A Stakeholder Based Assessment of Developing ...

A Stakeholder Based Assessment of Developing Country Challenges and Solutions in Smart Mobility within the Smart City Framework: A Case of Lahore

There are questions that one chooses to ask and other questions that ask themselves. Henri Poincare’ 1890 It is time to move beyond a conception of cities in developed countries as ‘models’ and those in developing countries as ‘problems’ Roy 2005

Ali Agha March, 2016 1

1.

Abstract

This research in first part attempts to bring clarity to the concept of smart cities and what it has come to mean in the developing world. Various frameworks for smart city development are analyzed. Lahore is selected as the setting for the investigation given it megacity status and significant urban mobility challenges that threaten its future governance and growth prospects. In the second part developing country challenges are analyzed to assess the applicability and replicability of smart city and smart mobility deployment success given that it’s more of a developed world concept and its functional implementation in resource constrained environments rather suspect. The Curitiba Model and a Hybrid CIGM model derived from framework analysis is formulated as the optimal solution to most of the challenges presented on the road to smart transformation. Most frameworks point to the one missing link in failed smart city projects that of stakeholder engagement and consensus. In the third part the research sharpens its focus on a detailed study of smart mobility ideas, trends and challenges and the best solutions that are offered at present globally. To add credibility to its findings from global literature and case studies the research uses an extensive panel interview process to identify indigenous smart city-mobility challenges and solutions from the stakeholder perspective. This insightful primary data when corroborated with developing country research offers a localized blueprint for success in smart mobility within the smart city framework direct from the actual stakeholders in Lahore. The aim of this research is to help policy makers, city planner and futurist thinkers develop smart city-mobility transformation projects with stakeholder sensitivity and prioritization that is workable and replicable nationwide.

2

1.

Introduction

1.1

Why Cities need to be Smart

Cities will be the key entities in the future battle for resources as they consume 75% of the global energy generated account for 80% of the global GDP, emit 70% of the global greenhouse gases yet occupy only about 2% of the land (UN, 2011). In 2010, for the first time, 54% of people lived in the cities compared to rural settings. This trend is predicted to continue and 70% of people are expected to live in cities by 2050 (United Nations, 2014). A new cities emerge and many more are planned it is important to note that 90% of this growth (nearly 2.5 billion urban inhabitants of secondary and tertiary cities) is expected in the developing world (HABITAT III, 2015). These statistics underscore the urgency for energy management within the context of the city and for visionary planning to address unregulated urban sprawl. City planners maintain that the time is ripe for setting legislation, developing national policies, creating adaptive infrastructure and informing and empowering citizens if cities are to play a leading role in future urban growth. Additionally successful models of urban planning can be replicated to other cities which in turn can be scaled globally (Jollands, Kenihan, & Wescott, 2008).

Swiss cities have begun to incorporate energy savings into their developmental and spatial planning, making them part of their ‘mission statement’. In the European context particularly it is being driven by the city management’s desire for the label ‘Energiestadt’, an equivalent to the European Energy Award (Hobarty, 2013). The drive for better city management is being extended to the planning stage as well which include all city assets such as public building and energy supply; waste management; and, public transport amongst others. Technologists and urban planners suggest that the next step is to manage these activities is by linking them to a centralized system. Therefore, there has been a growing need for an integrative framework to manage cities on a holistic paradigm (Moser, 2014).

3

The concept of ‘smart cities’ has gained the attention of scientists and practitioners alike as the discipline continues to cross fertilize various domains of knowledge within city systems such as mobility, energy, buildings, governance, stakeholder processes and urban planning (Moser, 2014).

Projected growth and the amount of public sector spending into smart cities are showing an upward trajectory as cities maneuver to acquire ‘smart city’ status. In fact, Frost and Sullivan, a leading firm on ‘Globalization and its Impacts’ forecasts that the global smart cities market will be valued at USD 1.565 trillion by 2020. This is an indication governments in both developing and developed countries need to transform from a traditional silo-based model to a more collaborative institutional frameworks involving all stakeholders working in partnerships focused on cross sectoral innovation and entrepreneurship (Glasmeier & Christopherson, 2015).

Even if collaborative synergies achieve critical mass there remains the question of a valid and universal yardstick for measuring performance to award smart city status. Rating systems as they are called use a range of methods and measurements indices according to the various meanings they attach to the smart city concept. These synthetic indicators are gaining significant traction from policymakers and stakeholders alike as a method of showcasing better city performance to citizens as well as visitors in comparison to other cities (Berardi, 2013; Albino, 2015).

Smart city ranking and assessments regimes have emerged as a dispersed typology and can be categorized into four general (Giffinger, 2009):

1. Commissioned economy or consulting oriented worldwide rankings with no transparency 2. Commissioned rankings by expert panels or economic research institute with inadequate transparency 3. Non-commissioned rankings compiled by magazines or NGOs 4. Academia and Research rankings that are well document and methodical

4

5. Others (special cases and outliers)

Figure 1 Typology of Smart City Rankings [Source: Giffinger (2009), 7, 8 =Median. 9= 9 Average index value (“elaborateness-index” having a hierarchy of subrankings, sub and thematic]

Given the variation in funding sponsorship, spatial scope, data transparency, institutional arrangement employed, analysis methodology used and elaborateness in representation of results, a ranking typology is offered to arrive at better comparison with regard to the quality of research in this space. Close examination of the typology (see fig. 1) reveals that Type 3 and 4 rankings stand out as the most comprehensive with a higher degree of validity. However, much like the universally accepted definition of smart cities, a gold standard for smart city rankings remains elusive (Giffinger, 2009). The University of Vienna led ranking of 70 European medium sized cities, the Intelligent Community Forum’s Smart 21 Communities and Zygiaris’ (2013) Six-layer Smart City Model and are some reputable examples falling in the latter types. Lazaroiu and Roscia (2012) went even further to develop a Smart City Index which eventually became the criteria for distribution of European funds in the 2020 strategic plan. More sophisticated models such as Lombardi’s (2012) Triple Helix system (university, industry and government indicators), the Japanese Institute for Urban Strategies Global Power City Index (using observable data and

5

stakeholder perceptions), the Unites States Natural Resources Defense Council’s Smarter Cities Ranking (with a strong environmental focus) and the Mckinsey Global Institute and IBM Smart City rankings (using mainly technology innovativeness and comparative data) do offer actionable option for city governments and policy makers (Albino, 2015).

1.2

Global Experiences in Smart Cities

As the ranking concept of gains traction more and more cities are being converted into the smart fold. Estimates from 2014 place the actual number of completed or self-designated projects at 143 with Europe leading with 47 projects (Albino, 2015). The global distribution of smart cities shows thick concentrations in Asia and Europe (see figure 2).

Figure 2 Smart and Digital City Geo Location (per continent) on the basis of 162 case studies analyzed Source: Cocchia (2014)

In the US San Francisco and San Diego have led the way through smart ICT as ‘the city of the future’. In Europe, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Berlin, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Bath have been at the forefront of smart city developments. In Portugal, a new development based on bioclimatic nurturing and ICT serviceability platforms called PlanIT is underway. In the UK claims of South Hampton as the ‘first smart city’ have not been entirely disputed specifically their initial successes with the use of multi-application smart cards have been a model to emulate

6

(Albino, 2015). To stimulate and maintain Europe’s leadership in smart cities, the European Commission created a financial support vehicle through the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) (Vanolo, 2014). In China, Smart Cities Forum counts 51 cities as ‘smart’ which included 36 greenfield projects as well as smart interventions in first tier cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen. In the UAE, Masdar City is a well know example of new city development but instead of the much trumpeted eco-city paradigm embedded in its original philosophy it is allegedly grounded in more economic imperatives and lately being criticized for its corporate orientation. Global mapping of smart cities represents a relatively dispersed picture but the depravation of the Global South is evidently clearly visible (see fig. 3).

Figure 3 Smart and Digital Cities geo-location on the world map on the basis of 162 case studies analyzed Source: Cocchia (2014)

In the Southeast Asian theater, Singapore initially with its Intelligent Island project, an ambitious framework of ICT transforming work, life and entertainment, and recently with Master Plan iN 2015, promising to provide free mobile internet access to all citizens, has demonstrated significant regional leadership in smart cities. Taoyuan in Taiwan has developed an e-governance apparatus to enhance quality of living for its citizens. The Korean experience with Songdo, one of the largest smart city projects has been in Korea has been hailed as a major success story. With

7

development activities ongoing since the last decade Songdo aims to house 75,000 inhabitants and an estimated cost of $35 billion. Songdo’s unique model is an information aggregation platform to create a central brain in order to better manage distributed city assets (Albino, 2015).

1.3

Criticism on Smart Cities

Much like Masdar, criticism of Songdo centers on the use of smart labelling to push ICT projects. However on a more abstract and philosophical level, these development signal the widespread adoption of neo-liberal urban development policies where the specter of the smart city image becomes a catalytic tool to attract investments both in terms of funding and human resources (Vanolo, 2014).

Even in the 1930s similar planning mentalities were observed in the Northern Chinese city of Munchuko under Japanese political influence built on an orderly and efficient yet a totalitarian model called ‘New Asian Style’ with wide perfectly straight boulevard leading to a central plaza like the ‘spokes of a giant wheel’ (Greenfield, 2013).

18th and 19th century utopian thinkers such as Montgomery, Ledoux, Fourier and Owen all attempted to design ideal towns and villages striving to engineer human society towards prosperity and happiness. Early urban planners pursuing these vision achieved them by dividing city assets into sectors and designed for efficiency, functionality and optimization. Even Le Corbusier modern 20th Century architecture was originally developed to satisfy the needs of housing the working class and their social goals such as community, hygiene, efficiency and so on. Critics argue that current claims by Smart City advocates are nothing more than ‘modern reformulations of very old fantasies’ (Greenfield, 2013). It is argued even further that very little from the collective wisdom of the half a century old urbanist discourse has been incorporated in the flagship new developments of Songdo, PlanIT and Masdar City. Rather than narrow use orientation as highlighted for most smart cities critics argue that historical urbanist wisdom seems to suggest that cities work best when they support a lively mix of uses ((Glasmeier & Christopherson, 2015; Greenfield, 2013).

8

Perhaps the most compelling criticism is directed at technology firms that have come under fire as their promise of information transparency suffers from lack of neutrality when smart city project details are scrutinized. There are no Open Source systems that undergird smart city data collection. ‘Mystification of data’ as it is called is emerging as a problem within the smart city discourse (Greenfield, 2013). There seems to be a lack of a universal standard of protocols for measurements when smart city data is being collected. For example varying the height of air pollution sensor will give a different reading for pollution count. Similarly, crime index in an area can be easily varied by reclassification of the taxonomy of reported crimes. Finally survey wording of opinion polls of citizens is highly sensitive and may bias collected data. Critics argue that Smart city designers need to mindful that all collected data is never ‘just the data’ (Greenfield, 2013).

1.4

Smart City Concept in Pakistan

In Pakistan at present the concept of smart cities remains a novel idea and a comprehensive understanding of what smart cities mean seems lacking. Furthermore, the eco-system, the thought leadership, the institutional arrangement and public opinion does not seem to be fully mobilized to attain critical mass on the subject. Currently increasing urbanization and rising incomes trends when projected show that by 2025 the urban population will increase from the current 50 percent to nearly 60% by 2015 with 80% of growth coming from cities in Asia and Africa. Pakistan’s urban population has grown from 32% in 1998 to 40 percent today and if this trend continues it will exceed 50% by 2025 (Vision, 2025).

At present 9 cities of Pakistan have populations over 1 million and 75 cities with population between 100, 000 to 1 million. Pakistan’s cities contribute 78% to the country GDP. An additional problem that Pakistan faces in this urban influx is the tension between migrant and native populations as cities are unable to absorb, accommodate and gainfully employ rural migrants (Vision, 2025).

9

As far as overall development indicators go foreign remittances is an area that Pakistan performs well in comparison to comparable countries whereas in mobility (road and rail density) it is underperforming (see fig. 2).

Figure 4 Pakistan Development Indicators in Comparison to Other Leading UMI Countries. [Source: Vision (2014)]

When populations migrate to large cities for a better quality of life, countries with a primarily agriculture based economy will face a unique problem that of ‘rural stagnation’. The value that smart cities bring to Pakistan will be as a hub of economic activity in the region thereby stimulating rural growth as well (Vision, 2025).

1.4.1 Role of Government in Smart Initiatives The federal government’s Vision Champions initiative is also a step in the direction of smart governance where individuals with leadership and contributions in community based initiatives will be selected from the district, provincial and federal level and inducted into a network of professional who will collaborate and improve existing city management model. A public sector developed initiative for urban uplift called URAN is in the pipeline which will complement the work of Vision Champions. Finally a federal ‘Urban Planning Unit’ is also in the works at the Ministry of Planning, Development and Reform (Vision, 2025). It is envisioned in the Pakistan Vision 2025 that the above initiatives will be the first steps towards development of smart cities.

10

The author is a member of the Vision 2025 Milestone Quarterly Review Committee and has proposed the Creation of a Smart City Council in a session held in December 2015. Minutes and directives from that session are still awaited.

1.4.2 Mobility Initiatives in Pakistan Transport in Pakistan contributes to 10% of GDP growth, employs 6% of the workforce in the country, consumes 35% of the energy annually and accounts for 15% of the Public Sector Development Project Fund. Road Transport is the backbone of the country and carries 96% of all passenger and freight traffic. This highlights the underutilization of rail networks in Pakistan. Vision proposes an increase in road density from the existing 32 KM/100 KM2 to 64 KM/100 KM2 enlarging the existing road network of 260, 000 KM to 360, 000 KM. The share of rail transport will increase from 4% to 20% and will be upgraded by increasing speed and capacity with a new signaling system and linkages to Central Asian States. Even in historical terms Pakistan’s transportation network and related spending has been skewed in favor of urban needs costing Pakistan nearly 4% of GDP annually. Government is looking into appropriate reprioritization, new transport pricing policy and appropriate user charges to address this gap. Work on two major mobility project that of Gwadar National Trade Corridor and Upgradation of the Karakoram Highway both aimed at improving connectivity with China has begun (Vision, 2025).

1.5

A Case of Lahore

Since Lahore can be considered a megacity by global standards and is at the forefront of urban development initiatives complemented by deep level of commitment by provincial government, it often serves as a model to emulate for other cities (Malik, 2013). This is particularly true for mass transit services even at the federal level. Being the intellectual capital of the country and at substantial level of development vis-à-vis other Pakistan cities, Lahore is ripe for smart city and smart mobility interventions given the presence of critical infrastructure and citizen

11

maturity. Hence smart projects here if successful can be replicated to other cities in Pakistan. Therefore research and case studies on Lahore are likely to enjoy widespread influence and acceptability. This is part of the reason in additional to researchers personal interest is why Lahore has been selected as case study area.

