Advertisement

Unprecedented Innovations in Sustainable Urban Planning: Novel Analytical Solutions and Data-Driven Decision-Making Processes

  • Simon Elias BibriEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.3k Downloads
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

City planning is drastically changing with regard to the way urban systems can function and be managed and developed in line with the goals of sustainable development. Marking and fueling this change predominately is the increasing use and application of big data and data-driven decision-making in urban analytics and planning to advance the contribution of cities to sustainability. This unprecedented shift has been instigated by the recent advances in data science and its becoming a more accessible tool to advocacy groups, more extensive data and their new sources being able to potentially allow key stakeholders to see and respond to various urban factors (mobility, transport, energy, environment, public health care, education, etc.) in real time, coupled with citizens emitting rich spatiotemporal data to an increasing extent through the use of various technologies. We refer to big data with respect to their humongous size and wide variety but pay particular attention to urban data, i.e., data invariably tagged with spatial and temporal labels; largely streamed from diverse sensory sources and stored in databases; generated routinely, automatically, and sporadically; and merged and coalesced in data warehouses for use at the citywide scale. This epitomizes a sea change in the data that we generate about urban systems as to what happens and where, when, how, and why in the urban environment. This is opening entirely new windows of opportunity for the application of analytical solutions and data-driven decision-making approaches into urban planning in terms of improving the performance of, and contribution to, the goals of sustainable development under what is termed smart sustainable cities. This chapter explores the real potential of big data and data-driven decision-making for revolutionizing or transforming the process of planning for the purpose of achieving the goals of sustainable development in the context of smart sustainable cities, focusing on different dimensions and functions of planning as well as their synergy and integration. We argue that the increasing proliferation and availability of urban data, coupled with the continuous integration of new and more extensive sources of such data as well as the evolving development of big data technologies, are increasingly enabling novel analytical solutions for, or sophisticated engineering approaches into, advancing the process of sustainable urban development, in addition to seamlessly integrating long-term strategic planning with short-term thinking about how cities can function and be managed in the context of sustainability. In addition, we believe that big data innovations entail how new data-driven transformations are facilitated and applied as well as diffused throughout urban systems, rather than simply denoting a significant growth in volume and variety of urban data.

Keywords

Smart sustainable cities Sustainable urban planning Big data analytics Data mining Data-driven decision-making Urban intelligence functions Urban simulations models Mobility data 

