"It is amazing to see cities rely on traditional transportation models, such as an analysis of transportation destination that is conducted every four years"
- Victor Mulas
He attributes public sector scepticism to inertia
to change. "First you need authority to change
the planning process. Then you need a champion
inside the system who has the knowledge to
do that and who is very persistent," Mr Mulas
suggests. Involving businesses and citizens in
smart city planning typically only happens after
those key ingredients are in place, which can take
time, but is often viewed as the wave of the future
in terms of good governance.
A lack of participatory
planning
Globally, governments are increasingly involving
residents in city planning, including in smart
initiatives. Asia anecdotally lags behind in
this regard and where it takes place is often an
afterthought, something Mr Mulas attributes
to a top-down approach that is pervasive in
the region. In India, for example, the national
Smart Cities Challenge included a component of
citizen participation but primarily as a feedback
mechanism on existing proposals and not as a
mechanism for policy.1 The lack of participatory
policy-making generally is especially evident in
ASEAN. Indicative of this—besides Singapore
(8)—Vietnam (43) and Malaysia (47) are the
only two ASEAN countries in the top 50 in
e-participation globally, according to the United
Nations 2016 e-participation index.2
But citizen expectations across the region are
likely to put pressure on governments to improve:
32% of survey respondents conducted for this
research programme say that better governance
is one of the main benefits of making a city smart.
"As a city planner, we have to address [different]
layers in smart city initiatives and we are
[especially] targeting young ones who are going to
be within the city for a long time," says Mohd Najib
bin Mohd, executive director of planning for Kuala
Lumpur. The city therefore has a plan to make it a
"connected city" by 2020, which includes a range
of local and federal government data initiatives,
such as enhancements in e-government.
In Asia, respondents who say their city has better
governance are far more likely to be familiar
with what constitutes a "smart" city (cited by
33%) compared to those with weaker governance
(16%). They are also far more likely to say that
their city is much better in enhancing quality of
life—a fundamental objective of smart cities—
compared to those who have weak governance
structure (34% vs 1%). (Figure 1)
Signs of progress
City governments almost exclusively determine
and prioritize smart city initiatives internally
but the extent to which they ask for feedback
from businesses and citizens—the smart city end
users—varies greatly across Asia with most cities
not doing it at all. There are exceptions, however.
In Singapore, REACH (reaching everyone for
active citizenry @ home) is a government agency
tasked with engaging citizens on policy issues.3 Founded in 1985 to simply receive "feedback", the
agency has grown in importance over the years
and has since been designated to serve as an
e-engagement platform, moving beyond feedback
to also engage citizens via electronic means on
key policy initiatives. Although residents are
only asked to comment on various plans (as
opposed to making suggestions before they are
created), what separates the process from many
other cities is the fact the city-state government
provides a summary of responses to those who
provide suggestions, hence acknowledging their
contributions and managing expectations.
In Kuala Lumpur, the local government has also
recognised the importance of citizen feedback.
"We [as a government] are the planner but we
may not be the perfect planner," says Mr Mohd.
He mentions public WiFi as an area in which
they actively engage with the private sector
and also solicits feedback from the public.
"We have people engaged in those initiatives,
and it has become a standard feature to have
consultations," he adds.
In Seoul, South Korea, the Metropolitan
Government has taken participatory planning
one step further: it claims the 2030 Seoul Plan is
the city's first "citizen participation-type basic
urban planning" strategy that involves residents
in every step of the way and that the future vision
of the 2030 Seoul Plan will be determined by
citizens themselves.4
Into the future
Sceptical observers of smart city planning in Asia
view current processes as window-dressing as
cities try to give the impression they are adapting
to a global trend. But this may change. "In three to
five years, citizen participation will be embedded
into any large-scale smart city initiative in Asia,"
predicts Mr Mulas. "But it will probably follow
the Singaporean approach in terms of receiving
feedback on existing initiatives rather than
creating full-blown participatory decision-making,
as Asian countries generally prefer a top-down
approach."
At the same time, survey respondents who say
their city has better governance, are far more
likely to believe their city will be "very smart" five
years from now (cited by 44%) compared with
those with weaker governance (15%), adding
additional pressure on the region's cities to
follow the participatory good governance model
increasingly common in the west. (Figure 2) "If
we propose a project, we have to explain it and
get feedback," concludes Mr Mohd.
Search
S.E.A
