Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 1112 – 1118

International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction

Investigating social factors of sustainability in a smart city

Tannaz Monfaredzadehᵃ*, Robert Kruegerᵇ
ᵃVisiting PhD student, 100 Institute Road, Worcester 01609, MA, USA
ᵇAssociate Professor, 100 Institute Road, Worcester 01609, MA, USA

Abstract

Sustainability is an established goal of future urban developments. M ore recently, the smart city concept has been employed to
address issues associated with negative environmental externalities. Topics associated to people and communities, in the cont ent
of smart cities, have been neglected on the expense of a deeper understanding of the technological aspect of smart. This paper
focuses on filling this gap by exploring its significance of sustainability and describing the interactions of these two concepts.
This paper thus provides a particular concep tual focus on the potential of smart city strategies for improving the social
sustainability of cities.

© 2015
© 2015The The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and
and Construction
Construction 2015 2015.

Keywords: Smart City, Social Sustainability, Smart Initiative, Urban Development

1. Introduction

The proposed research addresses one of the emerg ing phenomena of the recent times the “Smart City” and
investigates whether this new concept can imp rove the sustainability criteria of cit ies or not. Interventions like Smart
City are, for the most part, a matter of incremental enhancement—of off-the-shelf products acquired through existing
procurement channels, serviced via conventional contracts, tacked onto spatial and institutional arrangements that
already exist. Hundreds of municipalit ies on the planet have emb raced some kind of official s mart -city scheme or
initiat ive in the past few years, and their nu mbers grow with every passing month. Tens of millions of people are

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 7747193020

E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-7058 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction 2015
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.452
 Tannaz Monfaredzadeh and Robert Krueger / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 1112 – 1118 1113

affected by such initiatives. Furthermore, an inconsiderable portion of the total av ailable budgetary resources,
hundreds of billions of dollars, are spent by cities annually on these initiatives. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly of all, is the amount of hu man resources and energy that will be devoted to the effort to integrate
networked information technology into the management of the cities over the next decade. And all o f this activity
will take place under the banner of the Smart City [1].

The idea of smart specialization of cities and reg ions is spreading fast and has successfully become a platform for
community develop ment. This research explores the concept of smart city through the lens of sustainability
particularly on social issues. The d riv ing questions is, then, do s mart cit ies deliver on the broad goals of
sustainability? And if not, how might they be deployed to extend these goals using smart city approaches? The final
goal of the research is to investigate whether the increasingly popular concept of smart cities can tru ly be applied as
an approach for improving sustainability criteria for communities.
Therefore the main objectives of this research are as follows:

x To understand the concept of social sustainability.

x To discover the potentials of smart technologies in improving social quality of life of population a nd approaching
sustainability goals.

The methodology used in this paper is desk research. Through that, a variety of bib liographic materials was
scanned and a limited number of documents have been reviewed and critiqued. The documents have been selected
fro m varied urban disciplines - including urban design, urban planning, urban sociology and urban policy as among
the articles.

2. Smart cities and the human dimension

According to [2] a city is smart when investments in human and social capital and tradition al (transport) and
modern (ICT) co mmun ication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic gro wth and a high quality of life, with a wise
management of natural resources, through participatory governance. There are nu merous definitions for the term
“smart city” that each of them emphasize on a particu lar aspect more: intelligent city, information city, knowledge
city or techno city and many more. However, the availability and quality of the IT infrastructure is not the only
definition of s mart city. The focus of this paper is on the social dimension of the s mart city rather than finding a
definition for the “smart city” term. A lthough addressing the topic of people and co mmunities as part of s mart cit ies
is critical, it tradit ionally has been neglected on the expense of understanding more technological and policy aspects
of smart cit ies [3]. Social infrastructure (intellectual capital and social capital) is indispensable endowment to smart
cities. That infrastructure is about people and their relat ionship. Smart city is about a mix of education/training,
culture/arts, and business/commerce [4]. A smart city is a humane city that has multip le opportunities to exploit its
human potential and lead a creative life. The s mart people concept comprises various factors li ke affinity to life-long
learning, social and ethnic plurality, flexib ility, creativity, cos mopolitanis m or open -mindedness, and participation in
public life. The label s mart city therefore points to clever solutions by creative people. The human factors a lso
includes social inclusion of various urban residents in public services, soft infrastructure (knowledge networks,
voluntary organizations, crime -free environments), urban diversity and cultural mix, social/hu man/relational capital,
and knowledge base such as educational institutions and R&D capacities ([5], [6]).

Projects of smart cities have an impact on the quality of life of cit izens and aim to foster more in formed,
educated, and participatory citizens. Smart cities initiat ives allo w members of the city to participate in the
governance and management of the city and become active users. An individual must be able to connect in order to
achieve enhancement of social and cultural capital as well as achieve mass economic gains in productivity. If they
are key players they may have the opportunity to engage with the in itiat ives to the extent that they can influence the
effort to be a success or a failure [3].
1114 Tannaz Monfaredzadeh and Robert Krueger / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 1112 – 1118

Along with the inflow of smart people, new creative culture driven by them is a drive to urban development.
Švob-Ðokiæ [7] lauded the outcome of creative culture that extends beyond diversity and creativity to economic
performance and social tolerance. People are s mart in terms o f their skill and educational levels, as well as the
quality of social interaction in terms of integration and public life and their ability to open to the "outside" world.
Towards more p rogressive smart cit ies, cities should start with people fro m the human capital side, rather than
blindly believing that IT itself can automat ically transform and improve cities [5]. A s mart city is also a learning
city, wh ich imp roves the competitiveness of urban contexts in the global knowledge economy [ 8]. Learning cities are
actively involved in building a skilled information economy workforce [9].

Conclusively, social capital is considered as an important component to a smart city. This paper intends to focus
on the strategies and policies that a smart city can imp lement in order to use its potentials to improve the
sustainability criteria of the society. In the next sections, the concept of social sustainability and its significance will
be discussed.

3. Sustainability and the social dimension

Since the publication of the Bruntland Report in 1987, the concept of sustainable development has become
central in mainstream policy thinking all over the world. It was first highlighted in the report that provided the initial
definition of sustainable development as “development that meets t he needs of the present without compro mising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [10].
A continuation of current development trends would erode the basis for a balanced development. Urban
sustainable policies are to be developed at the dynamic edge of various—sometimes conflict ing—objectives on the
city and its population. An illustration of the multid imensional co mplexity of such sustainability policies can be
found in Figure 1. A major challenge to modern cit ies is the need to ensure economic, social and ecological
sustainability now and in the medium- and long term future [11].
During the recent decade, scholars from different disciplines have discussed social sustainability within urban
studies from both academic and policy perspectives. But yet, scholars believe that regarding the social aspect of
sustainability, there are still uncertainties in definit ion, criteria and measurement system until now [ 12, 13]. Hu man
is the main focus in the definition o f sustainability concept, but still less attention has been given to the definition of
social sustainability in built environment disciplines [14].

Figure 1.T he urban locus of sustainability principles and policies according to [11].

Social sustainability has received far less attention in respect to the conceptual framework and the practical
reporting. It was first highlighted in the Brundtland report that provided the initial definit ion of sustainable
development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compro mising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” [10]. The report suggested that social sustainability is aiming to preserve the
 Tannaz Monfaredzadeh and Robert Krueger / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 1112 – 1118 1115

environment through economic development and poverty alleviation , but it did not recommend any practical
perspective [13]. However, when talking about sustainability, various ideas and definitions are involved that make
the concept of sustainability overly b road and unspecific. Therefore, this research observes a limited number of
sustainability criteria and tries to focus on the most important attributes of sustainability by studying the main
literature in this field.
Recently, defin ing social sustainability concept is emphasized and acknowledged frequently in urban literature
and researchers are naturally keen to know precisely what social sustainability means [1 7]. As social sustainability is
context dependent [14], various definit ions of this concept have been provided and applied related to urban debates
in different contexts. They aim to study and provide the conditions for the achievement of social sustainability and
try to protect the term’s misapplication [18]. Current discussions on the social sustainability definit ions either portray
the conditions or define the principles and measurement framework [17].

3.1. Definitions of Conditions

In the first group, the definit ions focused more on the conditions. They usually describe social sustainability as
either a currently existing positive condition, or as a goal that re mains to be achieved [17]. [19, 20] stated that
policies contributing to social sustainability must try to cause cohesion of the whole through bringing people
together and increasing the accessibility to public services, employment and social interactions.

3.2. Definitions of Measurement Framework

In the second group, definitions utilize measurement frameworks. These defin itions present main principles and
dimensions and often involve a series of indicators. Providing a working defin ition of social sustainabilit y, [21]
emphasized on “social equity (access to services, facilities and opportunities)” and “sustainability of the co mmun ity”
as the two main urban social sustainability overarching concepts. On the other hand, [ 12] also highlighted the recent
shift fro m almost statistics-based indicators to hybrid sets which mix qualitative and quantitative data. Furthermore,
regarding [22] and [23], attention to the equitable distribution of opportunities and acknowledging cultural and
community diversity are the main features and the key themes encompassed by the Concept of social sustainability.

3.3. Attributes of Social Sustainability Definitions

Future focus and process are the two most imperat ive attributes in preciseness and usefulness of urban social
sustainability discussions [18]. Future focus refers to the improvement of a just society for current and future
generations. [24] considered this characteristic and declared that “social sustainability can be defined as ensuring the
well-being of current and future generations, by recognizing every person’s right to belong to and participate as a
valued member of his or her community” [24].
[22, 23] contend that the broadly accepted common ingredients of social sustainability include empowering
people to participate on decision making. Similarly, [17] considered the future aspect (time concern) in relat ion to
considering “equity” and “transmitting awareness” for future generation and the process through emphasizing “a
system of cultural relat ions”, “participation of c itizens”, “a system for transmitting awareness” and “maintaining that
system of transmission”.

4. How Smart City address social sustainability

In this section the interaction of t wo concepts of smart city and social sustainability will be d iscussed. For this
purpose, the potentials of ICTs and emerg ing technologies which can influence the social sustainability in its
definition, conditions or its principles and measurement framework will be observed and studied.
1116 Tannaz Monfaredzadeh and Robert Krueger / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 1112 – 1118

4.1. Smart city and the conditions of social sustainability

According to [19, 20], an environ ment for hu man interaction, co mmunication and cu ltural development with
improvements in the quality of life, creates a condition for s ocial sustainability. Cit ies have always been to facilitate
human gatherings [25]. [26] Argues that “cities are actually social search engines that help like -minded people find
each other and do stuff. People who live in cit ies can connect with a broader range of friends whose interests are well
matched with their own”. Smart cit ies structurally have the potential to impact or improve the mentioned qualities:
Information and co mmunication technologies help people to connect, collaborate and share. Social networks are very
popular means for bridging online and offline lives to facilitate the congregation of people to share interest and
hobbies.
Agyeman [27] suggests that the ‘Sharing Cit ies’ concept should become the guid ing purpose of the polit ics,
planning and policy making for the future city as it prioritizes social justice and increases trust and collaboration.
Adopting the ‘sharing paradigm’ offers cities the opportunity to lead the transition to just sustainability.

Townsend [25] believes that in megacit ies wh ich host millions of people, urban sociability is experiencing a new
scale. New technologies are vital to helping people navigate the vast sea of opportunities for social interaction.
Interactive platforms for citizen engagement amp lify urban sociability. However dig ital cities developed by various
organizations have different characteristics problems. In any case, it is not easy to design and ma intain digital cit ies
that benefit all part icipants. Those started fro m a grass -roots activity depend on volunteers and often face financial
and management problems. The non-profit associations yield regional informat ion spaces at relatively low cost, but
there is difficulty in maintaining adequate leadership and social responsibility. On the other hand, dig ital cit ies
assisted by public administrations can utilize their funds and facilities, but a strong bias toward regional economic
development or bureaucratic improvement, can hinder mo re active social participation. In the case of Private Finance
Initiat ive, the initial investment can be effectively reduced. In the case of Public -Private Partnership, fund raising is
rather easy in the initial stages, but difficulty exists in establishing a sustainable budget structure [28].

4.2. Smart city and Measurement Framework of social sustainability

Regarding [21], social equity (access to services, facilities and opportunities) is one of the qualities of social
sustainability. In 1998 [29] asserted that the information age has been widely acclaimed as a great benefit for
humanity, but the massive global change it is producing brings new ethical d ilemmas. In agreement, Luciano Florid i
stated that “the information society…poses fundamental ethical problems whose complexity and global dimensions
are rap idly evolv ing” [30]. He argues that how informat ion and commun ication technologies can contribute to the
sustainable development of an equitable society is one of the most cru cial global issues of our time [31]. Florid i
points to the digital div ide in particular as the source of many of the ethical problems emerging fro m the evolution of
the informat ion society. The digital d ivide d isempowers, discriminates and generates depend ency. It can engender
new forms of co lonialis m and apartheid that must be prevented, opposed and ultimately eradicated [ 30]. On a global
scale the issues of health, education and the acceptance of elementary human rights should be among humanities
foremost priorit ies, however, Floridi argues that “that underestimating the importance of the [digital d ivide], and
hence letting it widen, means exacerbating these problems as well” [ 30]. He concludes by announcing that “our
challenge is to build an informat ion s ociety for all, and this is a “historical opportunity we cannot afford to miss”
[30].

Therefore, fro m one hand free and ubiquitous Internet access is not yet available every where and there is no
infrastructure that covers all regions and social areas. This doesn’t apply only to developing or poor countries. Even
this coverage merely exists in advanced countries like Germany or Italy. On the other hand, there is the issue of
knowledge to use new technologies that is not equal among different demographic asp ects such as age, sex, inco me
or education. The key question, then, is clear and stark: “can we generalize and democratize the opportunities that
come with the high-tech urban revolution? Can we found more equitable ways of developing cities and settlement s
in an electronically mediated age?” [32].
 Tannaz Monfaredzadeh and Robert Krueger / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 1112 – 1118 1117

4.3. Smart city and Attributes of Social Sustainability

According to [22] and [23] empowering people to participate in influencing choices for develop ment and in
decision-making is one of the criteria of a society being sustainable.
Online participation enables residents to comment on and evaluate suggestions and schemes within ad ministration
and politics. In addition, they provide citizens with the opportunity to make their own suggestions and add their
knowledge and experience to the possible plans and strategic goals. Apart fro m these opportunities for the exchange
informat ion between residents, local ad ministration, and polit ics online processes also lead to increased
legitimizat ion: actions can generally be better justified if the affected citizens were consulted beforehand. This is
specially the case for the decisions that are unpopular but necessary. Therefore these online consultations indirectly
are democratic processes that do not question the decision -making authority of politics. Th is form of participation
provides the participants with a new opportunity to make their concerns and suggestion the subject of parliamentary
debate. In any case, there is a shifting of boundaries: the political - ad min istrative process becomes more accessible
through e-participation, increasing the pressure on politics [33].
However, smart interventions can only become the tools for a better satisfaction of citizens’ needs and helpful
interaction among them if they are based on the application of citizen-centric and participatory approaches to the co-
design. Accordingly, development and production of services should balance the technical proficiency of
infrastructure with softer features such as social engagement, social empowerment a nd people interaction in physical
and virtual settings. In this context, technology can play crucial roles in social and political processes that can
propose scenarios of a better efficiency of functional performance of city services and also give people t he
possibility of imagining new approaches and solutions for collaboration and empower them to create opportunities
to co-design and co-production.

Smart technologies can create platforms in which people in a society can interact and communicate with their
authorities and administrations. A smart city has definitely the potential to become a permanent platform used by all
different groups such as the community, public authorities, activists, hackers, designers and companies to interact,
communicate and discuss challenges and find solutions in a co-create process. However creating such a platform is
not a straight forward job and the essentials for that are strongly contextual that differ from one city to another. But
overall, the followings are the actors to be involved in order to initiate engagement and co-design process:

x The local community of citizens and non ICT businesses, including the third sector.
x Municipal government and the various public agencies and administrations that play a role in policy making and
service provision.
x Available physical and technological infrastructures.

5. Conclusion

This paper investigates the social factor of smart city and the new opportunities that smart city can bring to
improve the quality of life for citizens. The paper emphasizes on the fact that a city will be smart not to covering
ultra-wideband but for responding the needs of the population. Considering the real needs of the society is a starting
point to choose tools and appropriate operational actions. But even recognition of the needs of a community and
designing an appropriate action to address that, do not guarantee of being it productive and efficient. First of all, a
very important step is recovering development strategies that improve technological malfunctions sector, but in a
broader context, in which the smart city becomes an opportunity to rethink the city as a whole and redefine politics.
Therefore, it is necessary that the public actors redefines its coordinating role and pilotage and strengthen, especially
compared to the big private players (the big players in the field of ICT for example). This step is essential to ensure a
return of plans and projects in terms of s mart enhancement of hu man and socio-spatial justice and inclusion (and not
only of technological innovation and economic efficiency), both to ensure the participation of all the local p layers
(not only the stronger ones). The latter can be an important field for the future researches in this topic.
1118 Tannaz Monfaredzadeh and Robert Krueger / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 1112 – 1118