References

  1. Ahvenniemi H, Huovila A, Pinto–Seppä I, Airaksinen M (2017) What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities 60:234–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al Nuaimi E, Al Neyadi H, Nader M, Al-Jaroodi J (2015) Applications of big data to smart cities. J Internet Serv Appl 6(25):1–15Google Scholar
  3. Astrom KJ, Murray RM (2008) Feedback systems: an introduction for scientists and engineers. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Available online at www.cds.caltech.edu/*murray/amwiki/index.php/Main_Page
  4. Batty M (2010) Env Plann B: Plann Des 37:577Google Scholar
  5. Batty M (2013a) Big data, smart cities and city planning. Dialogues Human Geogr 3(3):274–279Google Scholar
  6. Batty M (2013b) Urban informatics and big data. A report to the ESRC cities expert, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), University College London (UCL)Google Scholar
  7. Batty M, Axhausen KW, Giannotti F, Pozdnoukhov A, Bazzani A, Wachowicz M, Ouzounis G, Portugali Y (2012) Smart cities of the future. Eur Phys J 214:481–518Google Scholar
  8. Berardi U (2013) Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environ Dev Sustain 15:1573–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bettencourt LMA (2014) The uses of big data in cities. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  10. Bibri SE (2013) ICT for sustainable urban development in the European Information Society: a discursive investigation of energy efficiency technology. Master thesis, School of Culture and Society, Malmö UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Bibri SE (2015) The shaping of ambient intelligence and the internet of things: historico-epistemic, socio-cultural, politico-institutional and eco-environmental dimensions. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bibri SE, Krogstie J (2016a) On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable cities: a study in science, technology, and society. Sustain Cities Soc 29:219–246Google Scholar
  13. Bibri SE, Krogstie J (2016b) Big data analytics and context–aware computing for smart sustainable cities of the future. In: NOBIDS symposium, vol 1818, pp 4–17Google Scholar
  14. Bibri SE, Krogstie J (2017a) Smart sustainable cities of the future: an extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain Cities Soc 31:183–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bibri SE, Krogstie J (2017b) ICT of the new wave of computing for sustainable urban forms: their big data and context–aware augmented typologies and design concepts. Sustain Cities Soc 32:449–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Böhlen M, Frei H (2009) Ambient intelligence in the city: overview and new perspectives. In: Nakashima H, Aghajan H, Augusto JC (eds) Handbook of ambient intelligence and smart environments. Springer, New York, pp 911–938Google Scholar
  17. Bourdic L, Salat S, Nowacki C (2012) Assessing cities: a new system of cross–scale spatial indicators. Build Res Inf 40(5):592–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brickmay J, Weiss CH (2000) Theory-based evaluation in practice: what do we learn? Eval Rev 24(4):407–443Google Scholar
  19. Campbell S (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plann Assoc 62(3):296–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ciborra C (2004) The Labyrinths of information: challenging the wisdom of systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cole R (2012) Transitioning from green to regenerative design. Build Res Inf 40(1):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cousins JB, Earl LM (1992) The case for participatory evaluation’. Edu Eval Policy Anal 14(4):397–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Creutzig F, Baiocchi G, Bierkandt R, Pichler PP, Seto KC (2015) A global typology of urban energy use and potentials for an urbanization mitigation wedge. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:6283–6288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad Manage Rev 24(3):522–537Google Scholar
  25. Eagle N, Pentland A (2006) Pers Ubiquitous Comp 10:255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eagle N, Pentland A (2009) Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fluckiger Y, Seth N (2016) Sustainable development goals: SDG indicators need crowdsourcing. Nature 531:448Google Scholar
  28. Foster J (2001) Education as sustainability. Environ Educ Res 7(2):153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gallopín GC (1997) Indicators and their use: information for decision-making. In: Moldan B, Billharz S (eds) Sustainability indicators. Report of the project of indicators of sustainable development. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Haapio A (2012) Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ Impact Assess Rev 32:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE (2002) How the built environment affects physical activity views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med 23(2S):64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hedman Å, Sepponen M, Virtanen M (2014) Energy efficiency rating of districts, case Finland. Energy Policy 65:408–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hilbert M, Lopez P (2011) The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science 332:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huang SL, Yeh CT, Budd WW, Chen LL (2009) A Sensitivity Model (SM) approach to analyze urban development in Taiwan based on sustainability indicators. Environ Imp Assess Rev 29:116–125.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.03.003
  35. International Council for Science (ICSU) (2015) Review of targets for the sustainable development goals: the science perspective. Available online: http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/review–of–targets–for–the–sustainable–development–goals–the–science–perspective–2015/SDG–Report.pdf. Accessed on 1 Dec 2016
  36. Glaser G (2012) Policy: base sustainable development goals on science. Nature 491:35Google Scholar