1.5.1 Urban Form in Lahore Due to rapid urbanization, Lahore has not been able to develop efficient spatial form which has eventually resulted in the present traffic congestion situation (Malik, 2013). Barring a few high end residential settlements, this growth has been unplanned resulting in severe disparities in housing provision. Currently, 68% of the lowest income groups can afford only 1 % of the housing units available (Malik, 2013). The metropolitan region of Lahore with 15 towns and 200 Union Councils, shows considerable heterogeneity in key urban parameters such as population density, public service delivery, income distribution, access to transportation, vehicle ownership and educational attainment (Haque, 2014). 19. As is the case with other large South Asian cities, Lahore does not seem to have an identifiable Central Business District (CBD), rather there exists a polycentric urban landscape with spatially dispersed employment concentrations (Haque, 2014). Since the population of Gulberg doubles during the day time it can be considered a close approximation to a CBD.

1.5.2 Growth Pattern of Lahore Historically situated near the river Ravi, the Mughals (15th Century) were the first to develop the Walled City concept for Lahore concentrating residential and commercial activity within the city walls access by 12 gates. Foundations of modern urban development were first observed during the British period and later up to the creation of Pakistan in 1947 when the city expanded outward with a town center, cantonment and several arterial roads. Today the

12

periphery of the city has witnessed the growth of major trading and industrial base lining Multan road corridor. If the present growth rate of 3.3% continues the year 2025 will see Lahore surpassing 12 million people (Malik, 2014).

1.5.3 Socio Economics and Spatial Heterogeneity in Lahore Wagah border, a periphery area of Lahore, has half the monthly household income levels at PKR 17, 216 compared to the more upscale Cantonment area at PKR 33, 690 showing significant income disparity and spatial segregation by economic class. Similarly Gulberg, Cavalry and DHA comprise highly planned and high income zones with major car dependency. However even within these so called high income zone large low income slums exist as well (Malik, 2014). Similar is the case with employment figures that are high in Lahore at 15.6 but significantly lower in peripheries at 20.1%. Education levels remains disturbingly low from a smart city perspective as only 3.4% of Lahoris have advanced degrees.

1.5.4 Urban Mobility in Relation to Urban Form of Lahore Lahore's form and function is highly ‘intertwined’ with its transport system. Lahore District’s overall worker inflow of 163.6% shows that despite chronic transportation problems, Lahore’s workforce is highly mobile but travels in an inefficient manner (Malik, 2014). 40% of all urban trips are non-motorized with only 16% of households that are car owners. The early 2000s saw enhanced road infrastructure spending in the form of the Ring Road project and several underpasses along the canal. In 2014 budgetary allocations for roads alone exceeded 58% of infrastructure allocation. A Bus Rapid Transit system became operational in 2012 which now attracts over 140,000 daily trips and has significantly eased congestion along major artery of Ferozepur Road (Haider, 2014).

13

Present shape of the transport network is predominantly ‘radial’ (see Fig. 14, 15) which is a remnant of the historical growth and geographical location of city on the banks of river Ravi. The condition of primary road infrastructure is good compared to any other historical city of Punjab, but the secondary and tertiary linkages are weak due to improper maintenance and unplanned interventions to improve origin-destination routes (NESPAK, 2004). Public transportation in Lahore is under-developed, highly fragmented, and inefficient. More than 800,000 passengers use only 800 high occupancy buses along with Para-transit service (JICA 2012). Public transportation modes include: high occupancy bus, wagon or minibus, motorcycle rickshaw, auto-rickshaw and taxi (Javid, 2013).

Figure 5 Trip Distribution by Mode of Transport [Source: Malik (2014)]

Trip distribution analysis shows that private vehicle is the dominant mode of transport in Lahore followed by public transport and walking. Half the school bound trips are on foot (see Fig. 3). Walking comprises only 12% of all leisure trips. This indicates that walking access to public places is not there which in turn means a lack of

14

public spaces around the city which tends to affect mostly women and marginalized communities more severely (Malik, 2014).

Figure 6 Population Density, Car Ownership and Worker Flow by Tehsil/Town 2011 [Source: Malik (2014)]

In Lahore it has been observed that a negative correlation exists (see Fig. 4) between population density and car ownership hence densely populated areas experience greater impact from public transport inaccessibility as well as reduced access to economic opportunities (Malik, 2014; JICA, 2012). This presents a compelling case for smart mobility solutions to be introduced in Lahore.

1.5.5 Mobility Problem of Lahore Analysis of Punjab data shows that transport spending in Pakistan has historically been skewed towards facilitating the automobile through such development as roads, flyovers, underpasses, interchanges among others. As a consequence the low income segments comprising mostly of the urban poor (who do not own cars), have been deprived of much needed mobility avenues. Lahore averages nearly 10 million trips daily, out of which only 8% involve cars. Overall only 16% of households actually own cars. Unfortunately the rich do not public transport and

15

the poor cannot afford it. This leaves a vast middle class who do not own an automobile yet rely primarily on public transport which is currently considered subpar by regional standards (Haider, 2013). Research points to an even finer gradation of transport needs within the middle class based on income level. The upper middle class shows a preference for high quality and comfort and is willing to pay for it. At the lower end preferences point to ‘no frills’ and affordability. Urban transport policy has largely ignored this ‘differentiation’ through a uniform pricing mechanism. This has over time alienated both ends of the public commuter spectrum. The upper middle find public transport to be overcrowded and uncomfortable and lower unaffordable. Other transport problems include animal driven wagons sharing the same roads as cars, lack of transit quality, nonenforcement of traffic laws, and lack of technical expertise in municipal governments (Haider, 2013).

1.5.6 Lahore Urban Transport Masterplan A flagship document in Lahore urban transport research is the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) sponsored study called the Lahore Urban Transport Masterplan (LUTMP). Lahore with 10 million citizens is the 2nd largest city in Pakistan after Karachi and its population is growing at the rate of 3% (JICA, 2012). In recent years the city has experienced a rise in vehicle ownership funded in large part by a friendly credit market. This coupled with increasing population has resulted in various traffic problems in Lahore (JICA, 2014). Echoing the findings of Haider (2014) the LUTMP with a study area of 3,044 Sq Km (entire Lahore district and parts of neighboring) lists numerous emerging traffic problems, including congestion, environmental degradation, inefficient public transportation systems, traffic management, poor junction design, encroachments on roads, right of way, poor public space management, absence of sidewalks, irregular bus stops and service, incomplete of roadside waste management, unregulated parking and disorderly traffic caused by a mix of animal-drawn carts, rickshaws, bicycles and pedestrians (JICA, 2012).

16

Figure 7 Growth of Socio-economy and Transport Demand in LUMTP Study Area [Source: JICA, 2012]

LUTMP projections show that while population and economy of Lahore grow steadily, the transport demands will increase at a much faster rate (see Fig. 3). Similarly as per capita GDP grows there will be a gradual shift from inadequate public transport to private transport as citizens of Lahore as car ownership increases due to rising incomes. This will in turn lead to more congestions. The increase in car ownership is expected to increase at 2.40% from 18.3 % to 44.0 % in 2030 compared with other Asian cities the Vehicle ownership in Lahore is already at saturation point (200 vehicles /1000 Population). At 56% motor bikes have the largest share of the total registered vehicles in Lahore (JICA, 2012). Projections make it very clear that although at present due to an efficient road network Lahoris are able to live on borrowed time, they will not be able to do so by 2030 as forecast traffic volumes sufficiently surpass road capacity (see Fig. 14 and 15).

17

Figure 8 Traffic Assignment Volumes in 2010 (PCU and V/C Ratio) [Source: JICA (2012)]

Figure 9 Traffic Assignment Volumes Projected to 2030 (PCU and V/C Ratio) [Source: JICA (2012)]

LUTMP however warns that building transport infra structure to meet rapidly growing demand is only part of the solutions. It is imperative that more sustainable urban transport solutions are sought (JICA, 2012). Furthermore LUMTP highlights Lahore’s existing institutional shortcomings even to understand the seriousness of the impending problem. Additionally the funding requirements of the proposed infrastructure overhaul were on

18

the high side about 2.4% of Lahore’s GDP and complementary sources of finance such as PPP were recommended (JICA, 2012).

Figure 10 Public Transport Modal Share in Selected Cities of Asia [Source: JICA-LUTMP, 2012]

Finally the report recommended Lahore preserve its significantly high modal share of public transport at 40% (as in 2010) which excludes walking trips and counts resident only. This was highlighted as one of the most precious assets of Lahore (see Fig. 16). Masterplan 2030 as an outcome of LUTMP suggested development of Urban Rail (RTMS) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), feeder and service buses and wagons will remain the dominant mode of transport in Lahore. Several of the projects are at various levels of completion as this research is being written. In its Action Plan the LUMTP recommends that in addition to LRMTS and BRT, comprehensive traffic management (Bicycle, pedestrian path development etc.) specifically in the Walled City area of Lahore will ease traffic congestion significantly.

1.5.7 Behavioral Aspects of Mobility in Lahore Another aspect of mobility is the perception and attitude towards adoption in public transport. A study of the analysis of travel attitudes and intentions to use public transportation shows that Lahoris can be either be auto(rickshaw) oriented or transit oriented (Javid, 2013). If an individual is auto-oriented they are less likely to use public transportation versus transit oriented individual that actually prefer public transport. This is because many Asians consider auto mobile to be a status symbol (Javid, 2013). Sensitives to such a behavioral orientation will assist policy makers design better and smarter mobility systems that are sustainable, equitable and affordable.

19

20

2.

Literature Review

The literature review traces the evolution of smart city ideals, the emergence of terminology in this context and variation in definition and meaning of various smart city terms. Major frameworks in smart city development are analyzed. Literature specific to the challenges within the developing country context is examined to correlate with the environment of Lahore. Finally the literature review concludes with a review of frameworks in smart mobility through an examination of models and advances in smart mobility deployments that are being created as the next generation of technologies emerge.

2.1

Background: Utopian Abstractions

At a more abstract and philosophical level ‘urbanist’ Anthony Townsend (2013) in his seminal work: Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia’ casts a critical eye on the city builders of today, that are becoming collectively and keenly focused on our smart, mobile and connected future.

Townsend (2013) postulates that the world is now defined by ‘urbanization and digital ubiquity’. Centralized control has become increasingly widespread as we witness the advent of pervasive and intelligent computing devices. Mobile connections exceed fixed line ones as we witness the ushering of an era of the ‘internet of things’ while mass migrations from rural to urban settlements bring a large concentration of people closer together as the ‘megapolis’ concept begins to take shape. Townsend (2013) examines from a historical perspective highlighting the forces that have shaped the ‘planning and designing of cities’ to enhance our understanding of how cities evolve beginning with the great industrial age of the nineteenth century to the present. Townsend (2013) writes:

‘A century ago, the telegraph and the mechanical tabulator were used to tame cities of millions. Today, cellular networks and cloud computing tie together the complex choreography of mega-regions of tens of millions of people.’

21

As population of cities grows to unimaginable proportions bringing with its degree of complexity in managing large human settlement and government challenges, the city administrators are quick to deploy technology to address these problems. Townsend (2013) is replete with dynamic examples of technology implementations solving urban problems: “In Chicago, GPS sensors on snow plows feed a real-time "plow tracker" map that everyone can access. In Zaragoza, Spain, a "citizen card" can get you on the free city-wide Wi-Fi network, unlock a bike share, check a book out of the library, and pay for your bus ride home. In New York, a guerrilla group of citizen-scientists installed sensors in local sewers to alert you when storm-water runoff overwhelms the system, dumping waste into local waterways.” As technology applications solve cities problems ‘one click at a time’ a plethora of entrepreneurs, technology barons, mayors and an ‘emerging’ army of civic hackers are shaping a new dimension of city thinking. This Smart City concept as it evolves appreciates the motivations, aspirations and failings of all actors while offering new strategies to guide our efforts as ‘we build the future together (Townsend, 2013).

Research on smart cities has been undertaken by various organizations with MIT Smart Cities Lab at the forefront followed by the World Foundation for Smart Communities, URENIO Research Unit and Lab for Global Information Networks to name a few (Al-Hader, 2009).

2.2

Smart City Definitions

Various definitions of Smart City have been advanced since the time of the initial vision building exercise of Bowerman (2000) which proposed an alliance of universities, governments, business associations led by Brookhaven National Laboratory. But most scholars agree that a universal definition is still eludes us. Moser (2014), Schweiz (2014) and Nam and Pardo (2011) have advocated a scientific definition of the smart city but caution that there exists no commonly accepted definition in the literature. Nam and Pardo (2011) however do define some key characteristics of smart cities (see figure 11) to include an entity that changes with user needs, uses smart technologies to monitor and integrate via ICT based sensors (Hall, 2000), linking various aspects of the city such as transport economy, environment and living (Giffinger, 2009). Key aspect to Nam and Pardo (2011) treatment of the

22

definition as echoed by (Partridge 2004) is the enablement of citizens to participate in the city’s development dynamic.

Figure 11 Key Characteristics of Smart City Source: Nam and Pardo (2011)

However the benchmark as far as smart city definitions go has always been Caragliu (2011) who came up with an operational definition:

“We believe a smart city to be smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communications infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance.”

Cocchia (2014) takes on a review of various literatures spread over 1993 to 2012 to examine smart city definition and how the concept of smart vs. digital city has evolved. By far the most comprehensive research on smart cities literature Cocchia includes time (20years), terminology (how ideas evolved), definition (most validated and cited), typology (problems faced by government) and geographic analysis (spread of smart cities). Origins of the word ‘smart’ have been attributed to IBM and Holland (2008) but the meaning of smart is in a state of flux having dramatically evolved to significantly complex levels necessitating a thorough review. Cocchia (2014) compiles the most exhaustive list of smart mutations differentiating between the various shades of meaning while crediting original sources (see figure 13).

23

Figure 12 The Different Meanings of Smart City Source: Cocchia (2014)

Time analysis of papers on smart city versus digital city hint at interesting global developments over the years which have spiked the digital city and eventually smart city concept’s popularity (see figure 11 ).

Figure 13 Time Analysis: the number of papers about smart city and digital city [Source: Cocchia (2014)]

24

Interesting points to note are the 1997 (Kyoto), 2000 (Internet Revolution), 2005 (Kyoto enforced), 2008 (IBM Smart Planet and the Covenant of Mayors to reduce CO2 emissions) and 2010 (EU launches Europe 2020 Strategy). Cocchia (2014) also compiles the most cited variations of smart city word permutations (see figure 14) to show which studies have traditionally carry weight in the smart city universe.

Figure 14 Most Cited Definitions of Smart City [Source: Cocchia 2014]

2.3

Seminal Works on Smart Cities

An extensive review of literature was carried out spread over 15 year period from 1999 to 2014 and a corresponding diagram was developed by the author to illustrate the most cited and seminal works in Smart City research. Most research seems compartmentalized into a technology focus (ICT), an urban development angle or the urgency for more effective and comprehensive energy management within a smart city context (see Fig. 7).