References

[1] A. Greenfield, Against the smart city, Do Projects, New York, 2013.
[2] A. Caragliu, C. del Bo, P. Nijkamp, Smart cities in Europe. Journal of urban technology. 18 (2) (2009) 65-82.
[3] H. Chourabi, T. Nam, S. Walker, J.R. Gil-García, S. Mellouli, K. Nahon, T.A. Pardo, H.J. Scholl, Understanding smart cities: an
integrative framework, Proceeding of HICSS,(2012) 2289–2297.
[4] L. Bartlett, Smart city: Social entrepreneurship and community engagement in a rural regional city. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engaging Communities, (2005). Available at: http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Bartlet - Leo-
final.pdf.
[5] R. G. Hollands, Will the real smart city please stand up?, City, 12(3) (2008) 303-320.
[6] T. Yigitcanlar, K. O’Connor, C. Westerman, The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s knowledgebased urban develo pment
experience. Cities, 25(2) (2008) 63-72.
[7] N. Švob-Ðokiæ, (Ed.), The Creative City: Crossing Visions and New Realities in the Region. Zagreb, Croatia: Institute for
International Relations, (2007). Available at: http://www.culturelink.org/publics/joint/cultid08/Svob-Djokic_Creative_City.pdf
[8] D. Plumb, A. Leverman, R. McGray, The learning city in a ‘planet of slums’. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(1) (2007) 37-50.
[9] M. A. Moser, What is smart about the smart communities movement? E Journal, 10/11(1) (2001). Available at
http://www.ucalgary.ca/ejournal/archive/v10-11/v10-11n1Moser-browse.html
[10] G. H. Brundtland, Our common future: The world commission on environment and development, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1987.
[11] A. Finco, P. Nijkamp, Pathways to urban sustainability, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3 (2001) 289–302.
[12] A. Colantonio, Urban social sustainability themes and assessment methods. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban
Design and Planning, 163(2) (2010) 79-88. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/udap.2010.163.2.79
[13] C. Landorf, Evaluating social sustainability in historic urban environments, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(5) (2011)
463-477.
[14] N. B. Dempsey, T he social dimension of sustainable development, Sustainable Development, 19(5) (2009) 289-300.
[15] G. H. Brundtland, Our common future: The world commission on environment and development, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1987.
[16] B. Littig, Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory, International Journal of Sustainable
Development, 8(1) (2005) 65-79.
[17] S. McKenzie, Social sustainability: towards some definitions. Hawke Research Institute, Working Paper Series No. 27. University of
South Australia, Magill, 2004.
[18] E. Partridge, Social sustainability’: a useful theoretical framework, Paper presented at the Australasian Political Science Association
Annual Conference, Dunedin, 2005.
[19] O. Yiftachel, D. Hedgcock, Urban social sustainability: the planning of an Australian city, Cities, 10(2) (1993) 139-157.
[20] M. Polese, R. Stren, The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Chan ge. University of Toronto Press,
T oronto, 2000.
[21] G. Bramley, S. Power, Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and housing type, Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 36(1) (2009) 30-48. Available at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1068/b33129
[22] J. Baines, B. Morgan, ‘Sustainability Appraisal: A Social Perspective’ In Sustainability Appraisal. A Review Of International
Experience And Practice, Dalal-Clayton B And Sadler B, (Eds), First Draft of Work in Progress, International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, 2004.
[23] J. Sinner, J. Baines, H. Crengle, G. Salmon, A. Fenemor, G. T ipa, Sustainable Development: A summary of key concepts, Ecologic
Foundation, Nelson, 2, 2004.
[24] H. Castillo, A. Price, C. Moobela, V. Mathur, Assessing urban social sustainability: current capabilities and opportunities for future
research. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 3(3) 2007 39-48.
[25] A. M. T ownsend, Big data, civic hackers and the quest for a new utopia, Norton & Company, New York, 2013.
[26] E. Glaeser, Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, Penguin
Press, New York, 2013.
[27] J. Agyeman J., Smart Cities’ Should Mean ‘Sharing Cities’, 2014. available at: http://julianagyeman.com/tag/sharing-cities
[28] T . Ishida, Digital city Kyoto. Communications of the ACM, 45(7) 2002 78-81.
[29] R. Stichler, R. Hauptman, Ethics, Information, and Technology. Jefferson, N.C, McFarland, 1998.
[30] L. Floridi, Information ethics: an environmental approach to the digital divide. Philosophy in the Contemporary World. 9(1) (2001)
39–46.
[31] L. Floridi, The new information and communication technologies fo r the development of education. Invite Address. UNESCO World
Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and T echnology (COMEST). Paris, 2001.
[32] S. Graham, Bridging Urban Digital Devide? Urban Polarization and Information and Comunications Technologies (ICT s), Urban
Studies, 39(1) (2002) 33-56.
[33] L. Hatzelhoffer, K. Humboldt, M. Lobeck, C. Wiegandt, Smart City in practice, Jovis Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 2012.