  37. Helbing D, Pournaras E (2015) Society: build digital democracy. Nature 527:33–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Höjer M, Wangel S (2015) Smart sustainable cities: definition and challenges. In: Hilty LM, Aebischer B (eds) ICT innovations for sustainability. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 310. Springer International Publishing, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Jabareen YR (2006) Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models, and concepts. J Plann Edu Res 26:38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johansson AW, Lindhult E (2008) Emancipation or workability?: critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research. Action Res 6(1):95–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Joseph B, Sullivan TA (1975) Sociology of science. Ann Rev Sociol 1(1):203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kasemir B, van Asselt BAM, Durrenberger G, Jaeger CC (1999) Integrated assessment of sustainable development: multiple perspectives in interaction. Int J Environ Pollut 11:407–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kärrholm M (2011) The scaling of sustainable urban form: some scale—related problems in the context of a Swedish urban landscape. Eur Plan Stud 19(1):97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Khan Z, Anjum A, Soomro K, Tahir MA (2015) Towards cloud based big data analytics for smart future cities. J Cloud Comput Adv Syst Appl 4(2)Google Scholar
  45. Kharrazi A, Qin H, Zhang Y (2016) Urban big data and sustainable development goals: challenges and opportunities. Sustainability 8(1293):1–8Google Scholar
  46. Kitchin R (2014) The real–time city? Big data and smart urbanism. Geo J 79:1–14Google Scholar
  47. Kumar A, Prakash A (2014) The role of big data and analytics in smart cities. Int J Sci Res (IJSR) 6(14):12–23Google Scholar
  48. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  50. McManus P (2012) Measuring urban sustainability: the potential and pitfalls of city rankings. Aust Geogr 43(4):411–424Google Scholar
  51. Marsal-Llacuna M-L, Colomer-Llinàs J, Meléndez-Frigola J (2015) Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the smart cities initiative. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90(B):611–622Google Scholar
  52. Mayer-Schonberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Mercer (2014) 2014 quality of living worldwide rankings—mercer survey. New York. http://www.uk.mercer.com/newsroom/2014-quality-of-living-survey.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2017
  54. Moldan B, Billharz S (eds) (1997) ‘Sustainability indicators’, Report of the project of indicators of sustainable development. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. More C, Mertens S (2011) The nature of computation. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nam T, Pardo TA (2011) Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on digital government researchGoogle Scholar
  57. Neirotti P, De Marco A, Cagliano AC, Mangano G, Scorrano F (2014) Current trends in smart city initiatives—some stylised facts. Cities 38:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Neuman M (2005) The compact city fallacy. J Plann Edu Res 25:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nielsen M (2011) Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nilon C, Berkowitz A, Hollweg K (2003) Introduction: ecosystem understanding is a key to understanding cities. In: Berkowitz A (eds) Understanding urban ecosystems. A new frontier for science and education. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  61. OECD (2012) OECD environmental outlook to 2050. The consequences of inaction. OECD Publishing. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/miljoarbete–i–samhallet/internationellt–miljoarbete/multilateralt/oecd/outolook–2050–oecd.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2017
  62. Ortega-Cerdà M (2004) Sustainability indicators as discursive elements. Viewed 20 Oct 2012. http://www.ent–consulting.com/images/stories/ENT/pdf/articles/indicators.pdfGoogle Scholar
  63. Patton MQ (1996) A world larger than formative and summative. Eval Pract 17(2):131–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Portugali Y (2011) Complexity, cognition and the city. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reed B (2007) Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration. Build Res Inf 35(6):674–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robinson J, Cole R (2015) Theoretical underpinnings of regenerative sustainability. Build Res Inf 43(2):133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Salat S, Bourdic L (2012) Systemic resilience of complex urban systems. TeMATrimestrale del Laboratorio Territorio Mobilità e Ambiente–TeMALab 5(2):55–68Google Scholar
  69. Sandberg J (2000) Understanding human competence at work: an interpretative approach. Acad Manag J 43(1):9–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Seyfang G, Smith A (2007) Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ Politics 16:584–603Google Scholar
  71. Schnfelder S, Axhausen KW (2010) Urban rhythms and travel behaviour: spatial and temporal phenomena of daily travel. Ashgate Publishing Company, FarnboroughGoogle Scholar
  72. Sharifi A, Murayama A (2013) A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 38:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stame N (2004) Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation 10(1):58–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shahrokni H, Årman L, Lazarevic D, Nilsson A, Brandt N (2015) Implementing smart urban metabolism in the Stockholm Royal Seaport: smart city SRS. J Ind Ecol 19(5):917–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tanguay GA, Rajaonson J, Lefebvre J-F, Lanoie P (2010) Measuring the sustainability of cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol Ind 10:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Turcu C (2013) Re–thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. J Environ Planning Manage 56(5):695–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Townsend A (2013) Smart cities—big data, civic hackers and the quest for a new utopia. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. United Nations (2015) World urbanization prospects. The 2014 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. http://www.esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2014–Report.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2017
  79. Weiss CH (1998) Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation? Am J Eval 19(1):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wheeler SM (2002) Constructing sustainable development/safeguarding our common future: rethinking sustainable development. J Am Plann Assoc 68(1):110–111Google Scholar
  81. Williams K, Burton E, Jenks M (eds) (2000) Achieving sustainable urban form. E & FN Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information Science, Department of Urban Design and PlanningNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations