorservicesthataresuppliedtoconsumerswithin specific spaces of the city though development of government systems used for statesurveillanceandotherspecialisedpurposeshasalso ledtoadvances(CrangandGraham,2007).Assuch, theambient city canbe seenasanurbanenvironmentwhich containsdifferentubiquitouscomputingtechnologies,usedbycommercialcompaniessuchasZipcar,acarsharingscheme thatusesRFIDubiquitous technology in theUSandUK, (Zipcar,2009)and insomecasesgovernments(CrangandGraham,2007).Thesedevicesbegantobecomeembeddedincitiesaroundtheglobeinthe early 2000s as the necessary technology became available to corporations. Ubiquitouscomputingsystemsutilisemobiledevisestoallowpeopletoaccessinformationanytimeanywhere,sothetechnologyused inambientcitiesfrequently includeswearable,distributedobjects,makinguseoflocationbasedservices,ofRFIDtagsandGPS.AccordingtoCuff(2003),citiesnowconsistofwallswithears,eyes,brainsanddatabanks,andsincethecomputersusedinubiquitouscomputingare so taskspecific, they are small and canblend into thebackgroundof cities (Borriello,2000).Bohn,etal. (2003)suggestthattheuseofambient intelligence incitieswillcontinuetogrow.Forexample,guidancedevices for theblind,utilising locationbasednavigationaldevices in lamppostscouldhelpthemtonavigateunfamiliarroutes,whilstsensorsinchildrensclothesorjewellerywouldmake iteasy to track them if theygot lost.Cook,etal. (2009)havealsohighlightedhowambienttechnologiescouldbeusedtosupportelderlyanddisabledcitizens.Semiintelligentsystemscouldassist the elderly indaytoday living and call forhelpbydetecting if the individualhashad anaccidentasambientsystemshave thecapability toobserveanddetect regularactivities,patternsanddeviationsfromthem. Inaddition,sensors in intelligentenvironmentscanbeusedtomonitorsocial groups andpredict human activity,which couldbe useful inmonitoringovercrowding andcongestioninpublicareasandtransportsystems,whilstalsomaintainingefficientwaterandpowerconsumption(Cook,etal.2009).Ambientcitiesareunlikedigitalcities in that theydonotoftenprovidecoverageacrossanentirecity.Inaddition,theseubiquitoussystemsareusedcommerciallyandarenot interlinked.AlthoughZipcarusesmobilephones,carsandRFIDtags,thesedevicesmaybe interlinkedand interoperablefor Zipcars purposes, but they are not interoperablewith other ubiquitous systems. This limitsWeisersvision,asthesystemsusedinambientcitiesarenotdesignedtobecompatible,becauseoftheways inwhich theprotocolsaredesigned,orbecauseacompanydesignsasystemunder theassumption itwillonlybeusedbythem (Borriello,2000;Pacyna,2009).Theaccesstoubiquitouscomputing technologieswithin cities canbe limited aspeoplemaynotwish to voluntarily adoptthese technologies, especially due to growing privacy concerns, but also because lower socioeconomicgroupscannotaffordcomputersormobiledevices(Crang,etal,2006),ortheuseoftheservicesthatuseubicomp,thatexist intheambientcity.ThiscreatescitydividesthatLash (2002)calls liveanddeadzones,which isreinforcedbycompaniesthatavoid locatingnewtechnologicalinfrastructureinpoorerareasofcities(GrahamandMarvin,2001).Animportantaspectofthetransitionofdigitaltoambienttechnologiesistheincorporationofgeoreferenced data and their associated technologies (Yigitcanlar, Saygin and Han, 2008). GISapplicationssuchasWebGISandCommunityVizforArcGIShavebecome increasinglyembedded inlocalplanningauthorities(Yigitcanlar,2005;2006)butthereisatendencyforthesetechnologiestofail to consider temporal information and therefore to track dynamic changes in complex urbanenvironments.The transition fromdigital and ambient computing toubicomp incorporates thesetemporalaspectsbeingabletoprovidetimespecificdataandthereforetheabilitytorevolutioniseurbanplanningremitssuchasenvironmentalanddisastermanagementaswellasthemoreeverydayresponsibilitiesoftransportmanagementandplanning.Sincespatialbehavioursaredynamicinnature,technologiesthatareabletomodelthespatiotemporal,areparticularlyrelevantandcritical

16

and hence the criticality of GIS to both urban policymaking and knowledgebased urbandevelopment.Whilst thedigital city looks at the city as awhole,but also as a virtualworld throughpersonalcomputers,theambientcityischaracterisedbytheprevalenceofindividualubicompsystemsinthecity, that enhance the real city. However, these systems are not necessarily interconnected,universally accessible, or interoperable, as hoped for by Weiser. It is in the concept anddevelopmentoftheubiquitous,orUCitythatwemoveclosertoWeisersvision.1.2.5TheUbiquitousCityManycitieshavebeguntoutiliseubiquitoustechnology,butsince2005,SouthKoreahasbeguntouse the term ubiquitous city after adopting the ubiquitous computing concept from theUS anddecidingtocreatetheworldsfirstUCity(MyungJe,2009).Subsequently,theUCityisparticulartoSouthKorea,althoughthiswillundoubtedlychangeastheconceptisadoptedelsewhere:Japanhasalready begun planning its ownUCity. The origins of theUCity are historically linked to SouthKoreasproactiveandenthusiasticadoptionofITandcommunicationsystem.In1994,theNationalInformation System initiative was launched, where the government attempted to network thecomputersystemsofgovernmentdepartments.ThisprecededthemorerecentlaunchoftheIT839Plan in 2004 which stimulated the development of new communication networks and mobiledevices. Steeredbycentralgovernmentbut implementedthroughcloserelationswiththeprivatesector(Shin,2008)IT839providedtheunderpinningofcapabilitiesnecessarytodevelopUCities.TheUCityconceptalsodrawsheavilyon thevisionsofWeisersnotionofubiquitouscomputing,thatembedscomputersintooureverydaylivesinawayinwhichtheyareomnipresent,butinvisible(Galloway,2004).Whilstthetechnologiesusedintheambientcityareseentobeubiquitousthereisanimportantdistinctionbetweentheiruseintheambientcityandtheubiquitouscity.ReturningtoWeisers(1993)originalvisionoftheubiquitouscomputing,thesedevicesandtechnologieswouldbefully integratedthrough interoperabilityandconnectedthroughcheapwirelessnetworkswhereeveryone,everywhere,willhaveaccesstocomputingpower.This isnotthecase inambientcities,buttheSouthKoreanUCityprojectsarefarmoreambitiousandcomprehensivewiththedevelopmentofIncheonandSongdo,andtheconstructionofentirelynewcities,coordinatedanddrivenbythegovernment.Assuch,theUCityprincipleisappliedtotheentiretyofthecity,whichisequippedwithnetworkslinkedtoacentralmanagementcentre,wherecentralandlocalgovernmentscanmonitoralmosteverythingthatishappening(Shin,2009).Thisisinstarkcontrasttotheadhocubiquitoussystemsthathavebeeninstalledinambientcitiesaroundthe world. This provides another contrast with ambient and digital cities through the stronggovernment support for UCity development and further illustrated through the passing of newlegislationtofacilitatethedevelopmentofUCities(Shin,2009).TherearethreedifferenttypesofstakeholdersinvolvedintheconstructionofUCities:

Governmentministries. ThebeginningoftheUCityprojectwascoordinatedandplannedby the Ministry for Information & Communication and the Ministry for Construction &Transport.

