Getting smarter about smart cities

Technology is increasingly part of the fabric of cities. Local and national governments partner with tech firms to improve transit, monitor for climate risks, increase energy efficiency, improve security, and communicate with and engage residents. But without adequate safeguards “smart city” solutions can risk deepening inequality and violating human rights. Public and private sector actors must have effective governance structures in place to avoid harm and ensure widespread benefits.

A new UNDP toolkit in partnership with IHRB aims to address these concerns. “Building Responsible Smart Cities: A toolkit for public and private sector actors” provides guidance on integrating human rights throughout smart city initiatives. It sets out foundational elements, such as vision, governance, participation and access to remedy. It then delineates project-lifecycle leverage points such as RFPs (requests for proposals), partner selection and contracting, project team composition, design and maintenance.

Insights from the toolkit will be featured in a session of IHRB’s upcoming Professional Certificate on Social Risk and Opportunity in the Built Environment.

“Smart city” solutions are often framed in terms of an industry - a rapidly growing one. One projection says this market will reach “USD 3,758 billion by 2030”, with the Asia Pacific region currently accounting for around 50% of the revenue share. “Smart” is a flexible term, however. The International Telecommunications Union identified 120 different definitions of “smart city”, before developing its own. And many have pointed out that smartness involves much more than technology. As UNDP’s Calumn Handforth and Riad Meddeb have said:

“Truly smart cities recognize the ambiguity of lives and livelihoods, and they are driven by outcomes beyond the implementation of ‘solutions.’ They are defined by their residents’ talents, relationships, and sense of ownership – not by the technology that is deployed there.”

Technology’s role in shaping the future of cities is undeniable, however, as artificial intelligence, big data, the internet of things, and quantum computing are integrated into city infrastructure and processes. Understanding risks to people must guide the way forward. All actors involved need to be aware of and protect human rights at stake including privacy, non-discrimination, meaningful participation, liberty and security, and access to essential services.

How can rights-aligned application of tech in cities be most effectively implemented? The following sections provide examples of key elements: purpose and vision; budget; governance (including data governance); and participation. All should be factored in at the earliest stages of a project lifecycle to ensure respect for rights and also longer-term sustainability.

Purpose and vision

Given their different mandates, public and private sector goals in smart cities can be at odds. For example, a market-expansion-first approach can lead to cities adopting smart water monitoring technologies when many residents still lack access to adequate water supplies, or prioritising apps to identify parking spaces when the majority of residents do not own cars. 

In Toronto, Google’s former subsidiary Sidewalk Labs eventually abandoned an ambitious plan to develop a tech-driven waterfront area following a backlash over concerns on how  data generated by the project would be held and used, and a sense among residents that a large, private technology firm had too much influence over local decision making. City and State-level governments have an important role to play in harnessing technologies towards the priority needs of residents, in alignment with human rights obligations.

Governance

India’s “Smart Cities Mission” has faced similar critiques of misalignment with the priorities of residents. A study and convening led by the Centre for Policy Research also highlighted governance risks baked into the initiative, in which local self-government entities known as panchayats, and elected municipal officials, were circumvented by designated “special purpose vehicles” with their own Chief Executives. One city’s SPV had five CEOs in six years, hindering consistent implementation of decisions. 

Smart city technologies generate large amounts of data about residents’ movements, preferences and identities. Effective data governance is key, ensuring transparency in how it is collected and stored, and also preventing its mis-use. Dr. Matt Mahmoudi has highlighted the ways in which migrant and refugee populations who have traditionally found some level of sanctuary, privacy and autonomy in cities increasingly see that freedom is constrained as governments partner with companies to extend surveillance and border controls. In China, facial recognition technology has long been used to support discriminatory practices against Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, technology that is now being expanded in African countries such as Zimbabwe. 

Budget 

Many cities, of all sizes, face budgetary constraints. Budgets allocated to smart city strategies should help improve the efficiency and reach of essential services, or meet other key priorities. As an Institute of the Americas report on smart city strategies in Latin America notes:

“[P]rioritization of smart city projects…is a task far more nuanced than simply selecting the most technologically advanced options…Crucial to this evaluation are factors such as alignment with broader strategic goals, technical feasibility, and the equitable distribution of benefits across the community. Funding is another critical consideration…While public budgets can provide some of the necessary capital, additional financing models often need to be explored.”

Meaningful participation

Testing the purpose and functionality of technology with its intended users - and those who will be impacted by it - can mitigate risks to people and also ensure greater effectiveness and uptake. The new UNDP toolkit cites an example from Birmingham, Alabama, where the uptake of a new paratransit app for people using wheelchairs - connecting them from their homes to train stations - was lower than expected because it did not enable multi-stop journeys, which was a priority for the users. 

In addition, while technology offers significant potential to connect previously-unconnected residents into city decision-making processes, UN Habitat has flagged that evaluations of e-participation initiatives “have consistently shown that…technology alone cannot increase civic engagement and participation.” Assessing and mitigating the impacts for local workforces - including informal sector workforces - of the introduction of new technology-driven systems is also important.

Making smart cities smarter

All these examples bring us back to the importance of centering people’s lives and livelihoods as government officials and private actors work to advance the “smart city” ecosystem. This ecosystem is a complex one, playing out in different ways around the world, with multiple interests and roles that are sometimes at odds. Actors involved need to ensure that approaches are grounded in human rights - with the cross-cutting principles of participation, non-discrimination, accountability and transparency. Building such concerns into every step of the journey can help the public and the private sector ensure that smart city strategies live up to their potential.