Managing Smart City development using citizen feedback: transforming opinions into a multi-criteria tool for evaluation and validation of city policies
https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2022-28-2-266-291
Abstract
In the last decade, research in the field of smart cities has expanded from purely technological aspects to include the areas of management development, urban planning and social sciences. In general, the discussion focuses on how the use of technology contributes to the development of the city, urban space and improving the quality of decisions[1].
The article offers a tool to enrich the urban development management system. It is argued that by developing appropriate scales, subjective views and perceptions of the citizen can be objectivized and, therefore, are very useful for managers and politicians.
In this paper, the development process is carried out in several stages, using inductive and deductive methods. Following focus groups and interviewing representatives of the city authorities, a survey was conducted with the participation of almost a thousand city inhabitants from all Kazakhstan regions. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 24 and AMOS 20 tools.
The study proposes a scale that includes statements structured in five identified dimensions: willingness to interact, expectation of improvements, willingness to use, concern about efficiency, concern about abuse. As the methodology is disclosed, important theoretical and managerial implications are discussed, the need for information flow management in the interests of participants in the implementation of Smart City is justified.
About the Authors
P. T. Burbayeva
L. Gumilyov Eurasian National University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
PhD, Senior Lecturer
Satpayev str., 2, Nur-Sultan, Republic of Kazakhstan, 010008
B. K. Mendybayev
L. Gumilyov Eurasian National University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
PhD student
Satpayev str., 2, Nur-Sultan, Republic of Kazakhstan, 010008
References
1. Alonso R.G., Lippez-De Castro S. Technology helps, people make: a smart city governance framework grounded in deliberative democracy // Smarter as the New Urban Agenda. 2016. Springer. P. 333–347.
2. Arnstein S.R. A ladder of citizen participation // Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1969. N 35 (4). P. 216–224.
3. Batty M. The computable city // International Planning Studies. 1997. N 2 (2). P. 155–173.
4. Bokayev B., Davletbayeva Z., Amirova A., Rysbekova Z., Torebekova Z., Jussupova G. Transforming E-government in Kazakhstan: a citizen-centric approach // The Innovation Journal. 2021. N 26 (1). P. 1–21.
5. Boulton A., Brunn S.D., Devriendt L. Cyberinfrastructures and “smart” world cities: physical, human, and soft infrastructures // International Handbook of Globalization and World Cities / Ed. by B. Derudder, M. Hoyler, P.J. Taylor, F. Wit-Lox. Cheltenham, 2011. P. 198–208.
6. Bovaird T. Beyond engagement & participation: user & community coproduction of public services // Public Administration Review. 2007. N 67 (5). P. 846–860.
7. Cardullo P., Kitchin R. Being a “citizen” in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation // The Programmable City Working Paper. 2017. N 30.
8. Cardullo P., Kitchin R. Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland // GeoJournal (online first). 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9845-8.
9. Castells M. The informational city: information technology. Economic restruc-turing and the urban-regional process. Oxford, 1988.
10. Castells M. The informational city: economic restructuring and urban devel-opment. Oxford, 1989.
11. Castells M. The rise of the network society. Oxford, 1996.
12. Castelnovo W., Misuraca G., Savoldelli A. Smart cities governance: the need for a holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy making // Social Science Computer Review. 2016. Vol. 34. N 6. P. 724–739.
13. Choguill G. A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries // Habitat International. 1996. N 20 (3). P. 431–444.
14. Chourabi H., Nam T., Walker S., Gil-Garcia J.R., Mellouli S., Nahon K., Scholl H.J. and all. Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework // Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Honolulu, 2012. P. 2289–2297.
15. Clayton T.J. Public involvement in public management: adapting and testing a borrowed theory // Public Administration Review. 1990. N 50 (4). P. 435–445.
16. Cohen S. The sustainable city. Columbia, 2018.
17. Dameri R.P. Searching for a smart city definition: a comprehensive proposal // International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology. 2013. Vol. 11. N 5. P. 2544–2551.
18. Dameri R.P., Benevolo C. Governing smart cities: an empirical analysis // Social Science Computer Review. 2016. N 34. P. 693–707.
19. Dror M., Zehavi A. Delimiting citizen participation: how Israeli mayors get the most out of the process // Local Government Studies. 2020. Sept. DOI:10.1080/03003930.2020.1821663.
20. Dutton W.H., Blumler J.G., Kraemer K.L. Wired cities: shaping future com-munication. N.Y., 1987.
21. Forrester J.W. Urban dynamics. Cambridge, 1969.
22. Franz P. From university town to knowledge city: strategies and regulatory hurdles in Germany // Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era / Ed. by T. Yigitcanlar, K. Velibeyoglu, S. Baum. N.Y., 2008. P. 101–115.