Privatesectorcompanies.Theseareworkingcloselywiththegovernmentandareproducinganddesigningthetechnologies,inparticularSamsungandLG,aswellasAmericanfirmsGaleInternationalandCisco.

Consumers.TheywillusethesetechnologiesindaytodaylivingasresidentsofUCitiessuchasSongdo.

17

Unlikeambientcities, theUCity iscentrallyplannedby thegovernmentwithclearlydefinedaimsandrationalesbehindtheirdevelopment.ThegovernmentpolicyisforUCitiestohelpallresidents,everywhere,not justprivatecustomers,or residentsusingpersonalcomputersathome,with theaimofenrichinglife,reducingcongestionandenhancingenvironmentalsustainability(KoreanUCityAssociation, 2003),whichwill reshapework, education government leisure and entertainment inbothurbanandruralsettings(Jackson,2007).AccordingtoDonHee(2009),thegovernmenthastheultimatevisionofcreatingaubiquitoussocietywherepeoplecanconnecttotheweb,televisionandotherdigitalservicesanytime,anywhere.SouthKoreawantstouseubiquitouscomputingtogiveitsresidentsaconvenientandsecurelifestyle,openeduptoallcitizens,effectivelyusingtechnologicalprojects to change society. It is also hoped that the domestic industry participants will benefitfinancially in the creation of a newmarket, aswould the SeoulMetropolitan Government. Thefinancial benefits of South Koreas UCities may be maximised if the cities can be used todemonstratetoothergovernmentsanddevelopershowtrulyintegratedubiquitoustechnologycanbe successfully used in cities, providing opportunities to export the devices and components ofubiquitoussystemsoverseas(Shin,2009).WithregardtothetechnologyutilisedbyUCities,extensiveuse ismadeofbroadband,RFIDtags,sensor networks, GIS,wireless broadband, locationbased services and smartcard systems (Shin,2009). The technology used ismore heterogeneous and advanced than digital cities and unlikeambient cities, theseubiquitousdevices are alsoused inpublic places,with, for example,publicrecyclingbinsthatuseradiofrequency identificationtocreditrecyclerseverytimetheythrow inabottle.TheUCityalso integrateshealthcare into itsmandate,withpressuresensitive floors inthehomesofolderpeoplethatcandetectafallandcontacthelpautomaticallyandphonesthatstorehealth records and can be used to pay for prescriptions, (Shin, 2009). The South KoreanUCityconcept also sitsmore closelywithWeisers vision than the ambient city, in that interoperabilityexistsbetweendifferentdevicesandnetworks.Murakami(2003)seesthisasamovefromPeertoPeer (P2P) communication towards PeertoObject (P2O) and eventually ObjecttoObject (O2O)relationships,whereobjectswillcommunicatedirectlywitheachother,enabledbyinteroperability.6Theuseofubiquitous technology inpublicspacesalsoenables thecity tomovebeyondmixedoraugmentedrealityenvironmentstowardswhatFalk (1999)callsthe amplifiedcity,whereobjectsexpressadditionalinformationaboutthemselvestootherobjects,residentsandusers.TheabilityoftheUCitytosuccessfullymovebeyondambientcitiesandtoreachthestatusofafullyubiquitouscityiscontingentontheabilityofdifferentcomputingdevicestocommunicatewitheachother,whichwillbecontingentonwirelesscommunicationsystemsandtheaccurateproductionofgeographicaldata (ISO,1999).People,and theirdevices,willbemobilewithin theubiquitouscityenvironment andwill needwhat the ISO call, ubiquitous public access: access everywhere at alltimes.Thisisparticularlysignificantasconsumerswillnolongerbesimpleconsumersofspatialdata,but consumersof tailoreddata and selforganisingmaps; aswell asproducersofdata, requiringrobust standards to generate accurate geoinformation. Interoperability standards are alsoimportant,becauseunliketheambientcitiesthatuseubiquitoustechnologies inanuncoordinatedway,SouthKoreanUCitieswillbemediatedthroughcentralised,operationalcentresthatwillpooldatafromtheseubiquitousnetworks,whilstmonitoringcrime,disastermanagement,environmentalprotection and transport (Ministry of Public Administration and Security, 2009). South Koreanacademics have therefore been at the forefront of discussions in ISO for the development ofinteroperabilitystandardsrelevanttoubiquitouscitiesandProfessorKiJouneLiofPusanUniversityhasbeentheleadinISOProject19154(StandardizationrequirementsforUbiquitousPublicAccess). 6P=personO=object

18

However,althoughtheUCityistechnologicallymoresophisticatedandoperatesacrosstheentirety,theabilityofuserstoparticipatewithinthisenvironmentiscontingentontheirabilitytousemobiledevices.

1.2.6.TowardsaComparativeTypologyofIntelligentCitiesTable1.1belowisbasedonsevencharacteristicsthatvaryacrossthedigital,ambientandubiquitouscities.Thedifferencesbetweenthecharacteristicsandeachcitywereprevalentwithintheliteraturereviewsandcanbeusedtodefineandcategorisecities.

19

Table1.1:AComparativeTypologyofIntelligentCities DigitalCity SmartCity AmbientCity UbiquitousCity

Keystakeholders

EU/Asia:Supranational,localgovernmentsandprivatefirmsUS:Privatefirms

Nationalandlocalgovernmentsandprivatefirms

Privatefirms

Nationalandlocalgovernmentsleadingprivatefirms

Technologies

Internetandbroadband

Internetandtechnologiesrelatedtoresearch

Broadband,wireless,sensors,handhelddevices,LBS,RFID

Broadband,wireless,sensors,handhelddevices,LBS,RFID

Timeperiod

Early1990s

1990s

Early2000s

2004

Geographical

location

US,Europe,Asia

US,Europe,someinAsia

US,Europe,Asia

Asia

Citycoverage

CitywideandbeyondLimitedtothosewithnoaccess:socioeconomic,ordisability,age,oreducation

Focusisonsocialnetworksinthecityvarybetweencitizens

LimitedwithincityDependentonsubscriptionoruseofparticularservices

CitywideLimitedusebyindividualsduetodisability,age,oreducation

Interoperability

level

Limitedoutsideofvirtualcity

Limitedinteroperability,duetoexperimentalsystems

Limitedbetweendifferentsystems

Highinteroperabilityplannedthoughurbanmanagementcentresandprivatefirms

Development

rationale

EU/Asia:Supplypublicserviceaccessonline,andbuildcommunitiesUS:Produceprivaterevenue

Transferknowledgebasedinformationbetweenuniversitiesandprivatebusinessesforeconomicgrowth

Produceprivaterevenue

EnrichmentofeverydaylifeEnhanceeconomicgrowthDevelopenvironmentalandsustainablecities

