The Greater Smart City
Connecting smart cities to rural areas
Dealing with Dichotomy- How to Plan?
Uneven distribution of economic prosperity and employment prospects between the metros and the suburban/ rural communities lead to cultural rifts that adversely affect the development of the entire country [1]. At a first glance, using advancements in information and communication technologies (ICTs) to connect the dichotomies is hence a great plan to develop the urban area as a whole. But is this the right way to plan? A major factor towards this dichotomy is the nature of the economic engine- the shift of focus from manufacturing-based value generation to knowledge-based value generation has caused disruption in the distribution of prosperity. This forms the basis of the creative class theory. Basically this theory emphasizes the importance of occupations (rather than industries) to the economic development of a region in the 3Ts of economic development- Technology, Talent and Tolerance [2]. Hence it is very tempting for policy makers to build the development policy around attracting the creative class (by capital investments) assuming that economic development will follow.
On closer investigation we see that most definitions of the difference between cities and rural areas are based on the concept that cities are the hub of economic activity (and hence prosperity) and the outcomes of that are spatially dependent like a gravitational force. This leads to reduction of the ‘gravity’ the further away a place is from the hub. This is what Matern et al., refer to as the “discursive effect” [3] and what Florida refers to as the “clustering effect” [2]. Hence there is a need for a hybridized (integrative) and peripheralized (systemic) understanding of a smart region with focus on participatory governance [3]. A better plan for any urban development would include the social underpinnings too: citizen engagement and inclusiveness. This approach also plays well into attracting talent by improving the territorial assets of a region to foster a “people climate” as mentioned by Florida [2].
In order to plan effectively it is therefore necessary to define a smart region analytically, not for the sake of “becoming smart” but for the need to develop the region organically. A more rigorous understanding of the socioeconomic dynamics of the urban area (city+surrounding rural) is needed which acknowledges the role of the following three levels [3]:
- Discursive
- Implemental
- Regulative
Analyzing the above levels with the framework of both technology and social underpinnings is a superior approach to planning. This “bottom up” approach is crucial to ensure success of any smart city undertaking as discussed previously- citizen centric implementations are the key to urban development.
Developing Smart Regions
Instead of focusing just on a single city as the hub for urban development, the socioeconomic structure of an urban area (the city and the surrounding region) makes it imperative to take into account the needs of the suburbs and the rural areas. The first step towards this direction is to improve the infrastructure to make it more citizen-centric.
To summarize:
Reasons for development of smart regions:
- Economic/ employment activities of people are codependent
- Recreational activities of the region are related
- Utilizing underdeveloped space is very lucrative
- Unifying communities through inclusion
Challenges to development of smart regions:
- Lack of economic incentives for corporate investment due to low population density and consumers in rural areas.
- Lack of holistic understanding of economic theory by the city planners.
- Cultural differences- Rural communities themselves resist change to their way of life [1].