23. Gil-Castineira F., Costa-Montenegro E., Gonzalez-Castano F., López-Bravo C., Ojala T., Bose R. Experiences inside the ubiquitous Oulu smart city // Comput-er. 2011. Vol. 44. N 6. P. 48–55.
24. Graham S., Marvin S. Planning cybercities: integrating telecommunications into urban planning // Town Planning Review. 1999. N 70 (1). P. 89–114.
25. Granier B., Kudo H. How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citi-zen participation in Japanese “Smart Communities” // Information Polity. 2016. Vol. 21. N 1. P. 61–76.
26. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. Multivariate. Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, 2006.
27. Hollands R.G. Will the real smart city please stand up? // Intelligent, Progres-sive or En-trepreneurial. City. 2008. N 12 (3). P. 303–320.
28. Ishida T. Understanding digital cities // Digital cities. LNCS. 2000. Vol. 1765. P. 7–17.
29. Kitchin R. The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism // GeoJournal. 2014. N 79 (1). P. 1–14.
30. Kweit R.W., Kweit M.G. Bureaucratic decision-making: impediments to citizen participation // Polity. 1980. N 12 (4). P. 647–666.
31. Langton S. What is citizen participation? // Citizen Participation in America / Ed. by S. Langton. Lexington, 1978.
32. Lytras M.D., Visvizi A., Chopdar P.K., Sarirete A., Alhalabi W. Information management in smart cities: turning end users’ views into multi-item scale development, validation, and policy-making recommendations // International Journal of Information Management. 2021. N 56. P. 102–146.
33. Macintosh A., Coleman S., Schneeberger A. eParticipation: the research gaps // Electronic Participation. 2009. N 5694. P. 1–11.
34. Malek J.A., Lim S.B., Yigitcanlar T. Social inclusion indicators for building cit-izen-centric smart cities: a systematic literature review // Sustainability. 2021. N 13 (1). P. 376.
35. Marres N. Material participation: technology, the environment and everyday publics. L., 2012.
36. Mitchell W.J. City of bits: space, place and the infobahn. Cambridge, 1995.
37. Mohseni H. Public engagement and smart city definitions: a classifying model for the evaluation of citizen power in 2025 Tehran // GeoJournal. 2021. N 86 (3). P. 1261–1274.
38. Nam T., Pardo T.A. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions // 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. College Park, 2011. P. 282–291.
39. Nam T., Pardo T.A. The changing face of a city government: a case study of Philly311 // Government Information Quarterly. 2014. N 31. S1–S9.
40. Negre E., Rosenthal-Sabroux C., Gascó M. A knowledge-based conceptual vision of the smart city // Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Honolulu, 2015. P. 2317–2325.
41. Papa R., Galderisi A., Vigo Majello M.C., Saretta E. Smart and resilient cities a systemic approach for developing cross-sectoral strategies in the face of climate change // TeMA – Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment. 2015. Vol. 8. N 1. P. 19–49.
42. Peters B.G., Pierre J. Governance without government? Rethinking public administration // Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 1998. N 8 (2). P. 223–243.
43. Public participation in public decisions: new skills and strategies for public managers. San Francisco, 1995.
44. Simrell K.C., Feltey K.M., O’Neill Susel B. The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration // Public Administra-tion Review. 1998. N 58 (4). P. 317–326.
45. Stephens L., Ryan-Collins J., Boyle D. Co-production. A manifesto for growing the core economy. L., 2008.
46. Van der Hoogen A., Scholtz B., Calitz A.P. Using theories to design a value alignment model for smart city initiatives // International Federation for Information Processing / Ed. by M. Hattingh. Berlin; Heidelberg, 2020. P. 55–66.
47. Voorberg W.H., Bekkers V.J.J.M., Tummers L.G. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey // Public Management Review. 2015. N 17 (9). P. 1333–1357. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14719037.2014.930505.
48. Wilcox D. The guide to effective participation. L., 1994.
49. Yang K., Pandey S.K. Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: when does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? // Public administration review. 2011. N 71 (6). P. 880–892.
50. Yetano A., Royo S., Acerete B. What is driving the increasing presence of citizen participation initiatives? // Environment and Planning C: Government and Poli-cy. 2010. N 28 (5). P. 783–802. URL: doi:10.1068/c09110.
Review
For citations:
Burbayeva P.T., Mendybayev B.K. Managing Smart City development using citizen feedback: transforming opinions into a multi-criteria tool for evaluation and validation of city policies. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science. 2022;28(2):195-213. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2022-28-2-266-291
Views:
532
Email this article 