20

2.ICTandurbanplanning:ExamplesfromEurope,AsiaandtheUnitedStates

2.1ICTandUrbanPlanningEuropeAbriefoverviewisprovidedinthissectionastowhat(asperthetypologyoutlinedabove)mightbeconsidered intelligent city initiatives, implemented across Europe in the past two decades. Asummaryof current ambient technology initiatives is then given forboth citybasedprojects andcrossborder initiativesbetweencountries.RangingfromthefirstEuropeandigitalcitiestocurrentprojectsutilisingubiquitouscomputingtechnologies,theinitiativesoutlinedreflectboththerapidityoftechnologicaldevelopmentandtheEuropeanpoliticalappetitefortechnologicalleadershipintheuseof informationandcommunication technologies inurbanand regionaldevelopment.Thishasbeen expressed through Parliamentary funding on behalf of the European Union which hasfacilitated and supported a significant volume of research projects, directives and initiatives inrelationtodigitalandambienttechnologiestowardsthespecificgoalofdevelopingtheknowledgebasedsociety,akeytermwithinEuropean[Union]urbandevelopmentplanningdiscourse.Intermsofplanningandfunctionality,theconceptoftheknowledgebasedsocietysignifiesaparadigmshiftintheway inwhichurbanandregionalenvironmentsareconceived.NicosKomninos(2002)statesthatthisapproachtourbanplanningandfunctionality(whichhecategorisesasthedevelopmentofintelligentcities) iswitnessed in: (1)thereorganisation intermsofflexibilityand innovation inthesphereofproduction, (2)thesupranational institutionalregulation inthesphereofpolicyand(3)thenewstateofknowledgeandpostmodernistculturalvalues.Indeed,urbanplanningintheEU(aswellasNorthAmerica)offerssomeleadingpracticesforregionalreformglobally(Heywood,2008).2.1.1 EuropeanDigitalCitiesReflecting the rapid development of digital computing, digital technologies (then referred to astelematics)wereincludedinaseriesofagendasandprogrammesacrosstheEuropeanregionfromthe early 1990s (Mino, 2000). This development in ICTs reflected the global trend towardsinformation societieswitnessedacross themetropolitanand regionaladministrationsofEurope,the USA and Japan. A series of pilot projects and applications attempted to employ digitaltechnologies to improve the abilityof cities tomanage information, transmit knowledge anduseinformation technologies. As an example of global restructuring of western societies suchapplications promoted the informatization of cities and regions were able to offer bettercommunicationcapabilities,morecompleterepresentationsofurbanspace,moreaccurateanduptodate information and useful knowledge and information management engines and tools(Komninos,2002).Reflecting this new technological approach to urban planning andmanagement, from 1994, theEuropeanUnion(EU)sponsoredaseriesoffiveannualEuropeanDigitalCitiesconferences.In1996,theEUsubsequentlylaunchedafouryearEuropeanDigitalCitiesprojectundertheauspicesoftheTelematicsApplicationProgrammeforthepurposesofsupportingEuropeancitiesandregionsinthedeployment of new, economically and socially sustainable telematics applications and to identifyrelatedfutureneedsandprioritiesoflocalauthorities(Mino,2000;Couclelis,2004).OtherstrandsoftheTelematicsApplicationProgramme includedTelematics forUrbanandRuralAreas (TURA)andthe Integrated Applications for Digital Sites (IADS) action lines (Mino, 2000). Rather than thedisseminationofnetworkprogrammesviatheInternet,theEuropeanDigitalCityprogrammeplacedemphasis on the development of telematic services (Komninos, 2002). The EuropeanDigital Cityprogramme sawahundredEuropeancities (aspartof fivediscretenetworksofcities) implementdigital technologies towards a range of municipal and civic initiatives (Ishida, 2002; Komninos,

21

2002)7.Themainfieldsof interestwere:telematicsandemployment,economicdevelopmentwithan emphasis on small enterprises, the quality of life for disadvantaged individuals, informationchannellingandadministrationofcities,trainingandeducation,theenvironment,healthandteledemocracy(Komninos,2002).SeeSection3.1.1.CharacteristicofEuropeanurbanplanning initiatives involving ICTs,digital cityprojects inEuropewere primarily led by public stakeholders, namelymunicipal administrations. The specific aim ofdigitalcitieswastobuildanarenainwhichpeopleinregionalcommunitiescaninteractandshareknowledge,experiences, andmutual interests [integrating]urban information (both achievableand realtime)and [creating]publicspaces in the Internet forpeople living/visiting in/at thecities[sic.](Ishida,2002:76).ArangeofdiscreteprojectswereinitiatedundertheEDCProgrammewhichcontributed to theoverallvalueofdigitalcitiesasable toprovideservices tocitizens thataid thefunctioningofthecity(seeKomninos,2002).Outside of the EuropeanDigital Cities programme other initiativeswere sponsored in Europe bylocalauthoritiesandprivatecompanies,forexample,DigitalCityAmsterdam,whichaimedtowidenparticipationthroughcommunityenetworks(Couclelis,2004;vandenBesselaarandBeckers,2005)and the Virtual Helsinki project which aimed to establish digital networks between commercialcommunityusersaswellascreating3Donlinemodelsofthecity(Ishida,2000;Couclelis,2004).Despite some moderate successes, evidence suggests that some of these projects ultimatelycollapsed. Anexample is,DigitalCityAmsterdam,which failed toestablishonlinecommunicationandinfrastructuresuccesses(vandenBesselaarandBeckers,2005)8.Theprojectswebsite9,initiallycreated as a communication forumbetween themunicipal authority and its citizens,now servesprimarilyasanurbansocialnetworkingandcommunicationengine(Couclelis,2004).Togetherwithaseriesoforganisationaland financial failures, the rapidevolutionof ICT technologiesduring thisperiodmeant thatnew formsof capturingand sharingdataquickly superseded theirapplication.Topdown development issues also complicated the success of such projects in addition to poorconsumeruptake intheprojects.Theexampleofthesefailedprojectsprovideaseriesofvaluablelessons for localand regionalgovernance for futureprojectsapplying ICTs tourbanplanningandgovernancearoundtheworldandisexploredfurtherinsection3.1.1.Theevolutionofthedigitalcityalsowitnessedthedevelopmentanddesignationgloballyofsmartcities: those that incorporated a broader set of resources over and above innovations in andapplicationsofICT,particularlyhumancreativityandknowledgeinitsvariousforms.InEurope,theconcept of smart cities was most clearly articulated by the European Smart Cities project, acollaborativeresearchprogrammeledbytheCentreofRegionalScienceattheViennaUniversityofTechnology. In this programme, between April and October 2007 researchers measured theperformance of 70 medium sized European cities in six distinct development areas (Giffinger,

