Check out the episode:

You can find the shownotes through this link.

---

Are you interested in stakeholder opinions for smart cities?

---

Our summary today works with the article titled What do people want in a smart city? Exploring the stakeholders’ opinions, priorities, and perceived barriers in a medium-sized city in the United States from 2021, by Cristina Del-Real, Chandra Ward, and Mina Sartipi, published in the International Journal of Urban Sciences.

This is a great preparation to our next interview with Mina Sartipi in episode 346 talking about smart cities as urban evolution and proactive urban management.

Since we are investigating the future of cities, I thought it would be interesting to see how stakeholders see the smart city concept. This article reveals that improving quality of life and environmental sustainability rather than technological solutions are required of smart cities, with transparency and social inclusion.

[intro music]

---

Welcome to today’s What is The Future For Cities podcast and its Research episode; my name is Fanni, and today we will introduce a research by summarising it. The episode really is just a short summary of the original investigation, and, in case it is interesting enough, I would encourage everyone to check out the whole documentation. This conversation was produced and generated with Notebook LM as two hosts dissecting the whole research.

---

[music]

Speaker 1: You hear the term smart cities thrown around so much. What does it actually mean to the folks living there day to day?

Speaker 2: Exactly. It’s often this big

Speaker 1: techy concept. Totally. Today we’re diving deep into some really interesting research out of Chattanooga, Tennessee. They kind of flug the usual script. Instead of just listening to tech companies pitch their latest gadgets, they actually went out and asked the residents, the business owners, the community leaders, what they wanted.

Speaker 2: Ah, bottom up. That’s refreshing.

Speaker 1: It really is. And with something like what, over 82% of the US population living in urban areas now, figuring this stuff out is pretty critical. It’s basically your shortcut to understanding what smart city could mean, grounded in what real people actually think.

Speaker 2: And it gets to that core question, doesn’t it? What’s the point of a smart city? Is it just about jamming sensors into everything,

Speaker 1: right? Or is it about making life genuinely better?

Speaker 2: The early buzz was definitely heavy on the tech side, the data, the connections, the automation. But there seems to be this important shift happening towards focusing on the people, on their wellbeing, on sustainability. Less tech for tech’s sake.

Speaker 1: Okay. So that’s our mission today. We’re zoning in on Chattanooga, this mid-sized US city, and exploring what their stakeholders, and we’re talking everyone from regular citizens to city officials, academics, nonprofits, a real cross section. Exactly what do they want? What are their priorities, their concerns. It’s about getting past the marketing hype

Speaker 2: and that bottom up approach you mentioned. That’s vital. We usually get the bird’s eye view. Yeah. Often from the tech providers or maybe city planners.

Speaker 1: So how did they gather these views in Chattanooga?

Speaker 2: They used a really smart mix, actually. Things like participatory budgeting, giving people a hypothetical budget and seeing where they’d put the money for smart city projects.

Speaker 1: Oh, interesting. Like putting your money where your mouth is,

Speaker 2: plus in-depth focused groups, getting discussions going, and also one-on-one interviews to really dig into individual perspective.

Speaker 1: It’s pretty comprehensive. They really tried to capture a diverse range of voices.

Speaker 2: Definitely. It wasn’t just one group’s opinion,

Speaker 1: so let’s get into it. When these diverse stakeholders in Chattanooga pictured a smart city, what did that picture actually look like? Was it flying cars and robots?

Speaker 2: Not quite well, sure. Words like innovation and data came up. The overwhelming feeling, the real core of it was about improving quality of life, and importantly, environmental sustainability. Technology was seen more as a tool to get there,

Speaker 1: not the destination itself.

Speaker 2: One citizen made a great point and they said sometimes just streamlining how things already work, making processes smoother. Is more valuable than adding fancy tech on top of a broken system.

Speaker 1: That makes so much sense. Fix the foundation first. It’s about a smart way of doing things, not just smart things.

Speaker 2: The vision was really community centred. How can we use technology? Yes, but also other resources to benefit everyone and how can the city be responsive to all its different populations. An academic in the study pointed that out specifically, a truly smart city has to consider the different needs of different groups

Speaker 1: because a solution for one group might not work or might even be bad for another.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And people envision tech helping with the fundamentals. Better communications, smoother transportation, accessible education. Yeah. The stuff that impacts daily life,

Speaker 1: practical stuff,

Speaker 2: very practical. And a nonprofit leader had this detailed vision of like smart infrastructure planning, making it easier for people to access city services, interact with the city, just making the whole urban experience less hassle. So

Speaker 1: it sounds like there was a rejection of the idea that smarter just means more high tech.

Speaker 2: Definitely. They didn’t wanna purely technocratic city run by algorithms. Nobody understands the study called the preference. Appropriate technology.

Speaker 1: Appropriate technology,

Speaker 2: meaning technology that fits the actual need. It finds a balance between, say, top-down government planning and bottom-up community input. And crucially, it aligns with social and environmental goals.

Speaker 1: Okay, so maybe not the most complex AI system. If a simpler, well-designed solution works better for the community.

Speaker 2: Exactly that. It’s about being smart and choosing the right tool, not just the shiniest one. Got it.

Speaker 1: So quality of life. Sustainability, practical needs, appropriate tech. Were there any fundamental ethical guidelines everyone agreed on?

Speaker 2: Yes. And this was really striking across all the different groups, citizens, government, business, nonprofits, academia. There was unanimous agreement.

Speaker 1: Wow. Unanimous, what was it?

Speaker 2: Equity, social inclusion, and transparency. These were seen as non-negotiable principles for any smart city project.

Speaker 1: Okay, those are big ones. What did equity and social inclusion mean in this context?

Speaker 2: It meant making sure the benefits actually reach everyone, especially groups that are often marginalized or left behind, and that those benefits are distributed fairly,

Speaker 1: not just concentrated in wealthy areas or for tech savvy people,

Speaker 2: precisely. One citizen put it very powerfully they’d seen cities become really innovative. Also incredibly unequal and segregated advanced tech helping only a select few.

Speaker 1: Yeah, that’s a real danger.

Speaker 2: And a government official basically said, look, the tech is pointless if it’s not available and useful to all parts of society.

Speaker 1: That really drives home the need for thoughtful design and rollout.

Speaker 2: And the non-profit folks emphasize that these principles, equity inclusion can’t just be an afterthought. They need to be central from the very beginning through the whole project lifecycle.

Speaker 1: And transparency. How did that fit in?

Speaker 2: Transparency was seen as the key enabler for equity and inclusion. If people can see what’s being planned, how it works, what data is being collected and why,

Speaker 1: then they can critique it, participate, build, trust.

Speaker 2: Exactly. It allows for that open discussion. A nonprofit person said, just dropping a complex plan on people without explaining it properly. That’s not gonna fly. People need to understand it to support it.

Speaker 1: It also probably helps manage expectations. Admitting maybe something won’t be perfect right away, but explaining the long-term goal

Speaker 2: that came up too. Yeah. Being open about potential initial hiccups in service of a bigger, fairer goal.

Speaker 1: Okay. Strong agreement on equity, inclusion, transparency. Were there areas where the groups maybe didn’t quite see eye to eye? Any points of divergence?

Speaker 2: There were a few. Yeah. Accessibility was a big one, emphasized by nearly everyone except government officials, interestingly,

Speaker 1: really why the difference?

Speaker 2: Citizens especially, were really concerned about people without smartphones or reliable internet access being left out. One person explicitly said, relying only on smartphone apps creates inequality.

Speaker 1: That’s a critical point.

Speaker 2: Sustainability was also mentioned more by some groups than others. And simplicity, the idea of keeping things user-friendly also varied a bit in emphasis, but those core three, equity, inclusion, transparency, were universal.

Speaker 1: Okay, so we have the vision, the guiding principles. What about actual projects? When people thought about the future. What specific smart city initiatives did they wanna see prioritized?

Speaker 2: The number one area by far

Speaker 1: was mobility. Transportation makes sense. That affects everyone totally.

Speaker 2: People really wanted more efficient ways to get around, and citizens in particular called for major improvements to public transportation.

Speaker 1: Better buses may be light rail, things

Speaker 2: like that. Yeah. An entrepreneur pointed out that better mobility creates equity, giving options to people who don’t have cars.

Speaker 1: Good point. Access to jobs, healthcare, everything.

Speaker 2: And a nonprofit member highlighted a specific need, realtime public transport information, not just a static schedule, but knowing exactly when the bus is actually coming.

Speaker 1: Oh yeah. That makes planning so much easier. Reduces frustration too

Speaker 2: big time. The second most preferred area was energy.

Speaker 1: Interesting. How did that connect?

Speaker 2: It was closely linked to environmental conservation. People saw opportunities to reduce waste. One citizen spoke about seeing lights on in empty buildings, worrying about energy waste and the environment getting worse.

Speaker 1: So efficiency and sustainability.

Speaker 2: Exactly. And from the government perspective, energy was seen as foundational. Like you need a stable, efficient energy grid to support other smart systems, maybe for waste or water management.

Speaker 1: Makes sense. What about healthcare?

Speaker 2: Healthcare preferences lean towards remote assistance, things like telemedicine, remote patient monitoring,

Speaker 1: stuff you can do from home?

Speaker 2: Yeah. The idea was making healthcare more accessible and comfortable letting people recover at home when possible, which also frees up hospitals for more serious cases. An entrepreneur mentioned just wanting to be home to recover faster.

Speaker 1: I can see the appeal.

Speaker 2: Water quality monitoring was also important. It actually received a significant chunk of the hypothetical budget in that participatory exercise. Even though mobility was the top area, people clearly care about clean water,

Speaker 1: so mobility, energy, healthcare, water, I. What was maybe lower on the priority list?

Speaker 2: Public safety was noticeably lower, especially for citizens.

Speaker 1: Really. That surprises me a bit. Why the scepticism

Speaker 2: citizens expressed real concerns about things like predictive policing or realtime crime mapping. They worried about how law enforcement would use the data, citing past experiences where police maybe misuse technology. There was a trust issue there.

Speaker 1: Concerns about surveillance

Speaker 2: exactly. This contrasted with government, business, and nonprofit folks who generally saw public safety tech as a necessary foundation for a truly smart, thriving city.

Speaker 1: So indefinite split there

Speaker 2: though even an entrepreneur who supported focusing on safety emphasized needing to address root causes of issues like gun violence. Not just using tech to react to symptoms,

Speaker 1: a more holistic view. Did people suggest other ideas beyond these main categories?

Speaker 2: Oh yeah. Stakeholders came up with about 23 additional project ideas. Things like better government management, more transparency, open data platforms that came particularly from entrepreneurs and nonprofits.

Speaker 1: Using tech to make government itself work better

Speaker 2: and more mobility ideas. Of course, public transport again, but also bike infrastructure was suggested by academics. Citizens and government entrepreneurs leaned more towards private options, too.

Speaker 1: A mix of public and private solutions

Speaker 2: seems so. The overarching theme in many suggestions was using data for more efficient resource management. A nonprofit person talked about collecting data on how people actually use public spaces to inform planning,

Speaker 1: using data to understand behaviour better. But you mentioned earlier not everything was tech focused.

Speaker 2: That’s right. Some suggestions were distinctly not ICT based, like simply building more bike lanes. It shows that sometimes the smartest solution isn’t a technological one,

Speaker 1: just good urban planning. Okay, so lots of ideas, clear priorities, ethical guidelines, but what stops these things from happening? What are the roadblocks?

Speaker 2: The study identified three main barriers that came up again and again, funding public buy-in and politics,

Speaker 1: the usual suspects. Perhaps let’s start with funding.

Speaker 2: Academics pointed out the obvious. You have limited budget, so you have to prioritize. Nonprofits worried that new smart city initiatives might take funding away from existing necessary public projects,

Speaker 1: like basic infrastructure maintenance or social services,

Speaker 2: potentially. Yeah. And the government folks felt they needed really strong justification, clear benefits to get the budgetary freedom for big new tech projects.

Speaker 1: So money’s tight and you need a good reason to spend it on something new and potentially unproven. What about public buy-in?

Speaker 2: This was huge. An academic made the point that people need to see a need for a new technology before they’ll adopt it. You can’t just force it on them.

Speaker 1: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, or at least explain why it needs fixing

Speaker 2: an entrepreneur. Give an example as sometimes doctors just prefer paper records. Even if digital is theoretically more efficient, there can be resistance to changing workflows,

Speaker 1: inertia,

Speaker 2: and specifically regarding smart city tech. Remember the citizen scepticism about predictive policing?

Speaker 1: Yeah, the trust issues.

Speaker 2: That’s a major buy-in barrier. One citizen flat out said things like that raise red flags. Plus nonprofits and government officials also highlighted broader privacy concerns and just a general lack of public understanding about how these technologies work,

Speaker 1: which loops back to the need for that transparency everyone agreed on.

Speaker 2: If people don’t understand it or trust how their data is being used, they won’t support it

Speaker 1: Funding. Buy-in politic.

Speaker 2: A government official talked about the power of lobbying, how influential industries can shape decisions,

Speaker 1: pushing their preferred solutions, maybe,

Speaker 2: or blocking others. A nonprofit representative specifically worried about real estate developers potentially hindering projects that might say promote affordable housing or better public transit. If it didn’t align with their interests.

Speaker 1: And did citizens see politics playing a role?

Speaker 2: They did. Some believe that projects benefiting lower income groups like public transit improvements might get neglected because the decision makers themselves probably don’t rely on those services.

Speaker 1: The perception of disconnect

Speaker 2: and underlying all these barriers, there was this cross-cutting concern raised by almost everyone except the government officials.

Speaker 1: Rich was.

Speaker 2: Smart city initiatives, if not done carefully, could actually worsen existing inequalities. An academic warned about the negative potential of monitoring systems. A citizen spoke about feeling hyper policed or like their community was treated like a pet project for testing tech rather than genuinely benefiting.

Speaker 1: That’s a really strong concern, balancing that top down government direction with the bottom up collective needs and concerns of the community.

Speaker 2: That’s the tightrope really.

Speaker 1: So if we boil it all down, what’s the key takeaway for someone listening, trying to get their head around smart cities?

Speaker 2: I think the clearest message from these Chattanooga stakeholders is that a truly smart city isn’t defined by its technology, it’s defined by its focus on quality of life, on sustainability, and crucially on ethical principles like transparency,

Speaker 1: people first, tech second, or maybe tech in service of people.

Speaker 2: Exactly. The technology is a means not the end

Speaker 1: goal. It definitely leaves your thinking, doesn’t it? How does that vision, the Chattanooga vision stack up against what you, the listener picture when you hear Smart city and which priorities resonate Most

Speaker 2: are we focused on the gadgets or the outcomes for people?

Speaker 1: And maybe the final thought to leave everyone with is this, I. Is smartness in a city about how advanced its tech is?

Speaker 2: Or is it about how well that city understands, responds to and serves the needs and values of all its people?

Speaker 1: A much deeper definition of smart.

---

[music]

What is the future for cities podcast?

---

Episode and transcript generated with ⁠⁠Descript⁠⁠ assistance (⁠⁠affiliate link⁠⁠).