Reviewing the City Concepts: Towards Smart, Sustainable, and Healthy City

Abstract

The complex challenges of urbanization demand innovative strategies from both public and private sectors worldwide. Despite numerous planning initiatives branded with distinct city labels, the health of citizens remains an underemphasized concern. This qualitative study seeks to address the intricacies of urbanization and its negative health effects by advocating for an integrated framework that combines technology, sustainability, and health to create \"smart, sustainable, and healthy\" cities. The study aims to understand city concepts, their emergence, application, and evolution. It conducts a comparative analysis of achievements and challenges in implementing these concepts, identifying the need for progression. The study categorizes the city concepts under technology, sustainability, and wellbeing to highlight the need for a hybrid city concept, focusing on the need for a more integrated approach to urban planning. The findings reveal a dynamic and complex interplay among these domains, highlighting the need for collaborative efforts to prioritize health within the broader scope of smart and sustainable urban development. This approach ensures that urban health receives the attention it deserves in modern urban planning.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Urbanization is a defining phenomenon of the 21st century, presenting a myriad of challenges that require innovative and adaptive solutions. With over half of the world's population now residing in urban areas, cities have become epicenters of economic activity, cultural exchange, and technological innovation. However, this rapid urban growth has also led to significant challenges, including environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and socio-economic disparities. These issues necessitate a multifaceted approach to urban planning and development, integrating various dimensions such as technology, sustainability, and health to create livable urban environments.

Over the past few decades, numerous city planning initiatives have emerged, each characterized by distinct labels such as, participative cities, walkable cities, integrated cities, inclusive cities, just cities, open cities (focusing on social facet); entrepreneurial cities, competitive cities, productive cities, innovative cities, business-friendly cities, global cities (focusing on economic facet); efficient cities, managed cities, well-run- well-led cities (focusing on governance facet) etc. [1]. Subsequent paragraphs, however, are indented.

Smart City is a global initiative that uses technology to enhance urban quality of life and wellbeing [2]. Successful examples include Dubai's Smart Dubai Plan [3] and Singapore's Smart Nation Plan [4]. India's Smart City Mission, launched in 2015, aims to provide liveable, inclusive, and sustainable solutions to urban challenges [5].

Despite the proliferation of smart city initiatives, there is a noticeable gap in addressing the health of citizens comprehensively. The concept has evolved to cover sustainable development taking into account environmental, social, and economic factors [6] but health issues remain inadequately addressed, particularly in developing countries like India [7]. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the limitations of self-proclaimed smart cities in dealing with urban health challenges. Sassen & Kourtit (2021) cite examples from cities like Chicago, Beijing, and Athens to illustrate that being labelled as a smart city does not necessarily equate to effectively addressing urban challenges, including safety, income inequality, smog, congestion, and air pollution [8]. To address these issues, researchers suggest adopting more qualitative and equity-informed urban health frameworks that consider factors such as sanitation, water, housing, and socioeconomic inequalities [7]. Additionally, leveraging big data analytics and IoT technologies can help identify and resolve health-related challenges in smart cities [9], [10]. Integrating the 'healthy cities' concept with smart city initiatives and reconceptualizing digital divides in terms of socioeconomic gradients could promote better health outcomes and reduce inequities in urban environments [11].

Literature suggests that health often remains a secondary consideration, overshadowed by technological and environmental priorities in bringing about reforms in city planning. This oversight can lead to urban environments that, while technologically advanced and environmentally sustainable, may not fully support the physical, mental, and social well-being of their inhabitants.

The Healthy City Programme (HCP) recommended by NITI Aayog in India in 2021 [12] is in response to the growing health and environmental concerns and aligns with the WHO HCP that was conceived in 1984. It prioritizes a holistic approach to health, focusing on physical, mental, social, and environmental well-being [13].

This paper proposes a holistic approach to urban development that integrates technology, sustainability, and health, advocating for the creation of "smart, sustainable, and healthy" cities.

II. METHODOLOGY

The study employs a systematic literature review with the following objectives:

1. To study the definitions of city concepts (what) in order to comprehend their respective focus areas, investigate the reasons behind their emergence (why), identify examples to illustrate their application (where), and determine the chronological development of these concepts (when) to discern patterns of evolution.
2. To conduct comparative analysis outlining the achievements and challenges in the implementation of city concepts to understand the need for progression from one city concept to another.
3. To categorize the city concepts under the major domains of technology (smart), sustainability (sustainable) and wellbeing (health) to highlight the need for a hybrid city concept.

A. City Concepts

TABLE I
Definitions of Different City Concepts.

Table 1 provides an overview of different city concepts and their respective definitions (what) along with their focus areas. Table 2 presents an overview of year of emergence (when), reasons of emergence (why), examples (where) and of the city concepts.

These city concepts encompass diverse urban development approaches, ranging from digital and knowledge-based cities to sustainable and healthy cities highlighting the evolving nature of cities in response to urbanization challenges and evolving societal needs. The challenges faced by a city due to urbanization are overcrowding, lack of public spaces, congestion, sanitation, solid waste management, quality of housing, safe and adequate water supply, public health, poor air quality, climate change and environmental degradation, etc. [18], [23], [24]. The study of the city concepts highlights the imperative role of technology, need for sustainable environment and promotion of residents' well-being in shaping modern urban landscapes.

The emergence of Web/Virtual Cities in 1997 was driven by the need for alternative public spaces amidst rapid urbanization and the widespread use of the internet. The inception of Knowledge Cities in 1998 was motivated by the imperative of effective knowledge management, leading to the development of knowledge-sharing communities like Barcelona's 22@bcn Plan and Singapore's One-North precinct.

Moreover, the rise of Ubiquitous Cities in 2004 stemmed from the aim of extending digital city services to local communities seamlessly, addressing the limitations posed by physical distance and time. This trend is exemplified by the implementation of innovative initiatives in South Korean cities like New Songdo and Busan.

Furthermore, the emergence of Sustainable Cities and Eco Cities in 1987 responded to the pressing need for environmental conservation and sustainable development, giving rise to eco-friendly urban areas such as Sweden's Hammarby Sjöstad and the Sino-Singaporean Tianjin Eco-city, as well as sustainable initiatives like Copenhagen's carbon-neutral plan and Vancouver's Greenest City Action Plan.

These city concepts do not follow a fixed pattern of the time of origin in different regions of the world. For example, the healthy city concept saw its inception in 1984 as a WHO initiative; gained momentum across Europe and eventually evolved in the other 6 regions of WHO and is still in a working phase. It is only in India, that this concept has been introduced in 2021[12]. Need-based evolution of these concepts is driven by social, political, economic, legal and technological factors.

It has been observed from the study of definition, objectives and reasons that there is an intricate interplay between the three domains of technology, sustainability and health; and policy formulation underscoring the importance of a holistic approach to city planning. Table 3 provides insights into the achievements and challenges of city concepts. Each concept has exhibited unique contributions and limitations in the implementation process. Web/virtual cities demonstrated advancements in information dissemination but encountered obstacles such as citizen engagement and digital divide issues. Knowledge cities attracted research interest and became hubs for innovation but faced challenges related to political will and financial support.

Similarly, digital cities facilitated cultural integration but were hampered by maintenance costs and technological dependencies. Ubiquitous cities enabled real-time data processing and automated decision-making but grappled with data privacy concerns and housing affordability. Broadband/wired cities fostered a networked society but overlooked social implications, reducing physical interactions. Mobile/wireless/ambient cities accelerated e-governance but brought forth issues of digital divide and technology addiction.

Eco cities emphasized sustainability but struggled with high implementation costs and diverse developmental priorities. Sustainable cities integrated multiple dimensions but encountered difficulties in managing existing urbanization and garnering public participation. Smart cities aimed for inclusivity but faced challenges with a top-down approach and health concerns. Healthy cities prioritized well-being but had limited reach, similar to the concept of liveable cities, which mostly remained a conceptual model.

Table 2Year of emergence (When), Reasons of their emergence (Why) and Examples (Where) of the City Concepts.

Table 3 Achievement and Challenges of City Concepts

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Categorization of City Concepts

Fig. 1  Categorization of City Concepts

Source: Author

“Technology” here is defined as the use of digital technologies and the use of Information and digital technology.

“Sustainability” is defined as the wise use of resources in the present times for the sake of future generations. [19]

“Well-being/ good health” is the state of complete mental, physical and social well-being [47]

Based on the above studies, an attempt has been made to categorize the city concepts with similar attributes (Fig. 1). The city concepts that are evolved using technology are virtual/ web city, digital city, broadband city, wireless/ mobile City, knowledge city, ubiquitous city.

Eco-cities and intelligent cities are centered around sustainable development and technology. A liveable city emphasizes sustainability and uses technology for its development. Smart cities, healthy cities, and sustainable cities utilize technology to prioritize the health and well-being of their citizens, with a focus on sustainable development.

Smart city, with its focus on creating a technologically advanced environment, employs technology to ensure optimal environmental conditions for its inhabitants. This approach indirectly conserves resources and prioritizes the well-being of citizens. In today's context, technological advancements have eliminated the need for individuals to endure long queues for service tasks. With the shift towards "smartness," almost all services have become digitized, leading to smart service delivery [16]. This transition not only saves resources such as fuel and paper but also indirectly contributes to the physical well-being of individuals, particularly in harsh environmental conditions, and their mental well-being by reducing the frustration associated with traditional service processes. This observation highlights the strong interconnectedness between the three domains of technology, sustainability and health.

B. Timeline of City Concepts

The inception of the healthy city, sustainable city, and eco-city concepts can be traced back to as early as 1984 and 1987, indicating that the detrimental effects of urbanization on the health and well-being of citizens, resources, and the environment were already evident. Subsequently, advancements in technology led to the introduction of digital city, virtual city and smart city etc. As cities face an increasing array of challenges, it is expected that more conceptual frameworks will be introduced to address these complexities.

The preceding investigation results in the development of a city concepts timeline (Fig. 2), based on their first appearances in literature and practice.

Fig. 2 Timeline of City Concepts

Source: Author

C. The Need for a Hybrid Approach.

The study findings suggest that various city concepts faced formidable challenges individually, compelling urban planners and authorities to devise hybrid models integrating elements from several of these concepts. As a result, the emergence of the Smart-Sustainable City and Ubiquitous-Eco City concepts came into existence. Analysis of these hybrid models reveals a clear association between 'smart' and 'technology' and between 'sustainable' and 'efficient resource utilization.' Likewise, 'ubiquitous' is correlated with 'technology,' while 'eco' pertains to the environment.

Cities, as dynamic entities, undergo constant evolution, necessitating continuous reform in urban planning strategies. Implementing hybrid concepts in city development facilitates a more adept approach to address the challenges arising from urbanization. Consequently, there is a compelling need for further reform in planning concepts, paving the way for the introduction of a novel hybrid concept that encompasses the facets of 'technology,' 'sustainability,' and 'health' simultaneously. This proposed integrated concept may be termed the Smart, Sustainable, and Healthy City.

Encouraging the development of cities that prioritize health, in collaboration with those that emphasize smart technology and sustainable practices, is imperative to effectively incorporate urban health considerations within the realm of urban planning. Such an approach could potentially foster a more holistic and comprehensive framework for managing the complexities of modern urban environments.

Conclusion

Cities face the dual challenge of managing increasing population sizes and urban sprawl, prompting the need for the city concepts to provide a good quality of life to its citizens. Despite the progression from one concept to another, the persistent challenge of addressing health issues within the urban landscape remains largely unaddressed. It is imperative to recognize this gap, and move towards a city concept that is comprehensive and holistic. The proposition of a hybrid concept, the Smart, Sustainable, and Healthy City, is put forward as an integrated approach to tackle the multifaceted challenges of modern urban environments. It is imperative to emphasize that the successful conceptualization, promotion, and implementation of this hybrid model require collaborative efforts between private and governmental initiatives. This article opens a new opportunity for research by introducing a new concept for city development and improvement. Future researches may focus on deriving the detailed features and impacts of development based on such a model.

References

[1] M. Eremia, L. Toma, and M. Sanduleac, “The Smart City Concept in the 21st Century,” Procedia Eng, vol. 181, pp. 12–19, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.357. [2] R. P. Dameri and A. Cocchia, “Smart City and Digital City?: Twenty Years of Terminology Evolution,” X Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS, ITAIS 2013, pp. 1–8, 2013. [3] International Telecommunications Union, “Smart Dubai Happiness Meter in Dubai, United Arab Emirates,” p. 20, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/myitu/-/media/Publications/2019-Publications/TSB-2019/Case-study--Smart-Dubai-Happiness-Meter-in-Dubai-United-Arab-Emirates.pdf [4] J. Smiciklas, R. Ashirangkura, A. Hyodo, A. Walker-Turner, and L. Xu, Implementing ITU-T International Standards to Shape Smart Sustainable Cities: The Case of Singapore. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.itu.int/en/publications/Documents/tsb/2017-Implementing-ITU-T-International-Standards-to-Shape-Smart-Sustainable-Cities-The-Case-of-Singapore/files/downloads/418504- ITU_Case-Study-Singapore-E.pdf [5] MoUD, “Smart Cities Mission Statement & Guidelines,” 2015, Govt. of India. [6] R. F. Elgazzar and R. F. El-Gazzar, “Smart Cities, sustainable cities, or both? a critical review and synthesis of success and failure factors,” SMARTGREENS 2017 - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems, no. Smartgreens, pp. 250–257, 2017, doi: 10.5220/0006307302500257. [7] I. K. Bhatia and S. Yadav, “INTERROGATING SMART CITIES IN INDIA: DISCUSSING STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF ITS IMPACT ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,” Indian J Appl Res, pp. 26–29, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.36106/ijar/0514404. [8] S. Sassen and K. Kourtit, “A post-corona perspective for smart cities: ‘should i stay or should i go?,’” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 17, pp. 1–15, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13179988. [9] M. Rath, “Big Data and IoT-Allied Challenges Associated With Healthcare Applications in Smart and Automated Systems,” International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 18–34, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.4018/IJSITA.2018040102. [10] M. Rath, “Resolution of Issues and Health Improvement Using Big Data and IoT,” 2019, pp. 216–237. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-8555-8.ch013. [11] M. Mouton et al., “Towards ‘smart cities’ as ‘healthy cities’: health equity in a digital age,” Canadian Journal of Public Health, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 331–334, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.17269/s41997-019-00177-5. [12] Niti Aayog, “Reforms in urban planning capacity in India,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-09/UrbanPlanningCapacity-in-India-16092021.pdf [13] L. J. Duhl and T. Hancock, “Promoting Health in the Urban Context,” 1988, WHO Healthy Cities Project Office. [14] S. Graham and A. Aurigi, “Virtual cities, social polarization, and the crisis in urban public space,” Journal of Urban Technology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 19–52, 1997, doi: 10.1080/10630739708724546. [15] K. Ergazakis, K. Metaxiotis, and J. Psarras, An emerging pattern of successful knowledge cities’ main features, Second Edi. Elsevier Inc., 2006. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-7506-7941-1.50004-x. [16] L. G. Anthopoulos, The rise of the smart city, vol. 22, no. April 2017. 2017. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57015-0_2. [17] S. Ganapati and C. F. Schoepp, “The wireless city,” International Journal of Electronic Government Research, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 54–68, 2008, doi: 10.4018/jegr.2008100104. [18] R. Register, Ecocities?: building cities in balance with nature, Print book. Berkeley, Calif.?: Berkeley Hills Books?: Distributed by Publishers Group West, ©2002., 2002. [Online]. Available: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/EcoCities/HwW_sTxw5ZUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover [19] B. R. Keeble, “The Brundtland Report: ‘Our Common Future,’” Med War, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17–25, 1988, doi: 10.1080/07488008808408783. [20] R. Giffinger, C. Fertner, H. Kramar, and E. Meijers, “City-ranking of European medium-sized cities,” Centre of Regional Science, Vienna UT, no. October, 2007. [21] D. Komakech, “Achieving more intelligent cities,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer, vol. 158, no. 4, pp. 259–264, 2005, doi: 10.1680/muen.2005.158.4.259. [22] G. Goldstein, “A healthy city is a better city.,” World Health, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 4–6, 1996. [23] R. W. Caves and F. Wagner, Livable Cities From a Global Perspective. 