7Thefivenetworksofcitieswere:(1)TheTelecitiesNetwork(connectingcitieswithasharedinterestinthedevelopmentofTelematics),(2)ThePOLICNetwork(aunionof55citiesandregionsfrom17Europeancountriescollaboratingonmattersoftransportandenvironment),(3)TheCarFreeCitiesNetwork(60citiesattemptingtoensureahealthierenvironmentwithlesspollution,environmentallysoundtransportsystemsandimprovedsafety,(4)TheEurocitiesNetwork(representing90EuropeanmetropoliseswhosemissionistoimproveurbanqualityoflifeandEuropeanurbanpolicyasameansofintegration)and(5)TheTURANetwork(citiesthatimplementedthetelematicsapplicationsviathecorrespondingEUR&DProgramme)(Komninos,2002).8SeevandenBesselaarandKoizumi(2005).TheHelsinkiprojectwasreducedtothecreationofa3Dmodelofthecityfromitsoriginal(broader)remit.Seehttp://www.virtualhelsinki.fi/9www.dds.nl

22

2007)10.SmartCitiesmeasuredintelligencenotonly intermsofdevelopmentsandapplicationsofICTbutalso intermsofmorequalitativefactorssuchascitizeneducationandawareness,businesspracticesandinnovationandenvironmentalandsustainabilityinitiatives11.2.1.2AmbientTechnologies12This sectionexplores inmoredetailEuropean citybasedand crossborderprojects thatmightbecomparable to the Korean UCity concept, determined by their use of ambient or ubiquitouscomputing technologies (i.e. thosewhich differ to their earlier digital counterparts in their goaltowardsinteroperabilityofsystems,betweenbothcrosscityandcrossborderdatainfrastructures).ThepasttwodecadeshavedemonstratedadesirewithinEuropeanurbandevelopmentspherestoincorporate innovative ICTdevelopments inurbangovernanceandplanning formorecompetitiveandsustainableintelligentcities.IntheEuropeancontextthepastdecadehashoweverwitnessedanevolution in thisconcept towardswhatmightbeconsidered thenextgenerationofcomputingtechnologies.What initiallybeganasamerely technical interest inbringingcommunities togetherthroughtheprovisionandsharingof information indigitalformhassubsequentlyevolved intotheconcept of the Ambient City, through which citizens are informed and mobilised throughinteractionwithICTtechnologyembeddedwithintheinfrastructuresofthecity.SuchprojectsinEuropehavebeenfacilitatedandsupportedbyaseriesofParliamentarydirectivestowardsthedevelopmentof ICTs. InitiativessuchastheEuropeanUnionsFrameworkProgramme(aimed at supporting interdisciplinary research across the region) and the INSPIRE spatial datainfrastructures directive, have enabled and supported the development of ICT programmes,specifically digital and ambient technologies, to allow European citizens the opportunity to fullybenefit from the development of the knowledgebased society, as specifically outlined in theEuropeanUnionsSixthFrameworkProgramme13.Broadlydefined, knowledgebasedsocietiesarethosethataredrivenbytheknowledgeeconomy,orbyopportunitiestoattractknowledgeworkersin order to fuel economic growth (Van Wezemael, 2008). Knowledge refers not only to theacademicknowledgeorintelligenceof itscitizensbutalsotocreativeandculturalknowledgeandtheways inwhich theseepistemologiesareused.However in thecontextof thedevelopmentofurban environments knowledge plays a key role in the form of ICTbased expert systems:knowledgebasedinmanycontextsreferringtotheincorporationofICTsinurbanfunctionalitywithanemphasisondataandinformation.Theseinitiativeshavesupportedaseriesofresearchprojectsboththosegeographicallydelimitedtospecificcitiesorregionsand those involved indevelopingcrossborderspatialdata infrastructures(SDIs)(frameworksforcoordinatingtheuseandimplementationofspatialinformation(Associationfor Geographic Information, 2007), which aim to achieve the interoperability of administrative,environmental and planning data across national borders (see below). Unlike the Korean UCityconcepthowever, theexamplesconsideredherecannotyetbeclassedasubiquitouscityprojectsduetotheadhocnatureoftheapplicationofsuchtechnologies.Despitethesecurrentlimitations,goals towards improved interoperability and extending current applications suggest it is only amatteroftimebeforemoredirectcomparisonswiththeSouthKoreanUCityconceptcanbemade.

10OtherresearchpartnersweretheResearchInstituteforHousing,UrbanandMobilityStudiesattheDelftUniversityofTechnologyandtheDepartmentofGeographyatUniversityofLjubljana.11SeeAppendix2a12AlsoseethenowcompletedODINprojecthttp://www.istworld.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=f3454df1f1994eaca4c0c9fb62e78f5c13http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/activities.htmAccessed22ndOctober2009

23

TheprojectsoutlinedbelowarecomparabletotheUCityconceptintheirapplicationofubiquitouscomputing technologies to city based functions and services. Unlike the ubiquitous city concepttheseprojectsaredelimitedtospecificgeographicalspacesortothetypeofserviceprovidedandareyettoachieveinteroperabilityonacomprehensive,cityornationwidelevel,tothefullgamutofpublicandprivateservices,anytime,anywhereasenvisionedbyWeiser(1993).2.1.3.CitywideProjectsThissectionconsidersprojectsapplyingambienttechnologiestocitybasedfunctionsandservices.At present, those projects employing such technologies for interoperable service provision seemlimitedtoresearch initiatives, leavingadearthofactualoperableexamplesforreview.Fora listofprojectsseeAppendix2.2.1.4CrossBorderInitiativesProjectsdescribed,above,are spatiallydelimited to specific locations in the contextofEuropeancities.Developments in ambient computing in Europe also encompass SpatialData Infrastructure(SDI) technologies that aim to enable interoperability acrossnationalborders through theuseofdigitalandambient technologies towards thedevelopmentofNationalandRegional SpatialDataInfrastructures(NSDIs)(Jacksonetal.,2009).TheseSDIswillalsobeapplicableandinteroperableatthesubnational,regionalandevenlocalperspectiveswhichrequireanequivalentlevelofattention(Jacksonetal.,2009).Thepotentialofinstitutional,socialandculturalobstaclestoseriouslyimpedethe realisation of the centralised NSDI vision, given the multitude of stewards of geospatialinformation for any geographic region and the associated stakeholderswhose interestsmust beprotected (Jackson et al., 2009) is significant. These obstacles and proposedways around them,includingthedevelopmentofplacebasedpolicies,arediscussedingreaterdetailinsection4.The development of NSDIs in the European context is largely focused on enhancing theinteroperabilityofdataon theenvironment ingeneral thisbeing thedriving force in the INSPIREDirective14although,asdemonstratedbelow,applicationsalsoincludeurbanandtransportplanningandeadministration.

2.1.4.1TheINSPIREDirectiveEuropeneedsanintegratedapproachtosolveitsenvironmentalproblemsandimproveitsplanning(Craglia,2009;Klien,2009).ThisabsenceofanetworkedapproachresultedinearlyworkonINSPIRE(InfrastructureforSpatialInformationintheEuropeanCommunity)in2001.Theaimoftheinitiativewas to integrate environmental spatial data from different European sources to enableinteroperable,seamless,andeasytolocatedatabanks.TheframeworklaysdownrulestoestablishaninfrastructureforspatialinformationacrossEurope,whichisoperatedbythe27memberstatesof theEuropeanUnion (INSPIRE,2009a).Thestakeholders includesupranationalEUagenciesandunitsofthememberstatesaswellasexpertsfromresearchbackgrounds.AkeyobjectiveofINSPIREisthatusersfrommemberstateswillbeabletoaccessspatialinformationfromavarietyofsourcesacross theEU,providing true interoperabilitybetweendatasets. INSPIREalsoseekstoenhancethe interoperabilityofspatialdataandnetworkservicesthataffecthowthedataisviewed,downloadedandwhatmetadataisgenerated.

