Listen to the episode:

Find the shownotes through this link.

---

Are you interested in indicators for smart sustainable cities?

---

Our summary today works with the article titled Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? from 2019 by Aapo Huovila, Peter Bosch and Miimu Airaksinen published in the Cities journal. This is a great preparation for our next interviewee, Dr Aapo Huovila in episode 174 talking about sustainable and smart cities. Since we are investigating the future of cities, I thought it would be interesting to see what indicators can help, really help cities in their smart and sustainable journey. This article offers guidance for city managers and policy makers to select the indicators and standards that best correspond to their assessment needs and goals.

[intro music]

---

Welcome to today’s What is The Future For Cities podcast and its Research episode; my name is Fanni, and today I will introduce a research paper by summarising it. The episode really is just a short summary of the original paper, and, in case it is interesting enough, I would encourage everyone to check out the whole paper. Stay tuned until because I will give you the 3 most important things and some questions which would be interesting to discuss.

---

[music]

Cities are undergoing rapid urbanisation which requires them to address global challenges, like climate change and cater to growing populations with limited resources. To aid this, smart city solutions have emerged, aiming to improve the efficiency and quality of city services. However, these solutions have faced criticism for being too focused on technology and not adequately addressing cities’ actual needs or environmental sustainability. This has led to discussion around smart sustainable cities which is an innovative city that uses information and communication technologies and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects.

The vast and intricate landscape of urban data offers tantalizing solutions for city management. Yet, its sheer volume and complexity can be daunting. To break down and make sense of this data, cities worldwide have turned to ‘indicators’ as a tool to simplify, track, and monitor their progress towards predefined goals. While various international bodies have proposed standard sets of indicators tailored for smart and sustainable cities, the challenge for urban managers remains: which indicators to choose, given the unique intricacies and requirements of their respective urban systems? To address this, the research undertook an exhaustive analysis, dissecting 413 indicators from seven prominent international standards. The goal was to craft a comprehensive taxonomy that would streamline the process of indicator selection, making it more intuitive and tailored for diverse urban evaluations.

While some standards, especially those in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, wear their sustainability badge prominently, others tilt more towards the ‘smartness’ spectrum. However, a balanced perspective that incorporates both aspects is also evident. It’s noteworthy that these standards do not equally emphasize the three pillars: people, planet, and prosperity, with prosperity often being sidelined. Delving into the ISO standards, there’s an inclusion of both social and environmental indicators. A sectoral breakdown indicates a pronounced emphasis on the ICT sector, whereas areas like health, well-being, safety, and especially energy, receive varied attention. When it comes to the nature of these indicators, a pattern emerges, the indicators predominantly gauge outputs, outcomes, and impacts, with less attention to input and process types. Sustainable-focused standards exhibit a marked preference for ‘impact’ indicators, whereas smart-centric ones lean more towards gauging the efficiency of urban solutions.

City managers and policy-makers need to select the most appropriate indicators based on their specific needs and objectives. Indicators can be categorised into input, process, output, outcome, and impact stages to guide cities in their sustainable development journey. However, ideally an integrated approach balancing across multiple criteria is beneficial for comprehensive city evaluation and wide usability and acceptance of an indicator standard. At a high level, the balance between sustainability and smartness is a pivotal criterion for choosing among available standards.

For city managers and policymakers, the challenge is twofold: not only to select the most fitting indicators but also to ensure they align seamlessly with their city’s unique context and overarching objectives. While standardized indicators offer a baseline quality assurance, they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. They need customization to resonate with the distinct characteristics and aspirations of individual cities. A comparative look at standards shows that while ISO and ETSI standards excel in providing clear definitions and methods, some, like those from ITU, occasionally leave room for ambiguity, risking inconsistent interpretations.

As cities march towards the vision of becoming ‘smart sustainable hubs’, the emphasis is clear: a balanced, holistic approach is paramount. The urban Sustainable Development Goal acts as a beacon, underscoring the indispensable role of ICT innovations in this journey. With several standards already harmonizing with related Sustainable Development Goals, the path seems clearer, but there’s always room for refinement. As societal dynamics shift, the need for agile, dynamic indicator development becomes evident, harmonizing complexity with practical applicability. The research culminates with an invitation for future explorations, diving into the real-world implementations of these indicators, deciphering their impact on urban decision-making, and unravelling the intricate interplay between various indicators.

[music]

---

What was the most interesting part for you? What questions did arise for you? Do you have any follow up question? Let me know on Twitter at WTF4Cities or on the wtf4cities.com website where the transcripts and show notes are available! Additionally, I will highly appreciate if you consider subscribing to the podcast or on the website. I hope this was an interesting paper for you as well, and thanks for tuning in!

---

[music]

Finally, as the most important things, I would like to highlight 3 aspects:

1. Smart sustainable cities aim to leverage technological solutions while ensuring they address the genuine multifaceted needs of urban environments, and encompassing economic, social, environmental and cultural dimensions.
2. Urban managers face the intricate challenge of selecting from a vast array of ‘indicators’ to monitor and track city progress.
3. Balancing the dual aspects of ‘smartness’ and ‘sustainability’ is pivotal for cities, requiring a holistic approach that aligns with the city’s unique context, and while standardized indicators offer a foundation, customization is essential to resonate with individual city characteristics and objectives.

Additionally, it would be great to talk about the following questions:

1. What do you think about the connection between sustainability and smartness?
2. What are the most pressing challenges for smart sustainable cities?
3. How can we help the balance creation of smartness and sustainability?
4. What steps can you make to help your city in its journey towards sustainability and smartness?

[outro music]

---