Smart Equity: An Australian Lens on the Need to Measure Distributive Justice

  • Somwrita SarkarEmail author
Part of the S.M.A.R.T. Environments book series (SMARTE)


This chapter reviews ideas on the multidimensional measurement of wellbeing from economics, and proposes that smart cities must include equity as an important dimension of performance. A city, in order to be smart, should have equitable distributions of opportunities and outcomes driving overall system performance on efficiency, productivity, resilience, or sustainability.


Smart cities Social Equity Infrastructure Growth Spatial justice. 



The author would like to thank her 45 students and 2 tutors, Catherine Gilbert and Carolina Rodriguez, of the 2017 Urban Data and Science of Cities unit of study at The University of Sydney. The major assessment that the students worked on was to critique, redesign and extend the indicator set proposed on the National Cities Performance Framework, with a specific equity focus. The author would like to thank the entire team and acknowledges the stimulating discussions in class.


  1. Alizadeh, T., Farid, R., & Sarkar, S. (2018). Towards understanding the socioeconomic patterns of sharing economy in Australia: An investigation of Airbnb listings in the Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan regions. Urban Policy and Research. Scholar
  2. Australian Government (2016a) Smart Cities Plan, Department of the Prime Minister and the cabinet.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Government. (2016b). National cities performance framework, smart cities plan. Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.Google Scholar
  4. Batty, M. (2012). Smart cities, big data. Environment and Planning B, 39, 191–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batty, M. (2013). Big data, smart cities, and city planning. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(3), 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowling, R., McGuirk, P., & Maalsen, S. (2018) Realising smart cities: Partnerships and economic development in the emergence and practice of smart in Newcastle, Australia, Inside smart cities (pp. 33–47). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Foster, J., & Sen, A. (1997). On economic inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gurran, N., & Phibbs, P. (2017). When tourists move in: How should urban planners respond to Airbnb. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sarkar, S. (2018). Urban scaling and the geographic concentrations of inequality by city size. Environment and Planning B, early access online: 2399808318766070.Google Scholar
  10. Sarkar, S., Phibbs, P., Simpson, R., & Wasnik, S. (2018a). The scaling of income distribution in Australia: Possible relationships between urban allometry, city size, and economic inequality. Environment and Planning B, 45(4), 603–622.Google Scholar
  11. Sarkar, S., Wu, H., & Levinson, D. (2018b). Measuring polycentricity via network flows, spatial interaction, and percolation. Working paper pre-print:
  12. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: Why the GDP does not add up. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  14. Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney School of Architecture, Design and PlanningThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations