Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGupta, Khushbooen
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-14T09:00:33Z
dc.date.available2020-02-14T09:00:33Z
dc.date.issued2020-02-13
dc.identifier.othervt_gsexam:23563en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/96810
dc.description.abstractWith advancement in information and communication technologies (ICT), Smart Cities are becoming a popular urban development strategy amongst policymakers and city managers to respond to various threats posed by rapid urbanization such as environmental degradation and increasing inequality (Hartemink, 2016). Therefore, globally, regions ranging from small towns to megacities are proposing and investing in smart city (SC) initiatives. Unfortunately, the prolific use of this term by city managers and technology vendors is clouding the view on what it really takes to become a SC (Van den Bergh and Viaene, 2015). Consequently, cities are experiencing multiple implementation risks when trying to turn a smart city ambition into reality. These implementation risks reflect the gaps or missing pieces in the current organizational structure and policies designed for implementing SC projects at the city level. They can be understood better if the process of SC transformation is explored using diverse cases of cities undergoing such a transformation. However, the current studies on SC initiatives at the local, regional, national, and international level have focused on: 1) strengthening the SC concept rather than understanding the practical implementation of the concept – i.e., discussing SC characteristics and outcomes rather than focusing on the challenges faced in implementing SC projects; 2) cases that have already been developed as a SC or are soon to become a SC, leaving out the opportunity to study cities undergoing SC transformation and the identification of implementation risks; and 3) cases from more advanced economies. Taken together, these observations reveal the need for research that focuses on SC initiatives in a developing nation context. More specifically, there is a need for researchers, city managers, and policymakers in these regions to focus on the process of SC transformation to identify implementation risks early on in the process. Understanding these risks may help the development of better risk mitigation strategies and result in more successful SC projects. This research explores SC implementation risks in two cities currently undergoing a SC transformation in India – Kakinada and Kanpur. While examining the risks landscape in these two cities, the research also explores what city officials are focused on when implementing SC projects. This research finds that: 1) implementation risks such as Institutional, Resource and Partnership, and Social are crucial for implementing SC projects; 2) in the cities of Kakinada and Kanpur, Institutional risks that relate to gaps and deficiencies in local urban governance such as overlapping functions of multiple local urban development agencies, have causal linkages with other risks such as Resource and Partnership risks and Financial risks, which further delay project implementation; and 3) city officials and industry professionals implementing SC projects in Kakinada and Kanpur have a slightly different perspective on smartness, however both the groups focus on External smartness of the city – i.e., projects related to physical infrastructure such as mobility and sanitation – rather than Internal smartness of the city – i.e., strengthening local urban governance, increasing citizen engagement, etc. Overall, this research proposes that there is a need to frame the concept of a SC around both Internal and External Smartness of the city. This research will be of special interest to: 1) cities (in both developed and developing nations) currently implementing SC projects by providing a framework to systematically examine the risk landscape for successful project implementation; and 2) communities/institutions (especially in developing nations) proposing SC initiatives by helping them focus on components, goals, and enablers of a SC.en
dc.format.mediumETDen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.rightsThis item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. Some uses of this item may be deemed fair and permitted by law even without permission from the rights holder(s), or the rights holder(s) may have licensed the work for use under certain conditions. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights holder(s).en
dc.subjectSmart Citiesen
dc.subjectSmart Cities Missionen
dc.subjectSmart City Risksen
dc.subjectRevealed Causal Mappingen
dc.subjectRisk co-occurrencesen
dc.subjectSmart City Enablersen
dc.subjectSmart City Components and Smart City Goalsen
dc.titleSmart City and Related Implementation Challenges - Case Study: Kakinada and Kanpuren
dc.typeDissertationen
dc.contributor.departmentPublic Administration/Public Affairsen
dc.description.degreeDoctor of Philosophyen
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophyen
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.disciplinePlanning, Governance, and Globalizationen
dc.contributor.committeechairHall, Ralph P.en
dc.contributor.committeememberSanchez, Thomas W.en
dc.contributor.committeememberEckerd, Adam M.en
dc.contributor.committeememberZhang, Wenwenen
dc.contributor.committeememberMisra, Shalinien
dc.description.abstractgeneralThe concept of a Smart City (SC) revolves around "using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to increase workability, liveability, and sustainability" of a city (Smart Cities Council, 2014). SCs are becoming a popular urban development strategy amongst policymakers and city managers to respond to various threats posed by rapid urbanization such as environmental degradation and increasing inequality (Hartemink, 2016). Unfortunately, city managers see SCs as a readymade solution to urban challenges. As a consequence, cities are experiencing multiple implementation risks when trying to turn a smart city ambition into reality. These implementation risks reflect the gaps or missing pieces in the current organizational structure and policies designed for implementing SC projects at the city level. They can be understood better if the process of SC transformation is explored. However, the current studies on SC initiatives at the local, regional, national, and international level have focused on: 1) strengthening the SC concept rather than understanding the practical implementation of the concept; 2) cases that have already been developed as a SC or are soon to become a SC, leaving out the opportunity to study cities undergoing SC transformation and the identification of implementation risks; and 3) cases from more advanced economies. Taken together, these observations reveal the need for research that focuses on SC initiatives in a developing nation context. More specifically, there is a need for researchers, city managers, and policymakers in these regions to focus on the process of SC transformation to identify implementation risks early in the project development process. Understanding these risks may help the development of better risk mitigation strategies and result in more successful SC projects. This research explores SC implementation risks in two cities currently undergoing a SC transformation in India – Kakinada and Kanpur. This research finds that: 1) implementation risks such as Institutional, Resource and Partnership, and Social are crucial for implementing SC projects; 2) in the cities of Kakinada and Kanpur, Institutional risks that relate to gaps and deficiencies in local urban governance such as overlapping functions of multiple local urban development agencies, have causal linkages with other risks such as Resource and Partnership risks and Financial risks, which further delay project implementation; and 3) city officials and industry professionals implementing SC projects in Kakinada and Kanpur have a slightly different perspective on smartness, however both the groups focus on the External smartness of the city – i.e., projects related to physical infrastructure such as mobility and sanitation – rather than the Internal smartness of the city – i.e., strengthening local urban governance, increasing citizen engagement, etc.en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record