4.0 Article

Wicked Problems of Smart Cities

期刊

SMART CITIES
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 512-521

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/smartcities2040031

关键词

smart city; wicked problems; public choice constraints; automation; default technologies; resilience

资金

  1. Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science at the University of Gavle
  2. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) [2017-00937, 2016-011932]
  3. Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, and the Stockholm Resilience Centre
  4. Formas [2017-00937] Funding Source: Formas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is often uncritically assumed that, when digital technologies are integrated into the operation of city functions, they inevitably contribute to sustainable urban development. Such a notion rests largely on the belief that Information and Communication Technology (ICT) solutions pave the way for more democratic forms of planning, and that 'smart' technological devices result in a range of environmental benefits, e.g., energy efficiency and the mitigation of global warming. Drawing on the scientific literature that deals with 'smart cities', we here elaborate on how both propositions fail to consider drawbacks that could be characterized as 'wicked', i.e., problems that lack simplistic solutions and straightforward planning responses, and which often come about as 'management surprises', as a byproduct of achieving sustainability. We here deal with problems related to public choice constraints, 'non-choice default technologies' and the costs of automation for human learning and resilience. To avoid undemocratic forms of planning and too strong a dependence on non-choice default technologies, e.g., smart phones, we recommend that planners and policy makers safeguard redundancy in public-choice options by maintaining a wide range of alternative choices, including analog ones. Resilience thinking could help planners deal more effectively with the 'wickedness' of an increasingly hyper-connected society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据