14See:http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l_108/l_10820070425en00010014.pdf

24

INSPIREmovesbeyondvoluntarycooperationas itsruleshaveenteredEuropean legalframeworks(Kok, 2007). From 2009, the INSPIRE directive has been integrated into national laws,when theINSPIRECommissionRegulationonMetadata (EC)number1205/2008wasapproved (Klien,2009).INSPIREdoesnotaimtonotcreateonecentralserverorservice,buttoenablethesharingofspatialdatabetweenthememberstatesthatcreateandstore it(Coote,2008).Toensurethatthespatialdata infrastructures of the different member states are compatible across Europe, the INSPIREDirectiverequiresthatcommon ImplementingRules(IR)areadopted inanumberofspecificareas(INSPIRE, 2009a), in order to facilitate crossborder interoperability (Coote, 2008). These areasinclude:1. Metadata2. Theinteroperabilityandharmonizationofspatialdataandservicesforselectedthemesknown

asAnnexI,IIandIII3. Networkservicesandtechnologies4. Measuresonsharingspatialdataandservices5. CoordinatingandmonitoringstandardsThereare34thematiccategoriesofdatathatarecoveredbytheINSPIREDirective(deGroof,2009),whicharecentraltoenvironmentalpolicyresearchandplanning.Thesethemesaredividedbetweenthree categories, known as Annex I, II and III (INSPIRE, 2009b). Annex I includes datasets thatcomprise of coordinate reference systems, administrative units, names, addresses, transportnetworksandhydrography.AnnexIIincludesdataonelevation,landcoverandgeometry.AnnexIIIincludesgeospatialdataonstatisticalunits,soil,buildings,riskzones,mineralresources,populationanddemography.WorkonAnnexIthemesisunderway,andworkonAnnexIIandIIIbeganin2010(INSPIRE,2009c).2.1.4.2GIS4EUThe EU consists of 27 separate countries but its infrastructure systems, government policies,transportand communicationnetworksare interconnected. Inorder toenablepolicymaking it isnecessarytointegratethisdataintodatabasesthatcontainreliableandaccuratedatarelatingtothewiderEU(GIS4EU,2009b).Currently,dataisstoredbyindividualagencieswhichcollectthedataatdifferentscales,usingdifferentlevelsofaggregation,usingtheirownmetadatastandardsandwithmanyotherdifferences,asituation thatmakes the integrationofdatacomplex.Referencedata isalsostoredusingdifferentcoordinatesystems,usingdifferenttypesofclassificationforthethematiccomponentsanddifferent rules thatdictatehow tomatch theedgesofdata (GIS4EU,2009b). Inaddition, there canbe a lackofmetadata, for compilingdatasets,which canbe compoundedbylanguagedifferences,whilstlegaldifferenceswithinindividualEUstatesaffecthowdatacanbesoldand accessed,which further limit the use of data in spatial, environmental research and policymaking(GIS4EU,2009b).Inorder address these interoperability challengesGIS4EU is aproject, completed July 2010, thataims to facilitate crossscale, crosslanguage and crossborder interoperability and accessibility,according to the standards and requirements of the INSPIRE Directive (GIS4U, 2009a). GIS4EUadopted a common data model, harmonization, aggregation and data exposition rules andguidelines,sothatuserscanaccessconsistentandhomogenousreferencedata,withouttheneedtobuild a central database, as geospatial data will be accessed from different sites before beingintegrated (GIS4U, 2009a). The project developed new base cartography datasets through theharmonisation and aggregation process to address the four themes of administrative units,hydrography,transportationnetworksandelevation.

25

GIS4EUhadsixkeyobjectives(GIS4U,2009a):1. Create a system approach network through all different classes of subject involved:

stakeholders,users,scientists,technicians,datacollectors.2. Overcomethecriticalaspectlinkingtogetherallsubjectsinvolvedinthedecisionprocess;3. Implementinganddevelopingatestside,relatedtofourdifferentbasiccartographiclayers;4. Generateawebsiteforfreetesting,andtoshareinformationandmethodology;5. Improvecommunicationandintegrationamongthemainactorsatdifferentlevelofproducing,

usingandmanipulatingbasecartographyalloverEU, inparticularrelatedtostandarduseandcommonrequirements;

6. Generatenewopportunities forsharing informationanddevelopcommonstandardcomplianttoINSPIREdirectiveandtechnicalaspects.

GIS4EU is an EU funded project through its eContentplus programme, to develop guidelines andtools to adopt common datamodels under the INSPIRE directive for the Annex 1 and Annex 2themes(Hobonaetal,2009).UnderthethemeofAnnex1,GIS4EUwillcriticallyevaluatetheINSPIREcommondatamodelsrelatingtoadministrativeunits,transportnetworks,andhydrography,toseehowwelltheyintegratedata.UnderAnnex,two,GIS4EUwilldevelopanewcommondatamodeltoconvertelevationdata(Hobonaetal,2009).Thetestinganddevelopmentofnewmodelsisachievedbyreverseprojectingofdataontonewcoordinatereferencesystems,torecodethedata,whilstnewrules have been created to copewith gaps that emerge in integrated datasets. Integration alsoinvolves changing thenamesofattributesand rasterandvectordataattributes, suchasmiles tokilometres for transportnetworks (Hobonaetal,2009).Thereareawidenumberofparticipatorystakeholders involved inGIS4EU, including public authorities, dataproviders, researchers, serviceproviders, software producers, whose standards must all be taken into account. Once theestablished standards are reused,bothmoney and time inprojectmanagement for theusersofGIS4EU will be saved, and users will benefit from the interoperability of different datasets tointegratecrossborder,crossscaledata(GIS4EU,2009c).2.1.4.3UCityRelevance:WesttoEastBoth INSPIRE and GIS4EU have important implications and lessons that could be used in thedevelopmentofinteroperableUCitysystems.INSPIREandGIS4EUseektodevelopframeworksthatwillenableausertoaccessmultipledatabasesthatareheldbydifferentgovernmentdepartments,from across Europe. These datasets include information on elevation, land cover, buildings,population and demography. Carrera and Ferreira (2007) have suggested that municipalgovernments should develop spatial data infrastructures where government departments stoppoolingalltheirdata,andinsteadtaskeachdepartmentwithlookingafteritsowndata,butwhereitcanbeaccessedbyotherdepartments,withtheaimofthedevelopingmoredetailedandgranularsourcesofgeospatialdata.UCitydesignerscouldusetherulesandframeworksdevelopedfromtheINSPIRE and GIS4EU initiatives to inform their own interoperable frameworks that could enabledifferentgovernmentdepartmentswithinaUCity,andnationalscalegovernmentdepartments,toobtain data from each other without the need of building common data depositories. Thesestandards couldbedevised tohelphomogenise thedifferent sourcesofdata, stored indifferentlocationsandmanagedbydiversegovernmentdepartments.Thiswouldremovetheneedtostoredata in a centralised silo, saving operational expenses, but this strategy would also enable therelevantauthoritiesanddepartmentstoupdatespatialandcitydataonamoreregularbasisthanbefore. This model could also be used to develop an openarchitecture infrastructure wherecrowdsourceddata,exploredinmoredetailinsection4,couldbedirectlyaccessedbycityofficials,basedoninformationcollectedandofferedbythecityscitizens,whichcouldbeusedtoinformthedecisionmakingprocessesofgovernmentofficialsandplanners, todevelopandmanage the city.

26

This would enable large and diverse datasets to be accommodated, viewed and processed byofficialsandcitizensasnecessaryvia theUCityswireless infrastructure, loweringcosts,providingmoreaccurateanduptodate informationon thecityand its inhabitants.Geospatialdataon themovementsof crowds,photographs andupdates couldbeused toprovide realtimedata to thegovernment inemergencies, forexample,whilst citizens couldalsoprovide ideasandopinions inplanning decisions, democratising the UCity and engaging citizens, potentially increasing thesustainabilityofUCitiesthoughresidentinvolvement.2.1.5Summary:CharacterisingEuropeanApproachestotheKnowledgebasedSocietyIntheEuropeancontext,theconceptsofdigitalandambienttechnologieshavebeenadoptedanddeveloped towards several specific objectives. The primary drivers of the incorporation can besummarisedasfollows: City Administration (egovernance) and Urban Infrastructures: Towards integrated service

delivery(informationprovision,guidance,electronicpayments),urbanplanningandtransport,urban regeneration and landuse planning, environmental monitoring and emergencymanagementsystemsandsecurity;

Economic Regeneration/Development: Attracting new business through infrastructureimprovementsandaccessibilityandavailabilityofinnovativetechnologies;

Social Inclusion and Quality of Life: Services for schools, the elderly/disabled, citizenparticipation (eparticipation), culture and tourism,health and social affairs, adult education,labourandemployment.

As listed above, the initial use of digital technologies has been recognised and adopted for itspotential in widening participation through egovernance. Further applications of digital andambienttechnologieshavealsobeenadoptedfor improvedurbanplanningtowardssustainability,specificallythroughtheapplicationoftechnologiessuchaswireless,sensors,handhelddevices,LBSand RFID to urban transport systems. Examples of the application of these technologies includeclickablemapsand3D iconicvisualisations (aswitnessed in thecaseofVirtualHelsinki)aswellasparticipatorydecisionsupport inwhich,duetotheprominenceofspatial issues inurbandecisionmaking,GIStechnologieshavebeenheavilyutilised(Couclelis,2004)15.Additionalexamplesincludeurban simulationsbasedonmodelsofurban change and integratedurban simulation andpublicdecisionsupportwhichbuildon this,aswellas thedevelopmentof locationbasedserviceswhichfoster a whole range of interactive digital city functions (Couclelis, 2004). This latter exampleperhaps marks the evolution of digitalcity technologies to ambient technologies, signalling theprogression of ICT in urban planning in Europe. These have also been employed across thecontinentalregionforthebenefitofenvironmentalmonitoringtowardsenvironmentalsustainabilityandmanagement, includingriskassessmentandhazardresponse(e.g.EuroGEOSS).GiventhegoaloftheEUtowardsgreatertransnationalism,muchoftheemphasisofegovernanceandplanningison developing transnational and national regulatory regimes (Maynard, 2008) witnessed mostspecifically through the INSPIREdirective.More specificprojects areworking towards theuseoflocationspecificdataforarangeofapplications,whichincludeetourismincities(iTACITUS)16.TheEuropeanmodelofICTandurbangovernancereflectstheperceived importanceoftheroleoflocalormunicipalgovernmentinthedesignandimplementationofICTandurbanplanningpoliciesratherthanadministrationatthestateornationallevel(seeCohenBlankshtainandNijkmap,2003;Maynard,2008).TheEuropeanmodelalsoreflectsrecognitiononbehalfofpolicymakersoftheroleof ICT as an essential component in initiatives to improve municipal governance and citizen

15SeeNyergesandJankowski(2001)16SeeAppendix2c

27

participation, as well as a key driver behind economic development efforts (Maynard, 2008).Increasingcompetitivenessandwideningparticipationthrough egovernance,urbanplanningandenvironmentalmonitoring for risk assessment and hazardmanagement are at the heart of theEuropeaneAgenda17.Atpresent,despiteprogressionincertainareas(inparticularenvironmentalmonitoring),with reference to the typologies and examples provided above, European examplescurrently demonstrate a greater tendency toward digital rather than ambient computingtechnologies.2.2 ICTandUrbanPlanninginAsia East Asian intelligent cities experience the most comprehensive technological coverage, incomparisontoEuropeanandUSexamples,astheirmunicipalgovernmentsseektoextendInternetcoverage to all city residents, to enhance their standards of living. These city developments areusuallycharacterisedas topdowngovernmentledprogrammes that subsidise thecompletionoflargeandambitiousprojects.Forexample,Singaporewasoneofthefirstnationstatestodevelopacomprehensive,nationalinformationinfrastructure,whenthegovernmentlaunchedtheSingaporeNational IT Plan in 1986,which sought to connect homes, offices, schools and factories, to theInternet (ArunandYap,2000).Thegovernmentaimed toprovideallgovernmentservices,advice,formsandpermits,throughanonlineportalcalledtheECitizenServiceCentre.Singaporeaimedtobecome the worlds first intelligent country, predating the digital cities of Europe. Singaporeprovides an interesting exampleof an earlydigital city;unlike the European examples thatwereformulatedbylocalandsupranationalgovernments.Singaporesprojectwasnationallycoordinated;afeatureitshareswiththeSouthKoreanmodelofUCities.AlthoughSingaporecanbecategorisedasadigitalcity,ithasbeguntoslowlychangeandadoptnewtechnologiesandservicesthatareusedin ambient cities. Singapore has long used road tolls where transponders in cars are used toautomaticallybillconsumers (Graham,2002).Again, thisreflectsmoreofaUCitymodel in that itusesambienttechnologyembeddedintothebuiltenvironment.Thishasbeencomplementedmorerecentlybynew innovationsandplanswith the launchofSingapores iN2015masterplan,whichseekstoprovidenewinfrastructure,enhancedbroadbandandapervasivewirelessnetwork,knownastheWireless@SGProgramme(IDA,2009).Despiteearliercategorisationsasadigitalcity(seeforexampleIshida,2000),Tokyohasalsobecomea city of ambient technology given developments such as the adoption of realtime ubiquitoustechnologiesforitstransportsystems.Ithasalsobecomeatestbedfornewubiquitoustechnologiesas academics, the TokyoMunicipal Government and private sector stakeholders seek to embedubiquitous technologies intoTokyowith the aimofupgrading the city to aubiquitous city. Since2005, feasibility projects have been conducted across Tokyo to assist planners and privatecompanies inmeetingtheTokyoMunicipalGovernmentsaimofeventuallybecomingaubiquitouscity,where the new technologies can be showcased to theworld (TokyoUbiquitous TechnologyProject,2009a).ThisisdifferenttotheKoreanUCitydevelopmentinthattheCitysinfrastructureisupgradedretrospectively,whereastheKoreanplan istodevelopentirelynewUCities.TheKoreangovernments leading role in the development of new UCities seeks to seamlessly integrateubiquitoustechnologieswithinstreets,homesandoffices,providingcoverageacrosstheentirecity.TheUCityconceptcanbeconsideredanoutcomeoftheKoreangovernmentsproactivestanceonthedevelopment,implementationanduseofIT(Shin,2008).It ishopedthatSongdowillstimulateregional development and improve the quality of life for its citizens focussing on safety,environmental security,andeducation (KyungMin,2009).Whileanew city,and theworlds firstubiquitouscity,Songdomaysoonbejoinedbyotherevolvingdigitalcitiesthatarebeginningtousemore ambient technology,drivenby comprehensive governmentprogrammes, such as Singapore

17On a technicalnote, theuseof the eprefixhere isdeliberate todenote theuseofdigital rather thanambienttechnologiesthroughsemanticassociationstowebbasedtechnologies(Internet,broadbandetc).

28

andTokyo. Songdohasyettobecompleted,andasMcNeill(2009)hashighlighted,previousnewbuildcities,likeBrasiliaandIslamabadhavefacedmanyproblems.Subsequently,Songdossuccessisnotguaranteed,anditwillhavetocompetewithmoreestablishedcitiesthatmayalsosuccessfullyinnovateandadoptcomprehensiveambient technologies,bringing themcloser to towards theUCitystatus.2.3ICTandurbanPlanningintheUS18The US leads the world in terms of computing and communication innovations. The largest ITcompanies such asMicrosoft, Google, Oracle and IBMwere founded in the US. The US is alsoconsideredtobehomeoftheInternetandalsoubiquitouscomputing,whichwascoinedbyWeiserandiscentraltotheconceptoftheUCity.Thewidespreadimplementationofnewtechnologiesandtheir use in intelligent urban environments distinguishes the US approach to intelligent citydevelopment from those in Europe and Asia, in that the US model reflects the USs capitalist,marketdrivenpoliciesinthatinnovationsanddevelopmentsarefosteredthroughprivateinitiatives.TheUSutilisespublicprivatesectorpartnershipstocontinuetodevelopandofferaccesstopublicand egovernance tools and local content Internet access (Maynard, 2008), although the publicauthoritiesplaya lessactive role thanwitnessed inAsia.Theeffectof this is frequently thatofadigitaldivide,wherepoorercommunitiesfinditdifficulttoaccesstheInternet,duetoashortageofIT literacy,orbeingunabletoaffordthehardwareand infrastructure,excludingthemfromdigital,ambientandubiquitouscities.Ontheotherhand,wealthiercitizensareabletoaffordITaccessandequipment,enablingthemtogainaccesstodigitalcityinitiatives.TheseissuesarehighlightedthroughtheexampleofSanFrancisco.Thecitysresidentshaveaccesstobroadbandservicesoperatedbyprivate,commercialoperations,butthemunicipalgovernmentdecidedthatauniversal,affordablewirelessbroadbandserviceshouldbeestablishedtoconnectallareas and residents of the city to the Internet, especially the urban poor (City of San Francisco,2005).TheCitysDepartmentofTelecommunications&InformationServicesandtheSanFranciscoPublic Utilities Commission were tasked with exploring the possibilities of a communitywidewireless broadband network. Benefits and specifications included public safety improvements,constructionandITdevelopment.Assuch,developmentsintheUSthatuseambientandubiquitoustechnologies are smaller,privatedevelopments. There isonlyoneubiquitousurban environmentdevelopment in theUS, at the timeofwriting,perhaps,due inpart to the issue that realestatedevelopmentsintheUSaremarketdrivenandtheremaynotyetbeademandforUCitiesintheUS.ThedevelopmentisbeingfinancedbyC&MInvestments,aprojectthatentailsa100acrerealestateproject in Dayton, Kentucky, called Manhattan Harbour (Wartman, 2009a). It is hoped thatconstructionwillbegininearly2010whentheurbaninfrastructureiscompletewiththefirstphaseof homes and commercial properties being placed on themarket the following year (Wartman2009a). The developmentwill include 2,000homes from apartments to familyhomes, aMarina,hotelandboardwalk,withproposedferryservices.Theprojectisinitsearlystagesandthereislittlepublicly available information on the technologies envisaged for the development, which willmaximiserevenuesforthelocalauthorityandprofitsfortherealestatedeveloper.2.4ComparingEuropean,AsianandUSApproachesDespite the application of digital and ambient technologies to particular projects in Europe andNorthAmerica, it isclearfromacomparativeexaminationwiththeirEastAsiancounterparts,thatthere isadistinctdifference intheway inwhichsuchtechnologiesarebeingembracedacrossthethreeregionsoftheglobe.Thisdifferenceistwofold:firstlythedegreeoftechnologicalcomplexity(i.e.theimplementationofubiquitousoverambientordigitaltechnologies),andsecondlytheextent 18MoredetailsonthesecitiescanbefoundinAppendix5.

29

oftherangeofservicesandtoolstowhichthesetechnologiesareappliedinanyonecityorregion.Nowhere in Europe or North America is the concept of the UCity, as a fully integrated, fullycomprehensive initiative, presently undergoing technological development and construction on anational scale as it is in Korea. This section of the report seeks to highlight and explore thesedifferencesbetweenAsian,EuropeanandUSapproachestointelligenturbanenvironments.Therearedifferentrationalesthatunderliethedevelopmentofdigital,ambientandubiquitouscitiesthataffecthowthesecityinitiativesareplannedandimplemented,andwhichservicessubsequentlyemerge.Forexample,USdigitalcitiesareusuallydevelopedbyprivatecompaniestoadvertiseandselladditionalservices,wherethekeyaimistogeneraterevenue,whilstdigitalcitiesinEuropeandAsiaareusuallydevelopedbygovernmentsandmunicipalauthoritiestosupplypublicservicesoverthe Internet, tobuildcommunitiesand toprovide increased Internetaccess for theircitizens.Theeffectof this is thatUSdigital cities succumb toadigitaldivide,where thosewhoare financiallypoor,orcomputerilliterate,lackaccesstotheseservices.IntheUS,ambientservicessuchasZipCar,whereconsumerscanrentandaccessacarusingRFIDandGPStechnology,areusuallyprivateandgenerateprivaterevenue.InEurope,however,publicservicessuchasiTACITUS(seeAppendix4)aredeveloped experimentally with publicsector backing, to see if ambient technologies can bedevelopedforsuccessfulpublicserviceusage.InJapan,smallpublicsectorprojectshavealsobeenimplemented toexplore theuseofambient technologies, inasimilarway.TheUCityparadigm isdrivenmainlybyKorea,whichseekstoenricheverydaylifeandtoenhanceeconomicdevelopmentandtodevelopenvironmentallysustainablecities,whichbenefitallcitizens,whoareplacedatthecentreofthegovernmentsplans.Thestakeholdersinvolvedinthedevelopmentandmanagementofintelligentcitiestypicallyincludeboth theprivateandpublic sector.However, thereare significantdifferencesas to thedegreeofinvolvementofthedifferentpartiesinvolvedincitydevelopment.Forexample,inAsia,theKorean,SingaporeanandJapanesegovernments,includingacademicresearchers,haveplayedacentralroleinshapingthedevelopmentoftechnologicalcities.BothSingaporeandKoreahavedevelopedunitsofgovernmentand legislationtogovernthedevelopmentofnewcitieswheretheyhavetakenanactivepartinplanningnewcitiesandoverseeingtheirdevelopment.Intheseexamples,thepowerrelationships are very much topdown where the government coordinates private companies,smallermunicipal bodies and consumers in determining how the city will be designed and thetechnology and systems that will be provided. On the other hand, the US has consistentlymaintainedamarketapproach tocitydevelopmentandalthoughgovernmentsseek toenactnewprojects, thedevelopmentofnewurban areas ispioneeredby individualprivate companies thatmay ormay not include ubiquitous computing devices in their plans for development. Europeanexamples sit between these two extremes, where government funding, frequently from thesupranationalauthorityoftheEuropeanUnionisusedtofundresearchintonewprojectsthathavestimulatedresearch intonewprogrammesthroughacademicpartnerships.Whilst funding ismadeavailablefortheprojects,privatecompaniesproducethetechnologyandsystems,butinthecaseofEuropeandigitalcityinitiatives,thepublicprivaterelationshipshavebeenmorebalancedthanthoseinAsiaandtheUS.The distribution of power between these publicprivate relationships has generated a particulargeography that surrounds the distribution of intelligent cities, in particular the UCity concept,around the globe. The powerful role of government in Asian UCities is topdown where thedevelopmentofnewregulationandtheplacementofUCitiesanddigitalcitiesatthe forefrontofgovernmentpolicyhaveenabled large technological cities like Songdo tobedeveloped.As thesedevelopments are holistic and cover entire cities, the Asian cities are more comprehensivelydeveloped,with Internet coverageextendingacrossentire cities.As for theUS, itsmarketdrivenapproachmeansthatthegovernmenthasaminimalroleandmarketforcesmeanthatcompanies

30

have only developed ambient services and technologies, and digital cities, if they are profitable,creatingadigitaldividewhere somepartsofcitieshaveubiquitous serviceswhilstothersdonot,reducing citywide coverage.Europe is similar in this regard, as individualpolicieshavenotbeendevelopedtointroducenewcities,orambientcities.UnliketheKoreanexample,theapplicationofdigital and ambient technologies in Europe remains significantly adhoc, lacking in a joinedup,networkedapproachtoincorporatingambienttechnologiesanddrivingforwardtheconceptofthenew information era or knowledge based society (built on the technological and ideologicalfoundationsofubiquitouscomputing)acrossnationsandbetweenregions.ThatisnottosaythatEuropeanprojectshavenotincorporatedubiquitouscomputingtechnologiesinto future plans. However, unlike the Korean approach, present European examples reflect aneither/orapproach: forexample, the INSPIREdirectivehasenabled thedevelopmentofprojectssuchasGIS4EUandEuroGEOSS,fundamentallyenvironmentalinitiativeswhichaimtoworktowardsconnected,networked and interoperable crossborder SDI systems across Europe. Individual citywide examples demonstrate the use of ambient computing but fail to roll this out across acomprehensivecitywideagenda,incorporatingtechnologiestoaddressallaspectsofeverydaycitylife comparable to the application of ubiquitous technologies to urban planning in South Korea.DespitedevelopmentsindigitalandambienttechnologiesandSDIsandNSDIs,unlikesomesoutheastAsianexamples,todate,neitherEuropenortheUShaveyettoembracetheconceptof fullyintegrated, comprehensive ubiquitous computing applications to entire delimited geographicalareas.The technologies incorporated into urban environments vary between the cities in the NorthAmerican,EuropeanandAsianregions dependentonthedifferenttypesofcity locatedthere.Assuch,UCities based in Asia aremore likely to utilise ubiquitous technologies that have amorediverserangeofsensorsthatdetectpressure,heatandmovement.ThesetechnologiesalsoutiliseBluetoothandwirelessnetworkinganddevicessuchasRFIDtagsandsmallcomputersembeddedintotheenvironment.Thesetechnologiesarealsoused inambientcityservices inEurope,butthekey difference is that they do not provide comprehensive coverage across the entire city. Thesevariations inthedifferenttechnologiesthat formthebackboneofthesedifferentcitiesalsoaffectthe degree of interoperability between these different types of city and the importance thatinteroperability plays. The need for interoperability is lowest in the digital cities that are foundmostly in theUSandEurope,as theaccess required is throughdesktopcomputersor laptops,orhandhelddevicesthroughstandardInternetconnections.Thereismoredemandforinteroperabilityinambientcities in theUS,EuropeandAsia,wherehandhelddevicesrequireaccess todata fromGPS,RFIDtagsandtheInternetwhichutilisedifferentdevicesandneedenhanced interoperability.Thedemandisstilllowerhowever,asthesenetworksandambientservicesoperateacrossprivatelydesigned networks and do not require interoperability with other systems within the city. Thegreatestdemandfor interoperabilityisamongsttheUCitysystems,astheuseofmultipletypesoftechnologiesthroughRFIDtagsandpressuresensors,forexample,needtobenetworkedwithothersystemsacross theentirecity,whilstmaintainingconstant flowsof informationbetweendifferentsensorynetworks.Theneed for increased interoperabilitywillpotentiallyoccur in the future ifUCitiesbegintoadoptcrowdsourcingtechnologies,wheredatacanbegeneratedfromcitizens.Theintelligent city developments are unsurprisingly, shaped by the aims and stakeholders of eachproject,althoughthesedoresult instarkdifferences inthetechnologiesandcoverageexperiencedbydifferentcityparadigmsindifferentgeographicalregions.Theseregionaldifferencesinstagesofdevelopment and applicationof ICTs tourbanplanning andmanagement raises a seriesofmoregeneralquestions about society, technology and culturebetween global regions, ideaswhich areexploredinmoredepthinthefollowingsectionsofthereport.

31

3. IssuesandCritiques:LessonsLearnedfromEuropean,AsianandUSModels3.1GovernanceIssues:EuropeanExperiencesofDigitalCityProjectsThe European experience of digital cities in themidlate 1990s, which came out of a range ofresearch and development projects across the region, provides a series of lessons and valuableinsights for localand regionalgovernance through theuseof ICT.Twoprojects, EuropeanDigitalCities and Digital City Amsterdam are considered here, each providing insights into differentaspectsofICTandegovernance.3.1.1EuropeanDigitalCitiesProjectIn 1996, the EU launched a fouryear European Digital Cities project under the auspices of theTelematicsApplicationProgrammeforthepurposesofsupportingEuropeancitiesandregionsinthedeployment of new, economically and socially sustainable telematics applications and to identifyrelatedfutureneedsandprioritiesoflocalauthorities(Mino,2000;Couclelis,2004).Ratherthanthedissemination of network programmes via the Internet, the European Digital Cities programmeplacedemphasisonthedevelopmentoftelematicservices(Komninos,2002).The programme saw 100 European cities (as part of five discrete networks of cities) impleme