2018. doi: 10.4324/9781315523415. [24] M. Weinstock and M. Gharleghi, “Intelligent cities and the taxonomy of cognitive scales,” Architectural Design, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 56–65, 2013, doi: 10.1002/ad.1619. [25] S. Bose, “Rome reborn,” Architect, vol. 96, no. 11, p. 81, 2007, doi: 10.2307/j.ctv8bt20m.12. [26] A. de Bruine, “Digital city bristol: A case study,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 1765 LNCS, no. March 1997, pp. 110–124, 2000, doi: 10.1007/3-540-46422-0_10. [27] K. YANO et al., “Virtual Kyoto: 4DGIS Comprising Spatial and Temporal Dimensions,” Chigaku Zasshi (Jounal of Geography), vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 464–478, 2008, doi: 10.5026/jgeography.117.464. [28] Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, “Urban Systems Studies: One-north Fostering Research, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship,” p. 99, 2019. [29] A. Clua, Anna; Albet, “22 @ bcn Plan?: bringing Barcelona forward in the information era 22 @ bcn Plan?: bringing Barcelona forward in the information era,” in Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era, S. Yigitcanlar, Tan; Velibeyoglu, Koray & Baum, Ed., New York: Information Science Reference (IGI Global), 2008, ch. 22 @ bcn P, pp. 132–147. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-720-1.ch008. [30] T. Yigitcanlar, K. O’Connor, and C. Westerman, “The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s knowledge-based urban development experience,” Cities, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 63–72, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2008.01.001. [31] Y. M. Kim, H. S. Kim, S. Y. Moon, and S. Bae, “Ubiquitous Eco-City Planning in Korea. A Project for the Realization of Ecological City Planning and Ubiquitous Network Society,” Real Corp 2009, vol. 6, no. April 2009, pp. 22–25, 2009. [32] R. A. Kaenel and D. Ellis, “Wired city revisited: an exploratory model and an interdisciplinary inspection of the conceptual foundations,” Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Science, vol. 4, pp. 256–263, 1989, doi: 10.1109/hicss.1989.48130. [33] B. van Bastelaer, “Digital cities and transferability of results,” Proceedings of the 4th EDC conference on digital cities, no. October, pp. 61–70, 1998. [34] E. Rapoport, “Utopian visions and real estate dreams: The eco-city past, present and future,” Geogr Compass, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 137–149, 2014, doi: 10.1111/gec3.12113. [35] M. Roseland, “Dimensions of the eco-city,” Cities, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 197–202, 1997, doi: 10.1016/s0264-2751(97)00003-6. [36] A. Sodiq et al., “Towards modern sustainable cities: Review of sustainability principles and trends,” J Clean Prod, vol. 227, pp. 972–1001, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.106. [37] G. Haughton, Sustainable Cities, vol. 4, no. 2. LONDON AND NEW YORK: Routledge, 1992. doi: 10.1177/095624789200400201. [38] THE CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT, “The Alliance for Climate Protection®: Five Sustainable Cities Making a Difference for the Planet | Climate Reality.” Accessed: Apr. 05, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/five-sustainable-cities-making-difference-planet [39] V. Varadharajan and A. R. Singh, “Developing and Monitoring Smart Environments for Intelligent Cities,” in IGI Global, 2021, ch. Building I, pp. 1–27. [40] A. D. Tsouros, “Twenty-seven years of the WHO European Healthy Cities movement: A sustainable movement for change and innovation at the local level,” Health Promot Int, vol. 30, pp. i3–i7, 2015, doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav046. [41] W. H. O. Healthy, “Who healthy cities network,” 2007. [42] L. J. Lafond, Ed., National healthy city networks in the WHO European Region: Promoting health and well-being throughout Europe. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2015. [43] P. J. Morton, “Virtual City Models?:,” 2013. [44] N. Komninos, “The architecture of intelligent cities: Integrating human, collective and artificial intelligence to enhance knowledge and innovation,” IET Conference Publications, no. 518, pp. 13–20, 2006, doi: 10.1049/cp:20060620. [45] J. Aguilar, “Emergence and Ubiquity in the Smart Cities,” in 6th IFIP World Information Technology Forum (WITFOR), 2017, pp. 235–244. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44447-5_22. [46] W. H. Dutton, “Wired City,” The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies,. pp. 1-4., 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0414. [47] R. J. Lawrence and C. Fudge, “Healthy Cities in a global and regional context.,” Health Promot Int, vol. 24 Suppl 1, pp. 11–18, 2009, doi: 10.1093/heapro/dap051.

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Sakshi Gupta, Neeraja Lugani Sethi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.