25

Figure 15 Seminal Works in Smart City Research Source: Author

Taking prominence after the seminal contributions of Jane Jacobs in the 1960s are the works of Holland (2008) for smart definitions, Al-Hader (2008) for smart infrastructure, Nam and Pardo(2011) for policy conceptualization, Chourabi (2012) for integrative framework, Cocchia (2014) for extensive literature review, Moser (2014) for practical understanding and Caragliu (2011) for physical-intellectual and social capital paradigm for smart initiatives success. Significant evidence exits that these works influenced many researchers in developing their arguments. Works specifically on smart mobility such as Okuda (2012) and its developing country counterpart Tiwari (2012) 26

although not seminal do enjoy leadership in their niche. Works on Curitiba model which examine the recipe for success in by Soltani (2012) and on challenges faced using the Indian model by Kar (2015) have significant impact on the overall body of literature. However, the literature review process never come to a definitive end as the research universe is ever-expanding (Ricciardi, 2010).

2.4

Integrative Frameworks for Smart Cities

Given the interdisciplinary nature of smart city phenomenon and frequency of failures at smart city development the need for a comprehensive framework becomes vital. Moser (2014) in an attempt to develop practical understanding of smart cities warns that scientific definition on their own may be meaningless unless combined with practical understanding derived from successful case studies. Analyzing smart city implementations in Switzerland, Austria and Germany Moser (2014) discovers that first and foremost it is important to determine what the concept of smart city means for its inhabitants. The Swiss consider maximum quality of life with minimal use of resources as the real smart city in a framework system (see figure 12). Germans place significant emphasis on energy efficiency and integration of innovative technologies while the Austrians surprisingly view it as a more holistic system with facets such as reduction of greenhouse gases, resource optimized energy systems, social and organizational innovation, public transport and soft mobility, early inclusion of investors and finally the creation of a sustainable environment (Moser, 2014).

Moser (2014) postulates that the Schweiz model framework links elements such as master planning, smart buildings, smart grids, smart mobility good governance and stakeholder processes as shown in figure below: that

27

Figure 16 Understanding of Smart cities in Switzerland Source: Smart City Schweiz (2014)

Moving from the theoretical to the pragmatic, Moser (2014) compares scientific studies and practical projects the practical analysis of smart city projects to a new level of rigor by analyzing them on a two dimensional grid comparing level of integration and sociotechnical embedding. The four axis developed by Moser (2014) along with the assessment of studies is shown in figure 13.

28

Figure 17 Characterization of practical smart city projects Source: Moser (2014)

The research concludes that most practical projects take an integrative perspective combining and linking different topics and technologies such as retrofitting buildings and energy supply and do not focus on a single aspect of technology (e.g. smart metering). The scientific studies analyzed by Moser (2014) show one third analyzed articles focused purely on integrated technologies while two-thirds also consider people as an important characteristic of a smart city. Most studies took a semi integrated perspective. The research underscores the need for more integrative approach and clearly identifies lack of people participation (highlighting the need to bridge the ‘Digital Divide’) as a key component overlooked in smart implementation. Moser (2014) calls smart city development to emerge as a new field of ‘Trans-disciplinary research’.

Where there are smart city frameworks of a trans-disciplinary nature, there seem to be others that suggest an evolutionary path (pyramid models) rather than variety of inclusion (fan shaped models). Al-Hader (2009) can be

29

credited with developing such an evolutionary pyramid (see figure 13). As cities evolve at the base of the pyramid Hader (2009) theorizes lies the city’s infrastructure with its civic amenities (water, district heating, electricity etc.). A first level of smartness is achieved when cities develop database resources (spatial databases, servers, data resources). A second degree of sophistication is achieved when smart building management systems are put into place. Moving up one level we see the emergence of a smart interface to manage the city (e.g. automation dashboards). Finally when all systems are well integrated and create a level of combinational efficiency, we achieve the smart city pinnacle (Hader, 2009). This tip of the pyramid can be termed the stage of smart city nirvana.

Figure 18: Smart City Development Pyramid Source: Al-Hader, M. et al., 2009.

In terms of smart city components architecture framework the work of Al-Hader (2009) stresses the need for creating a robust operational framework by combining city business information (collecting information on users, documents, industry, business, revenue and circulation), city systems (GIS, LIDAR etc.) with human workflow and land and spatial management, thus creating an ultimate command and control center to manage the city systems more effectively as shown in figure 15.

30

Figure 19 Smart City Components Architecture Source: Al-Hader (2009)

Beyond frameworks of inclusion, evolution, and components architecture there are the frameworks of innovation that inform our model of the smart city ecosystem. Nam and Pardo (2011) uncover a gap in smart city literature. Most writers they argue focus entirely on the technical aspects of innovation. By definition innovation is a complex concept involving social as well as managerial aspects. The adoption of technology such as those manifest in smart cities are not an end onto themselves but how these technologies are used is even more important. It is the latter that can only be achieved through smart management and careful policy planning (Nam and Pardo, 2011). Since cities fall in domain of public sector they experience conditions less friendly for innovation as there is significantly less competitive pressure compared to private enterprise. Innovation risk is likely to face institutional blockage which shifts smart city projects into high risk category form the start. As a solution Nam and Pardo (2011) suggest

31

a comprehensive view of smart city innovation to be comprised of technology, management and policy innovation. As a framework they suggest a four-dimensional paradigm to guide smart city innovation which includes technology (tool), organization (management), policy (enabling environment) and context dimensions assessed against innovation capacity, risk level and way to success (see figure 16).

Figure 20 A Framework of Smart City Innovation Source: Nam and Pardo (2011)

Pardo (2011) also emphasizes the role of city leaders can potentially play in terms of developing a social infrastructure ripe for collaborations across organizational and jurisdictional boundaries which is a key success factor for smart city projects. In addition different visions of the smart city may conflict so combining several visions may be a key to success. The technique advocated by Pardo is ‘decoupling’ issues wherever conflicts arise such as decoupling economic growth from negative effects of transport congestion by advocating healthy lifestyle to alter transport choices for example. 32

From a policy innovation perspective there is the aspect of branding for marketing which is again a policy innovation. Pardo (2011) argues that ‘cities not nations now compete for people, ideas and capital and a city’s smartness is increasingly becoming a selling point’.

Chourabi’s (2012) integrative framework deals with cities at a younger stage where the initiative is being contemplated. He draws largely from literature on smart cities to devise ‘eight factors’ of smart city initiative framework arranging them in a characteristic onion shell configuration to indicate relative importance of each (see figure 16).

Figure 21 Smart City Initiatives Framework Source: Chourabi (2012)

Chourabi (2012) claims that this type of framework could help disentangle how each variable impacts the other and in turn on successful smart city projects. The onion shell model highlight the differentiated level of impact and influence various factors have on projects depending on where they lie whether at the inner or outer shell although Chourabi (2012) holds technology to be a mega-factor because of its heavy influence on the rest of the seven factors.

33

Nam and Pardo also suggest the factors framework (technology, human and institutional) which form the components based approach to smart city (see figure 21). It merits attention as it takes into account both inclusion and evolution.

Figure 22 : Components of Smart City Source: Nam & Pardo (2011)

Finally not to be ignored is the quintessential Smart City Wheel the so called ‘Cohen Wheel’ which by far takes the all-encompassing approach incorporating smart people, economy, living, government, environment and mobility (each with its set of indicators and sub components (see figure 22).

34

Figure 23: The Smart Cities Wheel [Source: Cohen (2012)]

The ICT domain has its own set of frameworks. Of note is the one developed by Falconer (2012). The four layer (objectives, indicators, components and policy best practices) framework provides a logical flow facilitating stakeholders to push through and test various initiatives. The circular flow of information creates a feedback loop which insures that this is an intelligent system (see figure 23).

Figure 24 Smart City Framework Layers [Source: Falconer (2012)]

35

2.5

Questions for Research from Literature

Moser (2014) after proving that ICT alone does not make a smart city highlights the need for more complementary participative strategies to be developed for smart cities. This raises the question whether findings in the limited theater of central Europe offer a recipe for global success as well. How would dynamics in the Third World change these findings? How would this effect timelines of project when viewed from the angle of interplay between research approaches and practical implementations? More research can be done on how different technologies are linked to connect city infrastructures on different hierarchical levels (Moser, 2014).

The study of Nam and Pardo (2011) terms public sector innovation as an oxymoron and leaves us grappling with the question of what innovation frameworks best insure a certain degree of innovation is realized in public sector projects such as the smart city. If 85% of all IT projects fail and ICT is a major component of smart city implementation than this poses a natural risk to these kinds of projects. Do innovation frameworks that are comprehensive in nature ensure that some degree of innovations emerges from government departments and how much that affect project success rates? In terms of policy integration what models work best horizontal, vertical or sectorial.

Chourabi (2012) 8-factor framework holds merit but its application to the international context specially the developing world scenario needs to be tested. How heavily does the technology factor weigh in on smart city initiatives success and can this influence be quantified?

It would be interesting to examine what part of the Cohen (2012) Wheel has the most urgency for Lahore and how this is viewed within the participatory framework of stakeholders. How realistic is the Cohen Wheel in a developing country scenario?

The case studies raise questions again about the replicability of successful models and how the correlation between urban wealth and smart indicators plays out.

36

2.6

Smart Growth and Smart Mentality

Apart from questions raised about the comprehensiveness and uniformity of smart city definitions and efficacy and adaptability of smart frameworks, yet another dimension to the smart city debate is the idea of smart growth and subsequent smart mentality that fuels it. What good is a smart city if it is inhabited by not so smart people? The entire hypothesis falls on its own weight when cities have the necessary infrastructure and initiative but its citizens lack the commitment to use it to its full extent and lag at adoption of smart technologies perhaps due to lack of education or an exclusionary mindset (citation needed here). Research about technology adoption and participatory process could be explored as a possible thesis focus.

From the smart growth perspective Downs (2004) argues in a somewhat dated paper that smart growth is ‘much more talked about than actually carried out in practice’. Naturally, smart growth appeals to cities on an intellectual and emotional level given the alternative of uncontrolled ‘suburban sprawl’. But a pragmatic version of smart growth requires parting with long standing traditions of ‘urban think’ and city administrators and developers have to be re-tuned to think out of the box. This includes giving up home rule and low density living patterns which is smart but does not make business sense from the real estate value perspective (Downs, 2005).

Downs (2005) principles of smart growth read like a pre-cursor to Smart City planning with concepts such as limiting outward extension of new developments, raising residential densities, more mixed land uses, emphasizing public transit and revitalizing older decaying neighborhoods. Downs (2005) is careful to point out that ‘smart growth does not mean the same thing to everyone.’ But the most significant contribution by Downs (2005) includes analysis of the challenges to implementation of smart growth policies. These include the overpowering role of special interest groups bypassing plain citizens and local homeowners in planning stage, persuasion of local citizens to adopt smart growth policies, an innate fear of change, shifting power and authority from local to regional levels, reduction in home values due to increasing residential density among several others (see figure 23).

37

Figure 25 Obstacles to Implementing Smart Growth Policies Source: Downs (2005)

Furthermore after identification of obstacles Downs (2005) goes on to access the likelihood of success of smart growth policies. In total Downs (2005) is able to assess the likelihood of eight smart growth policies using the parameters of arousing opposition, garnering of support and the tension between opposition vs. support. The policies that indicate the highest likelihood of implementation are then indicative of an evolving roadmap for smart evolution. This was essentially one of the original focus area of the thesis i.e. developing a road map for Lahore (see figure 24).

38

Figure 26 Likelihood of Implementing Smart Growth Policy Source: Downs (2014)

Research question here is to see how these challenges will be experienced or perceived in the global context specially the developing world scenario and also to assess how far these concepts have evolved in an energy savvy

39

smart city decade from the time when this paper was written. What are the new obstacles and which of which of Downs 8 policies face the greatest likelihood of implementation in Lahore.

Vanolo (2013) takes a rather critical view of the smart city. While acknowledging the importance of power and knowledge resident in the contemporary city, and the ability of the smart concept for reimagining and organizing the city in various ways, he is quick to caution that smartness does impose a new ‘moral order’ through technical parameters by which we distinguish between the ‘good city’ and ‘bad’. In his view smart city is still an ‘ambitious concept’. Using case studies derived largely from an Italian urban setting, the study examines how the smart city reduces the ‘risks, conflicts, radicalism, resistance in the contemporary city in favor of a more disciplined approach to urban planning and development. Vanolo (2013) reveals that for the most part proponents of the smart city have manipulated the term to pursue their own agendas. The smart city discourse has evolved in the ‘wake of the narrative’ of sustainable or as Vanolo puts it resilient city attributing the concept to a phase in urban planning called ‘urban imaginaries’. Vanolo (2013) cites several studies to show that Cities are being reinvigorated as ‘engines of development’ and smart city is now becoming a rebranding tool for benchmarking the city’s success as city actors become increasingly focused to attract investment, professional workers and tourists.

The question raised in this research is are smart city models easily replicable to say Rio or Mumbai or is each city different. Vanolo cites literature from Gibbs and Krigger (2012) which theorizes that due to different geometries of power and social positionalities of various city actors each with their own rationalities arranged in different configurations-one model may not fit the other. McCann (2011) and Peck (2011), Vanolo maintains advocate the ‘mobility of the smart city concept where policy solutions tend to ‘circulate, migrate and mutate’. This creates a debate about the ‘degree of mobility’ of the smart city concept.

Smart mentality in Vanolo’s view is originated from pressure to obtain European funding initially but has morphed into a ‘new urban identity’ that disciplines a city’s residents to conform to a certain mindset. Briefly three functions govern smart mentality: role of computing in city benchmarking analysis and urban charts, role of public private

40

partnerships in production and management of smart cities and finally the environment technology and quality of life aspects (Vanolo, 2013). Three important observations come out of Vanolo which can be a subject of further research. First, smart city rankings are inherently a one dimensional exercise i.e. good or bad. Technology adoption classification show cities lagging behind which assumes there is always a liner path to development as we risk over celebrating the social and environmental opportunities offered by smart technologies. Common sense tells us that living in micro environments with a zero impact life is clearly not sustainable for 7 billion people.

Finally Vanolo (2013) points out that smart cities inevitable create a smart citizen and since in an atmosphere of enablement and participation in reaching the city’s objective the citizen feels responsible, a kind of moral obligation. In fact Vanolo goes further and labels the production of smart citizen as form of ‘government at a distance’ or ‘smartmentalization’. This again requires investigation for applicability on a global scale outside the Italian border.

2.7

Case Studies

Although several studies reviewed above have extensively derived research results from examining case studies of smart implementation, nevertheless a brief review of Caragliu (2009), Mahizhnan (1999) and Al-Awadhi (2013) are selected case studies that will be briefly discussed here. Mahizhnan (1999) examining the case of Singapore as a smart city by drawing attention to its historical lack of natural resources which drives the need to convert their industrial economy into a knowledge economy using information technology. Singapore’s vision of the Intelligent Island involves development on an advanced information infrastructure, IT education initiatives, all the way to an It economy complete with e-commerce and broadband connectivity. Apart from economic growth Singapore also envisioned increasing the quality of life of its citizens so that the difference between the various income groups is minimized. A step in that direction is Singapore One which is single broadband network that allows access to all citizens of Singapore. In conclusion Mahizhnan (1999) argues that more important than bandwidth of the IT infrastructure is the bandwidth of the mind.

41

‘Ultimately it is the people and not the hardware and the software that makes IT projects work and that too for the good of other people’, Mahizhnan (1999) admits. It is this quality of openness, acceptability and responsibility in every citizen that makes Singapore intelligent Island a success. The case highlights the key existence of smart mentality hard at work in Singapore. Al-Awadhi (2013) has attempted to measure the gap between aspirations and realizations in smart city project using Seattle as a case study. Al-Awadhi discovers although academic definitions of smartness and city official understanding of it greatly differed but there was distinct alignment between project outcomes and the practitioners understanding of it. There is a discrepancy between smart city as defined by local government and smart city as a ‘complex and multi-dimensional urban space’. In other words smart government Al-Awadhi (2013) maintains is a prerequisite to create the necessary alignment between stakeholders and offer the necessary stewardship. Again realization can be measured only in terms of benefits and aspiration in terms of how city officials understand it. Awadhi produces the following chart to illustrate which benefits were more frequently realized than others (co-occurrence) with service delivery and cost savings leading the way:

Figure 27 Frequency of Co-occurrence of Smart City Benefits Source: Al-Awadhi (2013)

42

Caragliu (2009) masterpiece on Smart Cities in Europe introduces us to a new vocabulary of smart infrastructure comprising of physical capital (hard infrastructure), human and social capital (knowledge communication and social infrastructure). The latter form Caragliu (2009) maintains is key ingredient for urban competitiveness. By urban audit data sets (250 indicators) over 6 smart city performance parameters, Caragliu (2009), discovers that there exists a positive correlation between smart city indicators and the accumulation of urban wealth confirming that the smart concept may indeed lead to the creation of a strategic agenda in Europe for the foreseeable future (see figure 31). The correlation between economic performance (per capita GDP etc.) and smart city indicators (creative professional, quality transport, ICT and E-government), though positive Caragliu (2009) cautions may not indicate ease of implantation as well.

Figure 28 Partial Correlation among Six Indicators of Smart Cities [Source: Caragliu (2009) [PPS= Purchasing Power Standards]

43

2.8

Smart Cities in the Developing World: Critical Challenges

The validity and accuracy of research on smart cities and in particular smart mobility is weak unless substantiated by analysis and case studies undertaken in the developing world to demonstrate efficacy of global frameworks and also highlight the need to understand indigenous challenges and offer contextual solutions. Statistically, 3.2 billion use the internet out of which 2 billion live in developing countries. These high connectivity parameters underscore the potential for exceptional growth for smart cities in the developing world (HABITAT III, 2015).

2.8.1 The Death of Master planning Developing countries mostly exhibit informal urban growth similar to the cities of Medieval Europe and hence the use of teleological modes of development, a remnant from the theoretical lineage of urban planning becomes speculative. In fact Verebes (2013) warns that these ‘evolutionary patterns of urban formation’ have ushered in the contemporary planning practice an ‘age of indeterminacy’, where uncertainty, complexity and emergence offer unique challenges which have caused the death of master- planning in its true form. These ‘self-developing processes’ help planners create a prognosis for the future given their focus on the long term. Cities, Verebes (2013) believes are the embodiment of how ‘well adapted designs emerge from uncoordinated decisions from the bottom up that produce order on all scales’. Urban ‘form’ is believed to be the result of an agglomeration of various ‘native accidents’. Within this self-organized and emergent framework similar to other biological and physical processes, collective human activity unfolds in real time and cities form, evolve and grow over centuries (Verebes, 2013).

2.8.2 The Challenge of Megacities in Developing Countries In an era of self-propelled urban forms and emergent development models, how can strategic urban planning be achieved? A study of the dynamics that govern megacities may help in this regard. Megacities range in population thresholds from 4 to 10 million but there seems to be a dearth of literature on the precise ways how urban issues vary with city size (Sorensen and Okata, 2010). Early research showed that in developing countries jobs, water,

44

transportation and pollution are likely to be major problems for larger cities while in the developed world pollution, crime and housing are more pressing concerns again for bigger cities. Recent research however points out that in additional to wealth differences the speed of urbanization and growth has accelerated fueled in large part by migration form rural areas (Sorensen, 2010). There is the factor of timing as well given that developing world economies function in a primarily disadvantage Global South having to deal primarily with low value added production functions and heavy environmental burdens. This in turn effects the conceptualization of urban infrastructure which becomes fragmented and splintered into public and private domain such as transport (Sorensen, 2010). It is time to move beyond a conception of cities in developed countries as ‘models’ and those in developing countries as ‘problems’ (Roy 2005). Urban form in the developing world mega-cities has morphed into a socio-spatial polarization resulting from polycentricity and which manifests itself in the form of gated communities for the wealthy, dispersed patterns of peri-urban growth, and vast informal settlements slums.

2.8.3 Mobility in the Developing Economy Vasconcellos (2014) groundbreaking work on ‘Urban Transport in the developing countries’ agrees that despite large differences there are some significant similarities. These include shortage of quality roads and infrastructure supply, higher levels of non-motorized vehicle supply, low individual mobility and income induced modal splits, Work and school as dominating trip purposes, low accessibility to public transport and system delay, low level of comfort due to overcrowding, high motorized transport expense to income ratio, Low traffic safety with high accident count and high pollutant concentration in large cities.

Additionally Vasconcellos (2014) cautions that various generations of transport research reveal that there is a disconnect between manifest demand calculated from engineering based transport planning and actual need, time and social limits of individual trips. So to arrive at a more accurate planning model there was a merger of transport planning with sociological research that provided deeper insights into individual behavior and culture aspects. Finally transport also has a political dimension given the nature and scope of public transport policies.

45

In a developing country scenario even a functioning democracies are not ‘representative’ as in the European Style but ‘delegative’ . This type is more personality based and policy decisions are formulated rapidly as compared to a long drawn out process of discussions and institutional acceptance. By extension the people that control public sector spending re bureaucrats and technocrats which harbor strongly held adherence to the elitist origins historically. Furthermore the Urban Transport Planning systems suffers criticism for its narrow view of the urban process as a whole. First technical issue such as the inability to create accurate forecasting, strategic planning lack adequate financial and administrative support, political and ideological issues such as project continuity and belief in more motorized transport options. Finally the appraisal process is another challenge and environmental and economic evaluation is not properly carried out for major transport projects (Vasconcellos, 2014).

Vasconcellos lays down five social aspect that govern mobility in the socio economic analysis. These include issues of the poor issue, of children, of gender, of the elderly and finally of the disabled who in their own unique was faces a unique challenges that need redressal for mobility to become smart.

2.8.4 Key Success Factors in a Developing Economy Given the lack of implementation level understanding in the developing world Kar (2015) advanced some parameters to follow in the conceptualization to commission cycle for smart city projects including:



Coalescence



Practicality



Involvement

In government led planning for smart city projects, ‘coalescence’ as per Kar (2015) implied a thorough review of all ongoing and previously planned projects to seek alignment of strategic objectives as well as streamlining funding appropriations. ‘Practicality’ in this context meant a multifaceted review to assess how realistic the projects are in

46

terms of local capacity and funding availability. Finally ‘involvement’ entailed an extensive effort to ensure thought convergence and manpower commitment across the stakeholder spectrum extended over the whole portfolio of smart projects.

In terms of specific challenges Kar (2015) identifies several factors such as:



Budget constraints



Technology hype



Skills shortage



Integration across city assets



Clash of public private domain



Privacy and security concerns



Adoption challenge



Political challenge

Expanding on this Kar (2015) believes that even though smart projects are cost effective government machinery discourages out of the box thinking and limits funding. Smart technology is sometimes hyped for the purpose of marketing so that a disparity exists between what is promised and what is delivered. New technologies mean learning new skills. Substantial time is required to build local capacity. Government departments do not have a culture of sharing information and hence across the board integration of data is not possible. True smart efficiencies are not achieved unless all data is federated in a singular version of the truth. Unfortunately this data lies in both public and private domains as state rush to privatize utilities. These domains have traditionally never fully cooperated in the developing world context. Moreover, it raises serious issues of privacy and data security in an industry that is still in its infancy. Smart technologies require a learning curve and citizens have various level of adoption not to mention significant differences in attitude to adoption. Finally, Kar (2015) concludes that given the

47

fragility of sectoral alliances and lack of political maturity and stability evident in the developing world the smooth running of smart city projects is continuously challenged.

In the smart mobility sphere Kar (2015) identifies congestion, pollution, safety and energy use as challenges. Special lane construction to improve walkability and cycle-lability, improvement in public transport, construction of ring roads, bypasses, underpasses and flyovers, reduction in illegal encroachments and utilization of waterways as alternate means of transport are proposed as solutions. In the end as food for thought and echoing Dixit philosophies, Kar (2015) offers the idea of ‘smart villages’ rather than smart cities as more efficient thinking paradigm for the developing word.

2.8.5 Identification of a Gap in Developing Country Research While the collective hypothesis above may resonate with developing world researchers the conclusions are largely drawn from developed world studies with little empirical evidence to suggest proof of concept through primary data collection. There does exist research on technological aspect of smart solution implementation but challenges data is secondary in nature and not context specific. Therefore the stakeholder panel based challenges and solutions identification in the paper is meant to address exactly this gap and contribute to more effective and contextual body of research.

2.8.6 The Concept of Smart Frugal To address the research-implementation gap as observed in India an LSE (2014) commissioned study takes the position that most of the success stories in the ‘developing world’ are not to showcase technology white elephants but actual frugal initiatives designed through citizen cunning and with rather unglamorous technology. LSE (2014) explains smart frugal as: ‘These techniques maximize the transactive capacity of the urban fabric, wrest the very last increment of value from the energy invested in the production of manufactured goods, and allow millions to eke a living, however

48

precarious, from the most unpromising of circumstances. At a time of vertiginously spiraling economic and environmental stress globally, these are insights many of us in the developed world would be well advised to attend to – and by no means merely the poorest among us.’ LSE (2014) warns of the paradox at play in ‘throwing good money after bad technology’. There is a lack of sensibility in ‘saddling India’s cities with expensive, untested technology at a time when reliable access to electricity, clean drinking water or safe sanitary facilities remain beyond reach for too many’. The study illustrates through case studies of smart frugal transformations of abandoned spaces bringing to light the concept of ‘self-stewardship’ by which inhabitants of the city re-invent themselves, outperforming official bodies entrusted with the task. The best framework for success then is to plan technology interventions to harmonize with the usage preferences of the city inhabitants as ‘true intelligence of the city will continue to reside where it always has: in the people who live and work in it, who animate it and give it a voice’ (LSE, 2014).

2.8.7 Emergence of the Delhi-Lahore Mega-Agglomeration One the one hand it is true that there are unique but identified contextual challenges in developing world but on the other there is the possibility of unforeseen or undiscovered development due to lack of technology. Ellis (2015) calculates that there exists a significant correlation between night time lights data and GDP growth (see Fig. 35).

49

Figure 29 Relation between GDP Growth and growth of Night Time Light Intensity across Low and Middle Income Countries, 1999-2010. [Source: Ellis (2015)]

One such discovery was uncovered by Ellis (2015) in a groundbreaking work on satellite based monitoring of growth patterns in night light data as an indicator of commercial business activity.

Figure 30 The Lahore-Delhi Agglomeration [Source: Ellis (2015)]

The study revealed a merger of two expanding city agglomeration that of Delhi and Lahore into a continuously lit belt of interlinked cities with an estimated population of 73.4 million nearly the entire population of Turkey (see Fig. 35). As distance from the corridor increases the lights dim indicating an urban-rural gradient. Another unique factor is that this phenomenon is happening cross border with minute chance of detection by local planners. As

50

relations between the two countries improves access to this type of technology and analysis presents enormous forward planning opportunities for city thinkers and planners alike. In contrast where Lahore agglomeration parameters showed growth and expansion over the decade from 19992000, the trend in nighttime lights data showed the city core to stagnate and decline as shown below in pale blue versus the bright reds and oranges signifying higher growth (see Fig. 37).

Figure 31 Patterns of annual nighttime lights growth around Lahore, 1999–2010 [Source: Ellis (2015)]

This calls for action strategies on how to re-light Lahore’s core. The Curitiba Model which centers on ‘low cost’ contextual series of interventions that build efficiency into existing systems centered primarily on mobility models of corridor development and multimodal transport zoning among others. Night light data can also provide deep insights into transportation and mobility planning, migration patterns, trade activity, forecasting and predicting growth in city services and viability of business models with considerable accuracy. However while the innovative nighttime lights model attempts to tell an internally consistent narrative of South Asia’s urbanization it is cautioned

51

that until cities develop the capacity to generate higher quality and more comprehensive date, caveats in analysis will persist (Ellis, 2015).

2.8.8 The Curitiba Model as a Mobility Solution for Developing Countries Curitiba, a relatively small city of 1.8 million in Brazil garnered recently garnered worldwide recognition as a pioneer in sustainable urban planning based on their ‘participatory’ planning model (Soltani and Sharifi, 2012). Thanks in large part to Jamie Lerner, the city’s prolific mayor in the 1970s whose re-development designs were not only the beginnings of a sustainability model ‘citizens could not refuse or ignore’, but also marked the advent of social and environmental needs into urban planning principles (Lal and Palm, 2011). With the objective of dynamic spatial organization in the form of radial linear branching design that offered ecological protection of existing space while provided easier access to dense populations especially poor communities (see Fig. 51).

Figure 32 Curitiba Radial Linear Transportation Design [Source: Palm and Lal (2011)]

52

Lerner was able to bring a ‘renewed vitality’ to the city center by transforming packed streets into pedestrian friendly zones. Instead of major subway investments in Curitiba, Lerner developed a cost effective transportation system by converting existing public bus infrastructure into express transit corridor. Furthermore, commercial activity was encouraged along the five transport axis radiating out from the city center and system of road hierarchy created comprising of the structural (main axis), priority (traffic), collector (commercial) and connector (industrial) types. In short Curitiba has become a source of inspiration for other cities around the world aspiring for smart status but low cost (Soltani, 2012). This planning model can thus be applied to Lahore also, where, as the city grew the core dimmed as has been observed through satellite based night light data (Ellis and Roberts, 2015). At the practitioners level the Curitiba model reflects a paradigm shift in thinking to the so called New Urbanism and Green Urbanism primarily built on Moore’s (2007) proposed need to balance the equity-economy-ecology triangle to achieve true sustainability. This signaled reinvention in the planning community from traditional thinking. The three conventional theories: Figure-Ground (open spaces), Linkage (connectedness) and Place (social) fell short of ‘demonstrating explicit vision about sustainability in the urban context’ (Soltani, 2012). The essence of Curitiba is contextual.

2.9

Smart Mobility in the Developing World Context

2.9.1 Crossing Interdisciplinary Boundaries A study of Smart Cities constitute an exhaustive interdisciplinary regime with a vast scope. Working across disciplines is problematic. Rather than compartmentalizing such research the new thinking paradigm suggest reconceptualizing interdisciplinarity over a ‘continuum’ from multi- to transdesciplinarity (Petts, Owens and Bulkeley 2006). Smart cities as a topic is challenges by the same complexity. Even when the scope of the study is narrowed down to smart mobility focus in favor of creating more depth to this academic discourse the mobility universe again

53

is highly interdisciplinary. Nonetheless, given the impending urgency of mobility issues challenging Lahore at present (JICA, 2012), it is a priority focus area.

2.9.2 Framing Smart Mobility within the Smart City Context

Although several models have been advanced to encapsulate all city assets in the smart city paradigm but none have done it so smartly and comprehensively as the Cohen Wheel Framework (Cohen, 2012). Initiatives in smart mobility as the wheel suggests includes but are not limited to l (fig. 36) suggests but is not limited to initiatives in mixed modal access, giving priority to clean and non-motorized options for transport and integrating ICT technologies to ensure these are effectively managed with real time data.

Figure 33 Smart Mobility in the Cohen Wheel Framework [Source: Cohen (2012)]

2.9.3 What is Smart Mobility in Literature

Although discussed previously as part of smart city, it may be worthwhile to develop an operational definition of Smart Mobility. UNCTAD (2016) defines it as:

54

‘An approach to reduce congestion and foster faster, greener and cheaper transportation options.’

In the smart city context then smart mobility would also require a transport infrastructure that is aimed at ‘optimizing’ commuter journey, be energy efficient and lower carbon footprint. This is achieved through data collection from the whole transport system, analyzed for mobility patterns and optimize traffic. Objectives of smart mobility system as per UNCTAD (2016) include: 

Improved Accessibility



Safe Transportation



More efficient and intelligent transportation systems



Leveraging networks for efficient movement of vehicles, people, and goods, to reduce gridlock



New ‘social’ attitudes such as car sharing, carpooling, and car-bike combinations

Global smart urban mobility infrastructure and services are forecasted to grow from $5.1 billion in 2015 to $25.1 billion in 2024. According to UNCTAD (2016) three focus area of smart mobility can be observed:



Mass Transit



Individual Mobility



Intelligent Transport Systems.

2.9.4 True Smart Mobility: Developed vs. Developing Countries

Train subway and city bus systems have long been the primary Mass Rapid Transit systems (MRT) in the developed world but Singapore’s MRT is considered as an example of a smart, innovative and efficient system with 100 stations

55

and a ridership of 2.5 million out of a population of 3.5 million. Similar success have been achieved in Beijing and Delhi and new upcoming deployments in Jakarta, all developing countries (UNCTAD, 2016).

Similarly, developing countries face chronic efficiency issues with bus systems. True smart innovation in this regard is the Curitiba inspired deployment model with dedicated bus lanes known as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. This system has proved fairly efficient in the developing world showing high daily ridership statistics (40,000 per hour) and circumvents the need to build capital intensive transit systems (i.e. 1/10th the cost of metro system) and shortens the time of implementation by half (UNCTAD, 2016).

Today 197 countries carry 30 million passengers daily through BRT systems. UNCTAD (2016) contends that while BRT utilize priority lanes to increase speed, use GPS based bus tracking and adjust right of way and traffic lights automatically (in real time) to give priority to buses, the contribute to the city by reducing travel time for commuters, better air quality and low traffic accidents.

In the area of Individual Mobility long the domain of automobiles there is a distinct trend away from cars towards more sustainability oriented transportation system such as bicycles, ridesharing (or carpooling), car-sharing and recently on-demand transport. Global manifestation of this trend has seen the reintroduction of bicycle lanes in Beijing and Shanghai, bicycle sharing or ‘bicing’ has found extreme popularity in Amsterdam, Budapest, Paris and San Francisco made more efficient through smart phone apps which offer reservations, locating pick up and drop of points, traffic conditions and maps. Although adoption levels in developing country regions such as Latin America has been marginal as evident in Bogotá’s figures (leading in the group) at only 5% of total trips. It is contended that this low figure is attributable to cultural dimensions as well as average temperature levels (UNCTAD, 2016). Another smart mobility challenge is the adoption cycle involved especially where new technologies are concerned such as car and bike sharing rental schemes. More often than usual the key factor causing lower levels of user adoption may in fact be lack of user involvement at the planning and design stage (Lacey and McNamara, 2000).

56

Even as part of mix modal transport, the success of bike-sharing systems has been exemplary. Currently, 78 cities in 16 countries use around 70, 000 bikes. Sometimes referred to as the missing link between public transportation and desired destination they complement personal mobility significantly. However, a key component for success in any city for a bike sharing system is the availability of an extensive and continuous bike lane or car free network along with a bike friendly topography and climate (Midgley, 2009).

True smartness in the area of carpooling and car-sharing (which utilize empty seats in an efficient way and thereby reduce traffic count and environmental impact) had been elusive of late. The downward trend of the past few decades has been reversed by the advent of GPS and mobile technologies which match driver and passenger locations in real time and improve accessibility. Again developing country adoption of this mobility innovation remains low. UNCTAD (2016) attributes this to peculiar social norms, low car ownership and non-standardized work hours.

Car-sharing is another innovation which allows cars to be rented by the hour similar to bicing point to point model with users paying a small rental fee. This brings enormous benefits to the city’s traffic profile and parking availability as evident in 605,000 member’s car-sharing startup Zipcar’s claims that for every additional Zipcar reduces 15 cars on the road (UNCTAD, 2016). This provides a very attractive option for developing countries (given its nominal usage cost) where car ownership is already low and road infrastructure heavily burdened.

On demand ride services like Uber, Sidecar and Lyft offer truly disruptive models as passengers have access to a pool of drivers who use their personal vehicles thereby challenging the commercial taxi service model. UNCTAD (2016) believes that on demand ride services enjoy better adaptability in a developing country scenario as personal vehicles can easily come in localized versions such as the Auto-Rickshaw in India. However as per UNCTAD (2016) the jury is still out whether this has really impacted traffic congestions. However, safety issues remain a detriment to wide scale adoption in developing countries.

57

On a positive note developing countries like China and India have seen an upsurge in travel app usage to at least once a month and additionally a cultural change can be observed where commuters are willing to share data despite privacy concerns as they put faith in the belief that it enhances their quality of life.

There is still room for attaining smartness in mobility with the conventional automobile as well. This can be achieved by an innovative data collection method from existing road corridors. Wai and Keong (2009) propose the innovative use of a taxi dispatch service to gather traffic data on the roads. A sort of real time travel information to motorists to help ease traffic congestion. This circumvents the need for using loop detectors embedded under road services or even conducting costly manual travel time surveys.

Finally Intelligent Transport Systems which integrate the whole array of multi-modal transport options in the city in an efficient manner have seen a new generation of additional technologies (such as ‘network of sensors, connected cars, GPS tracked public transportation, dynamic traffic lights, passenger information panels, automatic number plate readers, CCTV systems, navigation facilities, signaling systems and the capability to integrate live data from most of these sources’) ensure better transport management in all respects. This can lead to major improvements in safety, network management, traffic congestions, environmental performance, accessibility, convenience and public perception. A case study of ITS application in Poznan in Poland highlighted three key challenges: shortage of skilled staff, issues related to interoperability, and unexpected delays in construction of hard infrastructure component (UNCTAD, 2016).

2.10

New Mobility Trends

As emerging economies struggle to cope with rising populations, resulting traffic congestion and environmental degradation in resource constrained environment, there has been a shift away from conventional transport means to more environment friendly ones such as coastal shipping, railways and non-motorized options, a phenomenon

58

known as ‘modal shifts’. At the same time aging infrastructure lacks the capacity to handle this growth especially in developing countries. (Okuda, 2012).

2.11

Optimization Models in Mobility

Rather than optimizing the different modes of transportation independently, a balanced, smooth and sustainable is possible by optimizing the overall system (Okuda, 2012). To realize a smart mobility concept system, the Hitachi Model is used comprising five layers including user experience, service, collection, information management and coordination layer moving from user to company (Fig. 40):

Figure 34 Five Layer of Transportation Functions [Source: Okuda (2012)]

Okuda proposes that real smartness is not just deploying the 5- layer model but in fact optimizing it in three distinct ways (Fig. 41). These include optimizing coordination that takes place between various transportation companies, optimizing services that are provided within a company (intra-company) and service optimization which calls for optimizing services provided to users. The first two are achieved through analyzing operational data while the third by improving interoperability and seamlessness at the interface between users and company (Okuda, 2012).

59

Figure 35 Three Types of Mobility System Optimization [Source: Okuda (2012)]

Furthermore, service optimization involves 3 layers of control. First is ‘demand’ which is moderated by regulating the flow of people from departure to destination. Second is control of ‘capacity’ that the transportation companies provide. Third, is the control of ‘actions’ which are guided by the information provided by the transport companies all throughout the journey. This can be provided through such solutions as ‘multi-modal navigation service’ aided with an ‘integrated fare collection system’ and moreover a special service to smooth ‘transfers between bus and train’. In the long run, however, to balance citizen comfort and convenience with the state need for safety and sustainability, a new level of seamless coordination is required between transportation companies (Okuda, 2012).

While in the developed world context mobility and transportation had strong causal links with economic prosperity (Rozenberg, 2008), in developing countries such as India both economic and population growth has outpaced existing transportation infra-structure capacity to accommodate its manifestation (Tiwari, 2012). Smart Mobility Systems enhance access and affordability in public transport where capital intensive transport systems are not feasible and environmental concerns paramount (see Fig. 36). Additionally within the Indian context smart mobility is redefined as affordability driven frugal innovative transport options improving accessibility not only within the urban environment but enabling ease of transport in the context of sub-urban and rural areas as well (Tiwari, 2012).

60

Figure 36 Smart Mobility Challenge in India [Source: Tiwari (2012)]

2.12

Future of Smart Mobility: Rethinking the Automobile

Writing in the Futurists, Chin (2010) in his seminal piece titled: ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility in 2020’ warns that: ‘… humanity's thirst for personal mobility will continue to grow. History shows that, as countries develop economically, so does their use of four-wheeled motorized transportation. In the developed world, roughly seven out of 10 people own a car, whereas in the developing world, it's two out of 10. The continued economic development of Brazil, Russia, India, and China will fuel the growth of this fleet to more than 1 billion cars by 2020. To make the car of the future, we need to make the city of the future. How can you design a city by designing a car?’ As a radical smart mobility innovation Chin (2010) proposes the smart citizens ‘need to radically rethink the problem by examining not only the automobile itself (size, weight, range and speed), but also how it is used in cities.

61

Figure 37 Hiriko MIT developed City Car Concept [Source: Chin (2010)]

‘Hiriko’ the Brussels-launched MIT-developed ‘City Car’ concept is another success story in the ever expanding narrative of smart mobility developed at the MIT Media Lab graduate student Chin (fig. 37).

The urgency in Chin’s numbers means that City Car and other similar solution define the future of mobility and need serious considerations from government and city thinkers even in the developing countries. The dynamics of Hiriko deployment have the potential for being possible smart mobility solution for the urban conscious thinkers in Lahore.

62

3.

Research Methodology

3.1

Background

Given the rather impossible task of doing justice to the smart city as a research topic the focus is narrowed down to smart mobility. It tries to answer the question that within the context of smart city smart mobility represents a pressing challenge as laid out in the literature review section. So measuring and recording the current state of thinking around smart mobility using a carefully selected panel of stakeholders as a creative way of measuring smart readiness then becomes the primary focus of our research. From this it can by extension be logically concluded that once smart readiness exist among the city inhabitants at least within the smart mobility universe they are well on their way to adoption and eventual implementation in the long run. This logic then addresses the road map question as priorities are laid out by each group of stakeholders which subsequently can be structured into a medium to long term development plan for making Lahore smarter in terms of mobility.

63

Figure 38 Stakeholder Panel for Research [Source: Author’s adaption from various works]

A sample stakeholder diagram for this research is developed below in figure 38 above. The interview questionnaire was administered to selected officials of various organizations chosen from among these stakeholder groups.

3.2

Research Philosophy and Methodology

To develop a smart mobility research philosophy the onion shell model (see figure 33) developed by Saunders (2009) was adopted as a structural guide. Given that the context of smartness is embedded as much in the real physical world as it is a mental construct. With project adoption and success hinging largely on observable development markers as well as stakeholder perception of them, the best approach to studying smart mobility seems to be a ‘mixed’ philosophy one. Thus there has to be an element of a positivist observable reality which is objective in nature. At the same time we need to understand the concept of smart city and mobility as a social phenomenon and the meaning that citizens attach to it: a kind of a social construction (Remenyi, 1998).

64

Figure 39 The ‘Adpated’ Research Onion [Source: Saunders (2009)]

This leads in part to the position that smart mobility research is best approached from an interpretivist paradigm since the ‘concept of Interpretivisim advocates it is necessary for the researcher to understand differences between humans in our role as social actors’ (Saunders, 2009). Any success in smart projects would require a change in behavior of these social actors. Therefore within interpretivism we need to be ask what ‘meanings people attach to norms, rules, and values that regulate their interactions’ as inhabitants of a city (Saunders, 2015). Best practices in in interpretivism advocate that care must be taken not to impose the researchers or for that matter even the global understanding of smart mobility but rather to understand their beliefs and actions from their point of view. The open ended questions of ‘why or why not’ will help the researcher focus not only on what stakeholders tell us directly about the reasons for their beliefs and actions but also on the social practices that underlie them. Once a deeper understanding of social practice is achieved it can help mobilize ‘on the ground’ social action which is the intended aim of smart initiatives to begin with (adapted from Saunders, 2009).

65

But interpetivism alone may not be sufficient as research paradigm. After careful consideration, the optimal way to approach smart mobility research may be the ‘pragmatism’ approach since our research question as such does not suggest unambiguously whether a positivist or interpretivist philosophy should be adopted. Moreover in pragmatism it is quite possible to work with variations in the epistemology, ontology and axiology (Burrell and Morgan, 1992; Saunders, 2009). The topic of smart mobility and by extension smart city is so complex in terms of its interaction with human individual, social and external physical reality that it may be more appropriate to think of the philosophy adopted as continuum rather than an a compartmentalized position (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). It may be possible that in a research regarding such a multiplicity of interaction that ‘at some point the knower and the known must be interactive, while at others, one may easily stand apart from what is being studied (Tashakkori et al., 1998). On an axiological level the research will maintains an external view incorporating multiple sectors of opinion to best enable answering of the research question. Researcher’s values will come into play when the results are interpreted although pragmatist axiology demands that both objective and subjective points of view are acknowledged which is also the intention of this thesis (Burrell and Morgan, 1998). The thesis research philosophies are summarized in figure 40 below: Philosophy Ontology

Pragmatist (Positivist + Interpretivist) Subjectivism with social constructionism Multiple views chosen to best answer research question

Epistemology

Feelings and Attitudes on Smart Cities Phenomenology and Symbolic Interaction (building essence of experience from participants) Empathetic stance Relativist Constructivist, Cultural Constructivist

66

Axiology

Values play a large role in interpreting results Objective and subjective points of view

Approach Methodology

Both deductive and inductive Mixed method, combining qualitative and quantitative

Figure 40 Research Philosophy Paradigm for the Thesis

Smart mobility opinion, feeling and attitudes are part of a cultural context in which the research is set. So a ‘relativist’ ontology is also considered. Cultural Constructivism postulates that ‘knowledge and reality are a product of their cultural context. ‘Reality’ emerges from ongoing conversations and interactions between the researcher and the stakeholders (adapted from Friedman, 2012). The methodology adopted for this research is a ‘mixed method’ which combines both qualitative and quantitative inquiry. The qualitative portion of the research attempts to understand different perspectives between stakeholders, look for a range of ideas and feelings about smart city and smart mobility (definitions), and uncover underlying motivations and factors that influence decision making and opinion (policy, implementation challenges, budgets etc.). A step wise schematic for how the research proceeds in applying the qualitative methodology is given in figure 39 below.

67

Figure 41 Qualitative Methodology [Source: Friedman (2014)]

Responses from qualitative questions will be combined to look for generalizations and emerging patterns in terms of converging or diverging opinions and views on key smart mobility issues. These when combined with existing literature will help synthesize a theoretical grounding for workable smart mobility initiatives and also help identify non workable ones. Both qualitative and quantitative aspect analysis will be combined to attempt to provide a measure for the level of readiness for smart mobility. Finally the selection of approach to research is both deductive and inductive (Creswell, 2003). Inductive because of the need to ask open ended questions and build theory from the aggregation of responses to develop consensus. For example to deduce how ready we are for smart city projects? What is our level of understanding? Also to understand why certain feelings and attitudes emerge about smart mobility concepts. The approach is also deductive because we ask questions which require assigning weightage or ranking to smart mobility initiatives and also to assess relative importance of mobility related issues. This approach can be used to

68

test theory by comparing responses to previous research. Particularly of significance in this space is the validation of the smart city frameworks through deduction from stakeholder responses. So a combination of approaches will be used. Care will be taken to avoid logic leaps and false assumptions in analyzing data (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2012).

3.3

Research Design

Research design is to develop a plan for research (Creswell, 2009). Using the onion shell model combined with Creswell triangle (see figure 40) this section develops on strategies, research choices and time horizons for the research.

Figure 42 Research Design [Source: Creswell (2009)]

The purpose of this research is ‘exploratory’ since the objective is answering what is happening in Lahore at the moment; seeking new insights by interviewing stakeholders and assessing frameworks in a new light (in this case a developing country scenario). Moreover this research undertakes an extensive review of literature, interviews a range of experts in the area and conducts focused interviews which are hall marks of exploratory research (adapted from Robson, 2002). As regards research strategy or strategies of inquiry the thesis uses the following tools:

69

a. Survey (Interview Questionnaire) b. Case Studies (in literature review) c. Grounded Theory (Building theory through Inductive approach using stakeholder responses) Moving along the Saunders (2009) research onion the time horizon chosen for this study is ‘cross sectional’ since opinion and attitudes, ideas, sentiments will be gathered in a specific point in time. A snapshot of smart mobility universe will be captured as opposed to ‘longitudinal’ which would have assessed behavior over time. Structured Survey Interviews are aptly suited for cross sectional studies (Easterby-Smith, 2008; Robson 2002).

3.4

Research Method

The method adopted for data collection is the ‘structured interview’ using the ‘interviewer administered questionnaire’ as the instrument. Kahn and Cannell (1957) define the interview as a ‘purposeful discussion between two or more people’. The though process behind the selection of which interview style should be adopted for this research was taken from the typology shown in figure 42. Since for smart mobility research a certain set of questions were already developed and were evolved from the research objectives the structured interview approach seem best suited. Structured interviews use ‘questionnaires based on a predetermined and standardized or identical set of questions’ (Saunders, 2009). For this research to be a success it was felt that the same questions should be administered to all stakeholders so that results reveal variations in opinion over a single entity one question at a time and responses can be examined for trends and peculiarities as well as identification of outliers.

70

Figure 43 Forms of Interview [Source: Saunders (2009)]

DeVaus (2002) defines a questionnaire as: Techniques of data collection in which each person is asked to respond to the same set of questions in a predetermined order. In designing the questionnaire care was taken to ensure validity and reliability. Foddy’s (1994) four stage framework was used to ensure that the research questions are clearly understood by the respondent and care was taken to ensure that the intended response is successfully decoded by the researcher (see figure 41).

71

Figure 44 Stages that must occur if a question is to be valid and reliable [ [Source: developed from Foddy (1994)]

The questions follow a logical flow starting with introducing questions to awareness level about smart cities to smart mobility issues to budget to challenges and finally additional questions measure rating aspect of smart mobility initiatives. The nature of the questions stems in part from the various frameworks reviewed in the literature review section. The aspects of the frameworks that are most pertinent to a developing country scenario have been ‘plucked’ from the framework and developed into an ‘investigative question’. This includes for instance the role of ICT (Falconer, 2012), the importance of citizen involvement (Chourabi, 2012; Vanolo, 2013 and Moser, 2014), clarity in definitions of smart city by stakeholders, their aspirations and realizations (Al-Awadhi and Scholl, 2013), the social status of stakeholder verses their opinion on urban issues, as well as challenges during implementation of smart projects (Caragliu, 2009), level of psychological acceptance in the form of smart mentality (Vanolo, 2013) and so on and so forth. Mobility questions stem from the literature reviewed on identifying urban mobility issues such as air quality (EPA, 2010), vehicular activity (PCGIP, 2012), traffic congestions, car and bike share (Midgley, 2009) etc. in essence a collection of successful smart mobility projects. The idea being to assess the readiness for smart mobility through analysis of the awareness level and maturity towards smart mobility thinking.

72

As far as the wording of the questions is concerned the main considerations were to ensure the questions proceed from the general to the specific in terms of order and flow. The layout of the questionnaire is user friendly and easy to decipher. Where the interviewer could not be present directly a cover letter was developed explaining the premise of the research and instructions on how to respond to the questions. The questionnaire will has an introduction part and also a closing part to ensure compliance with best practices (Saunders, 2009). The questionnaire was pilot tested (reliability) and also assessed for validity (stakeholders ensure relevance to the context). Given the topology of questionnaires in figure 43 adapted from Saunders (2009) the most suitable instrument for conducting stakeholder research seemed to be the interviewer administered structured interview.

Figure 45 Types of questionnaire [Source: Saunders (2009)]

As regards question types included in this structured interview (administered as a questionnaire to qualified experts panel) the following were included: 1. Open ended questions and propping questions (posing as open ended: Saunders, 2009) 2. List questions 3. Category questions 4. Ranking questions 5. Rating questions

73

6. Quantity questions 7. Probing questions Other considerations included checking for copyright when adapting questions from previous research. The phrasing of the questionnaire was carefully reviewed to ensure they are not excessively wordy or difficult to comprehend. To gain access to citizens a local language version was also developed as English is not the mother tongue of an average Pakistani. Also given the length constraints attendant on the thesis at IDBE the number of questions will be kept around ten or so. This will ensure that there is ample word count available for proper discussion of the responses. Additionally the scope of the thesis was adjusted to focus on smart mobility to make it more feasible verses the unrealistically large smart city subject area. The researchers previous experience exposure to government projects ensured access to data and stakeholder specially officials in government departments. Researcher’s previous research projects and publications experience was a useful background to have. And in the end the researchers near obsession with city development and smart technologies was a source inspiration that fuels personal interest consistently. The reasoning and logic behind the development of each question is given as an annotation with the interview questions themselves. Research objectives were developed as SMART objectives. At this point the focus change from smart city to smart mobility or a unique combination of the two means that objectives need to be revised. Regardless of what the final objectives our methodology will ensure that in the conclusion section it will be assessed whether the objectives have been met or not. Finally the conclusion and discussion part will be structured to develop answers to research questions based on triangulation between interview responses, case studies and literature review. It will be really interesting to

74

discover variety of views across the spectrum of stake holders. To identify points of divergence and convergence and finally to evolve consensus on the way forward towards a smarter mobility in the ever smarter city that is ready to take the challenge.

3.5

Context Rationale of Interview Questionnaire

The sequencing of interview questions follow a logical sequence of smart city evolution over a medium term time frame. The interview starts by first assessing a fundamental understanding of the Smart City Concept. Q.1 is designed to assess how well stakeholders understand the concept of smart cities and how this various among key stakeholders as well as within the same stakeholder category. It was change from its original version where initially it was more open ended and asked ‘what do u understand by smart city’, versus now when it demanded an actually definition. The idea being that this will prompt stakeholders to give more formal and focused answers. These preliminary questions set the stage for deeper inquiry based on a dual rationale. One being that any meaningful research into smart cities would require clear conceptual understanding in addition to common definition of what the concept entails particularly within the Pakistan context. Two, that only after stakeholders offer a reasonably accurate definition are they essentially qualified to proceed and offer a worthwhile interview with valuable suggestions. Q. 2 establishes an understanding of smart mobility across the stakeholder panel. It is hoped that the placement of smart mobility definition right after smart city will prompt the interviewee to frame smart mobility within the smart city paradigm which was the intended aim of the setting of this research. Q. 3 then proceed to identify if there is any current involvement with a smart city project. In the absence of a holistic smart city framework and the lack of a functioning body at the government level the responses to this questions will reveal the level of activity in these type of projects. Do stakeholders feel that Lahore is ready to become smart and based on what reason is tackled in Q. 4? If the previous response is affirmative then the stakeholders are asked to enumerate some of the problems they see in Lahore in the hopes of getting them to think of a smart solution in the end. To focus specifically on the

75

mobility aspects once stakeholders have highlighted the urban issues, challenges and problems of Lahore they are asked to focus on the transportation problems in particular in Q. 6. Given that there are ongoing projects in Lahore perhaps not specifically classified as smart but fall with the scope of smart city projects. Therefore it is essential to gauge how stakeholders’ judge and reason in terms of how much effort the city government is making in this area [Q. 7]. For this research to be able to develop informed policy options it is worthwhile to use this opportunity to measure stakeholder preferences or ranking on smart city technologies in general [Q. 8] while they are only asked to enumerate challenges within the transportation sector alone rather than evaluate all city assets [Q. 9]. Since the paper calls into questions applicability of smart city frameworks in a developing country scenarios as a case in point Q. 10 attempts to measure this in the case of Lahore. The key role of hybrid framework dimensions such Citizen Participation (C), Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Role of Government (G) and Smart Mentality (M) are ranked with interviewees required to furnish reasons for their scoring. Budget allocation and timelines for identified urban problems and challenges are recorded in Q. 11 and Q. 12 respectively. There is a need for out of the box thinking for solutions to smart city problems and Q. 13 requires experts to ponder on this. It is assumed that there may emerge responses that are more contextual to Lahore and to the region rather than more technology laden solutions only thereby testing and underscoring the utility and viability of the Curitiba model (Soltani, 2012). Any plan creative or otherwise involving development of smart city assets would require close government and private sector coordination. As such a recipe for the most effective institutional arrangement needs to emerge as laid out in Q. 14. But even prior to such an arrangement if a task force for smart cities is to be developed what organizing would be included (Q. 15). In a logical sequence of smart city evolution, once an institutional orchestration is in place it is time for projects to emerge. But what are the project priorities of Lahore in the area of mobility. Q. 16 asks interviewees to rank smart mobility technologies keeping in mind the developing country context. Since globally smart city project would invariably fall under the dynamics of mega projects it becomes worthwhile to asses familiarity and understanding of Flyvbergs (2014) Mega

76

projects sublimes. It would be interesting to gather stakeholder opinion on this aspect (Q. 18). Innovation being at the core of smart city project thinking as well as bona-fide dimension within several smart city frameworks also needs to be assessed across the stakeholder spectrum. Therefore a thought experiment is devised for interviewees to imagine a typical day in their visualized city of the future. It is expected that new insights may be gained from such an analysis in terms of mobility scenarios as well as liveability scenarios (Q. 19).Finally, all interviews recap their definitions of smart mobility again through crisp word association technique. The idea is to capture the evaluation of their definitions over the course of the interview, whether it has gone through any metamorphoses or has largely remained the same. Perhaps deeper analysis of the responses to this particular question in relation to initial definitions can help identify a capacity for ‘smart mentality’ within our stakeholders group. In the end this scheme is expected to methodically identify challenges and solutions purely from the stakeholder perspective. In the personally administered interview the questions were read out in the beginning. In the mailed version of course the interviewees were expected to read below instructions prior to responding (Fig. 46). The interview is designed to assess familiarity and understanding of the Smart city concept. Given the nature and scope of Smart City system the topic becomes too broad within a research paper paradigm. Therefore focus is kept to smart mobility systems. Furthermore the interviewees are asked to develop their responses within the context of the emerging mobility and transportation dynamics of Lahore Pakistan. Within the overall city management framework, mobility challenges in particular present immediate concerns for future operational efficiency of the city. What works in one country may not work universally. Therefore to develop a pragmatic smart mobility transformation a ‘stakeholder’ based assessment of challenges and subsequent solutions could result in a transformational blueprint with a better success rate. It is hoped that this interview will serve as a guide to help policy makers and planners develop design projects in a more inclusive way through stakeholder consensus as well as replicate the model in other cities nationally and the region.

Figure 46 Instructions to Interviewees [Source: Author]

77

4.

Discussion on Interviews 4.1

Note on Stakeholder Selection

Expert selection for interviews is partly based on the stakeholder groupings identified in the frameworks analysed earlier (fig. 38) and partly on the suggestions of practitioners in the field and standard practices identified in previously conducted studies specifically in the context of Lahore and Punjab (EPA Pakistan, 1997). Sr. No.

Stakeholders

No.

Designation Organization

Basis of Selection

1

Builders/Contracto r

2

Chief Executive Officer STACCO Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.

Mobility infrastructure

Chief Executive, Engineers Guild (Pvt.) Ltd.

Geo-tech engineering

Business/Mobility

4

Chief Executive Officer, GIZ Pakistan & Pakistan Bikers Corporation Business Development Manager Hunbultech (Pvt.) Ltd. (Hunbul Group of Industries.) Manager Summit Health Care Consultants

Business of smart mobility Related business (street lighting)

Head of Sales & Marketing Mecatech (Pvt.) Ltd.

Major HVAC Supplier

Deputy Managing Director Al-Bayrak Group (Turkish Company)

Public Transport (Metro and Taxi) in Lahore

Chief Consultancies (Economics), Planning & Development Department Govt. of Punjab

Seasoned veteran of all planning going on in Punjab at Government level Hands on technical leadership

2

3

Govt.

5

Senior GIS Specialist, Urban Unit Govt. of Punjab Senior Urban Planning Specialist, Urban Unit Govt. of Punjab Director, Transport Planning Unit, Govt. of Punjab Research Associate/Research Interns, Transport Planning Unit and Urban Unit, Govt. of Punjab

Indirectly related (safety)

Spearheading all Punjab Urban Planning Projects Leading transportation planning in Punjab and smart mobility Junior resources interviewed to measure organizational alignment on key issues

Figure 47 Basis of Selection for Interviewees from Stakeholder Types (Part I)

There is some modification of the initial multi-framework based stakeholder classification in fig. 38 to bring it in harmony with the prevalent government practice of stakeholder identification prior to consultations with regards to development projects. The driving question is whether as per stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) and its evolution over time are we focused on ‘management of stakeholders’ or ‘management for stakeholders’ which essentially proactively champions their interest. It is in this light that this research takes into consideration the sensitivities inherent in large scale project which tends to ignore individuals on the periphery of mainstream society.

78

A case in point being the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency’s Guidelines for Public Consultations (1997) which uniquely and rather aptly identifies vulnerable citizen using the term ‘voiceless’. These marginalized citizens (Table 3, item 7) are the peculiar feature in a developing country scenario and hence specially interviewed for this research to align with the frameworks mandated dimension of ‘citizen engagement’. The ‘proponent as stakeholder is the City Government itself and government agencies that control City assets. A cross section of these officials numbering five in total were extensively interviewed for this research as detailed in table 2. Other EPA stakeholder types like Non-Governmental Organization are interviewed in the form of non-profits (e.g. THAAP and AeM). Whereas Influential People are featured in the form of celebrity architects and think-tank’s like Frost and Sullivan. Senior Citizens have been specifically made a part of this research since because of the Youth Bulge and pervasive technology proliferation this sub group becomes particularly vulnerable to isolation from the smart-city-smart mobility experience. In contrast, because of this very youth bulge, the younger generation becomes a major stakeholder being a main stream technology user. Since initially due to cost constraints alone if nothing else builder, contractors and developers are seen as major stakeholders with deep understanding of smart paradigm challenges as the movement is just gathering momentum. By extension it made logical sense that business in the mobility sector will have significant stakes in the smart mobility and they are examined from both sides meaning those that are indirectly and directly related to such projects. Municipality and government officials were combined to create a single stakeholder group as they are essentially state enterprises. Academia was combined with practitioners and grouped under private sector consultants and urban planners as distinct from planner and experts in government believed to be reflective of an official government position. Bankers was one stakeholder group that was not interviewed as it was felt that there is little proliferation of the concept within the banking community for any meaningful ideas to emerge from inquiry. Additionally since municipal finance is non-existent a traditional finance role for from the industry does not exist. Nonetheless a separate research can be conducted into financing challenges to smart cities.

79

Although attempt was made to interview mostly senior executives or heads of organizations and government units, it was also felt that there may exist peculiar divergence in opinion at the lower ranks given attitudes towards technology adoption. There may even be a convergence. Again providing useful insights into stakeholder behaviour. This will also help discover the existence of uniformity of opinion which research shows is beneficial for teamwork and successful project implementation. Sr. No.

Stakeholders

No.

4

City Planners and Architects and Consultants (Private Sector and Non Profits)

Designation/ Organization

Basis of Selection

Executive Director, Allied Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd

Leadership in consulting

Associate Professor Architecture/Urban Planner University of Lahore Senior Architect/Planner

Academic and practitioner in Urban Planning Senior architect, academic and founder of THAAP a platform for academics and professionals in sustainability

Pervaiz Vandal Associates

C.E.O & PhD Structural Engineering Engineering Project Development Consultant

5

Smart Technology Vendors

3

Head of Sales Pakistan IBM

Leadership in Structural Engineering and Faculty at Institute of Engineers Pakistan Iconic Architect and founder of AeM, a heritage and sustainability focused Architects Association Technology leadership in Smart Cities -do-

Chairman and CEO, Philips Pakistan Limited

-do-

Iconic Architect/Director Kamil Khan Mumtaz Architects (Also Head of Anjuman e Memaaran (AeM) Channel Sales Leader Middle East Africa (MEA) IBM

6

Women

1

Legal Expert, the Urban Unit, Govt. of Punjab

Independent career women

7

Youth/ Senior Citizens/Marginalized

4

Cleaning Staff, Urban Unit, Govt. of Punjab

Head of Admin & Security, Armed Forces of Pakistan

Cleaning staff used as an approximation of marginalized citizen Senior retired military official

Student of Law, Punjab University Lahore.

Student opinion

Student of Architecture University of South Asia.

-do-

Chief Executive Officer, Korea Research Institute Ltd.

Leadership and implementation Smart cities in the Fareast Research and Consulting in Globalization

8

Think-tanks

2

Director Consulting-Public Sector & Government Practice Frost & Sullivan

Table 1 Basis of Selection for Interviewees from Stakeholder Types (Part II)

80

Of particular note is the inclusion of women as a stake holder. The women of this sense is the independent career women participating in the city experience. What are her choices and how she feels about mobility systems in particular? Career women may have special needs that need redress in the smart system. Finally the smart mobility in the smart city will never become a reality unless the technology vendors are on board and in sync with other stakeholders. How well do they understand the challenges in a developing country scenario particularly for Lahore? IBM and Phillips arguably acclaimed as leaders in global deployment and implementations of smart city mobility solutions were interviewed in Lahore for this research. As an after though when government organization were being selected for interview it was felt that there could exist silos in two dimensions. One being the traditional departmental silos the disharmony in strategic direction and understanding from one department to another. The other being the differences in opinion and attitude towards among the rank and file within the same organization especially between junior and senior staff. To measure this difference junior officers within the dept. were also interviewed.

4.2

On Conceptual Understanding, Involvement and the Need for Readiness

These initial questions were set to ensure the stakeholder panel members were to some degree attuned to the smart city-smart mobility concept. Responses presented a wide range of understandings and adjective laden perceptions. Contractors and builders for example had more of an amenities based definition of smart city terming it as: ‘city that provides ease of living, has a sustainable environment and offers a high quality of life for its inhabitants’. Chief Executive Officer of Stacco Construction added further to this by including e-governance, education and ‘amusement’ facilities to the mix while Engineers Guild CEO used the term ‘efficiency’ in work and living as critical smart city descriptors. Builders defined Smart Mobility understanding as ‘innovative governance’ for both vehicular and foot traffic. Though none of the contractors interviewed were currently involved in any smart concept project but they did express a high degree of urgency for smart readiness citing Lahore’s urban sprawl,

81

vehicle count and frequent traffic congestions impeding normal functioning of the city systems. Although they warned that the lack of administrative and management’s skills to bring about smart systems city wide. Business on the other hand had an interesting take on the smart city concept. One interviewee running mobility non-profit and substantially involved in manufacturing of bikes held equity and fairness as hall marks of a smart city with high levels of citizen access to city assets. Moreover the business owner asserted that it should be a place where Zoning laws properly implemented, citizens feel secure, emergencies are handled efficiently and management of city finances transparent. The same panelist defined Smart Mobility as ‘safe transportation within an idealized time frame’. The role of government agencies and media was stressed in assuring road safety awareness. This panelists was involved in an actual smart mobility project which was to advocate and teach road safety courses in the Biker Community, the youth specially women and by extension to the public at large. The urgency for readiness case the mobility business stakeholder argued are population pressures, vehicle count, technology proliferation and regional trends (referring to the 100 Smart Cities Project in India). Turkish Conglomerate Al-Bayrak Deputy Managing Director termed smart city as an urban development vision which uses ICT to create a sustainable community. Smart mobility was defined to include multi –modal means of transport and concern for low carbon footprint. Unfortunately under contractual obligations the project mobility project the interviewee was involved with could not be discussed but Lahore as per his estimates was rapidly moving towards smart city status due to improving economy giving rise to an increased quality of life. Businesses also associated low noise levels and calmness with smartness. Government officials came up with similar definitions for smart city with notable additions being the idea of policing development under policy guidelines. Dr. Alvi, Chief of Consultancies at the Planning and Development Dept. emphasized proximity in all city services underscoring the idea of a ‘poly centric city’ while Dr Murtaza Head of the

82

Transportation Planning Unit reiterated that the definition varies from country to country and sometimes even within a country. On smart mobility a young urban planner cautioned that it is not very smart to improve mobility via personal cars at the cost of reducing mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians maintaining the access time to multimodal transport is a pre curser to smart mobility. Another transportation specialist stressed taking into account the target group for whom mobility is being provisioned thereby suggesting that it is only smart given the group adopts it supplemented of course with real time information to make journeys more efficient. Majority of the government panel was involved in smart city project given the New Economic City project team was part of the panel. Additionally the Transport Planning Unit have their own mobility projects such as developing a command and control center for the Metro Bus, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Journey Planner Applications, Transportation Infrastructure Management Systems and GIS based Parking Information Systems. This represents substantial momentum at least at government level on smart mobility in terms of project activity. On the need for readiness unique reasons included uncontrolled and scattered urbanization hampering the city function, the state’s inability to provide adequate city services to a city population nearing 10 million specifically inadequate accessibility and mobility. Architects and Urban planners leaned towards unconventional thinking. An Urban Planning practitioner and Academic remarked that a questioner designed to define smart cities and measure it urgency is actually designed to achieve and validate an intended outcome and hence not objective. Mumtaz an iconic architect and champion of sustainability and traditionalism opined that the idea of a smart city only means that we are smartening up to withstand the pain of more industrialism, consumerism, mechanization, pollution and social disintegration. Vandal another academic suggested a smart city should have a dimension of happiness, a sense of community and caring for neighbors while Khan a consulting architect proposed that a smart city should use recycled building material to ensure sustainability.

83

On smart mobility the architects and planners added the use of digital signage to relay traffic information timely thus minimizing congestion. Smart mobility according them has to be low cost and use less energy. On readiness urgency the panels thought there should also be solutions other than technology to make Lahore smart. Mumtaz however thought that urgency for smartness is artificially induced and any move to create smart interventions will disturb the fabric of Lahore which used to be a very balanced city historically. Transport mega-projects according Vandal diminish the culture of Lahore. The emphasis should be on humane rather than smart. Smart technology vendors like Phillips and IBM used their company mandated definitions for smart city and smart mobility adding stage based process like instrumentation, interconnectedness and intelligence to signify progressive maturity levels. Phillips Pakistan CEO drew attention to the fact that mega cities have greater need for smart systems to ensure operational and cost efficiencies. All vendors were involved in smart projects such as analytics platforms used for asset management and data driven decision making for city governments in case of IBM and smart solutions in particular street lighting in case of Phillips. Vendors though if anything the financial benefits alone create an urgency to go smart. In addition they felt that Lahore standing as the capital of Punjab gives it a leadership role for others to emulate. The only women in the panel defined a smart city as a place having an equal convenience level for resident and visitors alike. Youth on the other hand understood smart cities in more Utopian ways with an idealized government role as subsiding all city services and powered by renewable energy. Senior citizens were fixated on low noise and low carbon emission is defining criteria. On urgency the youth justified the need for smartness on outdated infrastructure while the senior citizen advised incremental steps to smart conversions versus the whole city at once. Think tanks and global consultants understood the concept of smart city and mobility quite holistically due to volume of project experience. CEO of Korea institute rationalized Lahore move to become smart on the grounds that it has historically been a ‘very trend-friendly city’ while Frost and Sullivan Public Sector Research Director theorized that regional politics and development trends will create the critical mass for Lahore to embrace these

84

new systems. The marginalized citizen was not able to offer a definition but tried to define mobility as a necessity to get to work.

4.3

On Urban Problems of Lahore, Case for Smart Mobility and Citizen Priorities (Translation from Smart City to Smart Mobility)

Next series of questions shift focus from a broader urban problem set facing Lahore to a narrower focus on mobility related challenges. There was significant overlap in responses and similarity in thinking was reflected across the stakeholder panel underscoring in a way the seriousness of the problems. Builders drew attention to widespread mismanagement in public sector projects and specifically in the area of funds appropriation suggesting that revenue generated from Lahore should be spent in Lahore. Other urban problems highlighted included storm water drainage, narrower roads and lack of timeliness in public transport. Builders agreed that the core urban problem was traffic congestion compounded in large part with improper zoning of community schools, unplanned roads and medians, lack of parking spaces and parking plazas, haphazard commercialization, illegal roadside encroachments and power outages at traffic signals. In the larger mobility context builders pointed to lack of an underground subway system, although this seems to have been addressed in the newly installed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and over ground trains now being developed in Lahore. Another alarming fact pointed out by builders was the low adoption of alternative energy initiatives in the transport sector such as solar powered street lighting. Businesses listed essentially the same problems arguing that a surge in urban migration indirectly resulted in unplanned development in Lahore. Another urban problem according to business was the weak enforcement of traffic laws which tends to compound mobility. In addition vehicle emission standards regulation is not fully enforced resulting in high pollution levels. Implementation of alternative routes during construction was identified as a mobility problem by a young government official. Although his problem identification lacked specifics. This trend has been observed throughout this research process where younger officer, though high on smart technology enthusiasm, lack in the degree of

85

thought maturity towards mobility issues. Other Government officials warned that existing city assets such as transport systems were overburdened and smart solutions are now necessary to ease the energy profile as well as create operational efficiency and cost savings. Transport Planning Unit Director listed lack of institutional capacity, financial constraints, absence of legal framework, frequent policy change and adherence to social norms vis a vis sharing economy initiatives as pressing challenges to Urban problems resolution. The area of mobility specifically witnessed a sharp increase in daily commuter count, negative effects of urban sprawl and public transport inaccessibility. The lack of upkeep of public transport infra structure has in particular lead to a new kind of social exclusion and inequality as well as a high private vehicle frequency. This has forced people to seek alternate means of transport. Architects and urban planners demonstrated a degree of thought leadership stating that real smartness is not evident in more law enforcement in transport but rather less stringency showing that citizens are responsible enough. ‘City is about people not traffic and it is they who need to organize themselves’, maintained Vandal a leading academic. Khan a leading architect explained that Lahoris are a patient people with great degree of mental maturity willing to endure for the sake of a better future. Lahore is also expanding at a phenomenal rate absorbing all satellite towns nearby. Therefore smart transport solutions need to be weighed more in terms of connectivity in the regional context. Furthermore Khan expanded that Lahore Ring Road Project was expected to contain Lahore within it. The city has already expanded beyond that. Lahore does not have approved Strategic Plan (or greater Masterplan) and as such it is not clear whether it is heading towards being a Metropolitan City, Mega-city, Twin City, Triple City or an Amalgam City. Also due to this several projects, approvals and permits are on hold for the past 3 years. In Smart Technology Vendors Phillips CEO felt that a lot need to done to develop a coherent strategy and realistic blue-print to convert Lahore in to a smart city as it would need to cut across various government departments. Getting to work together would be a challenge. As far as specific problems are concerned road safety in terms of

86

quality of road and lighting levels was identified as a problem. In mobility the consensus was that Lahore could indeed benefit from a comprehensive Plan along the lines of similarly positioned city of Kula Lumpur and Jakarta. IBM executives identified Government services or the lack thereof as a unique urban problem. Lahore model of Egovernance is under development at this stage they reported. In mobility specifically the advocated a deeper role for the private sector with advent of companies like Uber and other sharing economy initiatives. Additionally city projects they felt can be prioritized given the amount of data being generated by city assets if leveraged could lead to better design and decision making in the public interest. All city data should be centralized and analyzed to give better insights into city systems and their improvement they proposed. Youth included a young IBM executive identified respectable transport options as an urban problem. This tends to imply that the category of transport is a sensitive issue in terms of social class and personal dignity as previously highlighted in social exclusion by TPU director. Unique items in the Youth urban problem list included crowded public spaces and lack of cleanliness. Lahore the youth felt was ready for smartness given a recent rise in literacy rate creating open mindedness in the population. The Youth showed adequate sensitivity to the carbon footprint created by rising private transportation. Public transport they held was inefficient because low employee salary resulted in low administrative and service quality. Senior Citizen listed noise level as an urban problem in addition to bad governance and pollution. They held carpooling is an attractive solution to counteract road congestion. Marginalized citizens felt that lack of water and electricity was the biggest urban problem. In transport a preference was expressed for Air-conditioned bus travel, separate section for women and a smoother ride. For women traffic congestion, slow citizen services, cumbersome land record and property transfer system and complaint handling by government departments were pressing urban issues. Parking regulations around educational facilities is not enforced thus creating a security hazard in addition to traffic jams. The traffic solutions women felt should be designed around the intended user and must undergo a comprehensive stakeholder consultative process.

87

Think tanks felt that Energy and mobility present the most pressing urban challenge as mass migrations continued into Lahore. Frost and Sullivan Director divulged that in the past 15 years vehicle registration has increased from 56 to 110 per 1000 inhabitants with cars in particular increasing from 13 to 35 per 1000. This spike requires out of the box thinking for mobility solutions and a renewed focus on multi-modal transport systems. Korean Institute CEO believed that the international cooperation trend can help build a successful migration plan towards smartness for Lahore. Low levels of women participation in the work force was also an urban problem for the think-tank. The increasing population of Lahore as part of the national ‘youth bulge’ of Lahore and the availability of Human resource should make the case for smart initiatives give availability of resources. Since every single stakeholder identified traffic congestion as an urban problem of Lahore it can be concluded with a great degree of certainty that case for smart mobility is validated from the feedback across the stakeholder spectrum.

4.4

Major Challenges in Mobility, Proposed (Creative) Solutions and the Suitability of Implantation Frameworks 4.4.1 Challenges and Solutions

In order to do full justice to the research topic the focus of this paper is confined to ‘mobility related’ challenges and solutions only. It may be noted that the difference between a problem and a challenge is perspective. As soon as a there is a will to solve the problem it transforms into a challenge. Therefore it can be assumed safely that the discussion in the previous section about urban problems was essentially a precursor to highlight some of the challenges faced in the mobility sector of Lahore. Significant commonalities existed in challenge identification within the mobility space across the stakeholder landscape. Builder identified the challenge of managing power outages on signals which led to chaotic traffic could easily be solved by street lighting on solar. The volume of projects on alternative energy need to be ramped up they felt. On the creative side builders advised shrinking the population of existing cities by creating new cities.

88

Stakeholders

Identified Mobility Challenges

Solution

Ave. Implementation Time

Builders & contractors

Electricity failure Congestion on Roads,

Solar panels in signals. Remove center medians wider roads

2 years Congestion:1 year Controlling peak hours :3 months

Peak load traffic hours

Business men

Road Safety Roadside encroachment and less right of way in unplanned areas Road Widening Signal Free corridors hamper pedestrian mobility

National heroes should champion the cause Road safety education Comprehensive removal of encroachments Regulatory framework against encroachment, alternate business models

Awareness: Minimum two years, Responsibility: Immediate Use of new techniques: Immediate (CEO Pakistan Bikers corporation)

Sky bridges Rising private vehicle ownership

Government create mechanism to discourage this

Pollution Also create odd and even number vehicle criteria Regulation of emission standards and traffic infraction Smart technology vendors

City Planners, Architects& Consultant

Traffic Management & Road Safety

Integrated Transport Management System with Command and Control Center by IBM and Smart Traffic solution by IBM

Air Pollution

Smart LED road lighting solutions (e.g. city touch) by Phillips Emission Control Standards and Solutions

Modern development paradigm

Redefine towards a new paradigm

2-5 years

3 years Sustainability Initiatives Masterplan enforcement

Work from home options and telecommuting will reduce peak hour traffic Renewed political push to enforce regulations with citizen as stakeholder

Figure 48 Identified Challenges and Solutions and Time to Smartness Summarized part 2

89

The answer to the challenge of road congestion was to remove center medians on road and develop wider roads builder proposed. Furthermore to ease peak load traffic they suggested to stagger office and school timings, and enforce stricter school zoning regulations. Key managerial positions within the mobility infrastructure should be occupied by competent professionals they warned. Business argued that in addition to encroachments the creation of signal free corridors has indeed increased vehicle mobility but sharply reduced pedestrian mobility. As a solution they offered creation of Sky Bridges as a solution. Drew attention to rise in private vehicle ownership which should be immediately curtailed by government. Wider roads and odd and even number vehicle criteria to reduce traffic congestion business suggested. In addition lack of awareness about traffic regulations and absence of a shared sense of civic responsibility compound urban mobility and should be addressed through a public media campaign. The initial infrastructure for road widening may take 2 years to complete so a higher (35%) allocation needs to be done. However it would be poor planning if a maintenance budget is not allocated alongside this which was kept at 15-20%. In a departure from conventional institutional apparatus business suggested involving the business community as part of the institutional support within the smart city task force. One creative solution offered by Business was local people consultation. National heroes can play a part in creating that awareness. Stakeholders

Identified Mobility Challenges

Solution

Ave. Implementation Time

Youth, Senior and Marginalized Citizens

Bus timings

Posting on bus stands with routes as well as android based apps

Immediate

Transport comfort Newer buses Road Chaos

2-5 years Carpooling to reduce rickshaw and motor cycle use, improved public transport

Women

Development people disconnect Transport subsidies unsustainable

Stakeholder Consultations

Milestones based

Immediate

90

Create travel classes based on the Dubai model

City Govt. Officials in Transport

Congestion induced by increase in Private Vehicles Use

Travel Demand Management Interventions such as employer based pick and drop

3 years

Congestion pricing Segregated Lanes E-commerce to reduce trip generation Passenger Information System (Future) Compact land use development Park and Ride Adopt Demand Response Transport Increase taxes on Private Vehicles use Car Pooling High Rise Developments near Mass transit routes

Road Safety

Segregated Lanes by vehicle type

3 years

Access to Public Transport

Initiative to Promote biking, walking for a balanced modal share

10 years

Increase number of public transport stations Scattered Urbanization and urban migration

New City Development

5 years

Integrated Land use development with stringent rules

Policy Framework (Director, TPU)

Planning enforcement through ICT

1 year

Public Transport oriented society Non-motorized Transport

91

Reduction in long distance trips through Polycentric Development

Think Tank & Non Profit & International Expert & Academia

Interagency Cooperation

Incentivized participation and stake

Environmental degradation

Increase development to greening ratio within regulation

Urban Sprawl

New Cities and cottage industry in villages to control migration

10 years

Traffic Smart Traffic Lights Roadside Drainage

2 years Mandatory storm water drainage on all public roads

1-2 years

Figure 49 Identified Challenges and Solutions and Time to Smartness Summarized part 2

Government officials enlisted numerous challenges given that they were on the forefront of tackling them. Chief among them were increase in private vehicle use, scattered urbanization, high urban migration and development of a policy framework to regulate these challenges effectively. Insightful solutions provided are summarized in figure ____ above. TPU Director insisted that a creative solution to address the challenge of adoption and ICT for smart mobility was Road Fairs. Consultancies Chief at the Government of Punjab Planning and Development warned that the biggest challenge in mobility was the lack of coordination between various government departments working in this space. Any coordination attempts invariably uncovered significant overlap in responsibility across government functions. Vendors underscored the need for a robust institutional arrangement adding law enforcement to the mix already suggested by other stakeholders. Part of their challenge and solution recommendation were based on their product offerings in the mobility vertical such as smart lighting and smart traffic by Phillips and IBM respectively. Senior citizens showed sensitivity to environmental pollution as well as road chaos caused in large part by motor cycles and rickshaws crowding the streets of Lahore. Their focus seemed to be centered on removing these vehicle types from the city streets using carpooling as an alternative.

92

Youth identified mismanagement compounded by corruption and non-seriousness of employees as major challenge in city mobility systems development. They wanted to solve these challenges through a hiring system based on meritocracy, capacity building employee training and major overhaul of public sector compensation structure to increase motivation. Marginalized citizen identified three challenges that of pollution, traffic and ‘bumpy rides’ in their mobility universe. Solutions suggest signals that work and soother roads.

4.4.2 CIGM Hybrid Framework Suitability Government feels that citizens are the main stakeholder in the development of smart mobility systems high participation will mean greater adoption in the long run. There is a need to understand how well citizens will respond to smart design. So the framework dimension is truly justified.

Builders

Business

Govt.

Arch/ U.Planners

Smart Tech Vendors

Women

Youth/ Senior Citizens

Thinktanks/Academics

4 2 0 Citizen Participation

Information and Communication Technology

Role of Government

Smart Mentality

Figure 50 Stakeholders ranking of most city CIGM frame work Dimensions as that play a key role in success of projects Panel Interviewed for this Research [Q: 10 Source: Author]

ICT will provide real time information to the public, and the only way to integrate conventional planning with novel policy interventions such as smart mobility. Role of Government dimension is also validated as stakeholders feel that the regulatory role is pivitol to project success. On Smart mentality stakeholders felt that through public awareness and pilot project success certain behavioral changes may become permanently engrained. City services access and utilization through the mobile platform has over time been instrumental in creating a smart mentality that is here to stay.

93

Consultants Architects and town planners on the CIGM framework felt Citizen ‘buy in’ is essential as even innovation can be misperceived as witness in the negative feedback surrounding recently completed signal free corridors. Planners felt that government’s key role in successful implementation is also hinged on the fact that they are the not only a major funding source for all mobility infrastructure projects but have the managerial machinery to execute it as well. Smart Mentality they felt needs to be built into citizen and government both especially when project approach and methodology is being developed. Sustainability expert and Architect Mumtaz commenting on the suitability of the CIGM framework hypothesized that the ‘nation state with its government is an obsolete idea’. The reality he proposed is Authority, Autonomy, Sovereignty and Power in Global Capital. In short saying that global forces not only direct government action but also influence smart mentality. ‘The Lahore Project’, he added is an example of out of the box thinking to solve city problems by collecting data and developing sustainability solutions away from conventional development paradigms. It need to be assessed whose interest smart projects are serving. And what is smart for one person may not be smart for another he cautioned. On the whole taking a technology phobic stance to smart mobility. On CIGM youth felt citizens Lahore are quite adaptive to change.

4.4.3 Creative (Out-of-the-Box) Solutions for Smart Mobility in Lahore Most creative solutions that were contextual to the discussion have been recorded alongside the stakeholder review above. However a portion were more stand alone and are examined here. Creative solution offered by Smart technology vendors to tackle mobility woes was introduce double decker buses and business to business carpooling. Creative solution offered by women was carpooling regimes in high population density area such as high-rise buildings to ease mobility problems. Creative solution offered by senior citizens was to use the cities canal system for public transport through the use of ferries and boats which was seconded by youth. Marginalized citizen thought RBT system was a great idea and

94

there should be more Metro buses. Think tanks pointed to an existing organization known as the Critical Mass dedicated to overthrow conventional motorized travel with bicycling and walking option. After success in Lahore and Karachi they are expanding to other cities. Whether they have reached critical mass is an open question the think tanks argued.

4.5

Budget Allocations

Builder advocated maximum possible budget allocation for smart mobility initiative. This is understandable as it creates a larger quantum of work for them in the future. Even budget conscious officials advocated lavish budget allocations using phrases like ‘as much as possible’. Leading the institutional arrangement for smart mobility projects was Planning Commission and Planning and Development Department at the Federal and provincial Level respectively. At city Level Builders proposed Lahore Development Authority to be in the leading position. Stakeholders

Builders

Business men Smart Vendors

City Planners, Architects& Consultant Youth and Senior Citizens

Budget Allocation (as a percentage of City Development) Maximum –double % them present (CEO Stacco Construction) In start may be 15 to 40% Round 15-25%( rough estimate only) (chairman and CEO Philips Pakistan LTD) 50% to 70% (Consultancy Fee) (Executive director Allied Engineering Consultant) At least 25% of the budget (Youth) Substantial allocation (Seniors)

Women

11 %

Government

15% - 40%

Think Tanks

20- 35 %

Figure 51 Smart Budget Allocation by Stakeholders

95

4.6

Institutional Leadership and Support (Smart Mobility Task Force)

On institutional leadership for smart mobility project success and the composition of the smart mobility task force it was witnessed that despite difference on emphasis a commonality of opinion existed. Government officials including Director TPU insisted that Planning Commission should lead the initiatives at the federal level but it would be better if there is greater collaboration between the Ministry of Communication and Technology as well. Stakeholders

Institutional Leadership

Institutional Support (Smart Mobility Task Force)

Builders & contractors

City: City District Govt

Traffic Police Rescue Teams IT/solar companies

Business men

Federal: Ministry of transport& communication, CDA.

Ministries, organization like NHA Institutions like TEPA LDA etc. Private firm

Provincial level: Ministry of transport & communication, construction, industries LDA, TEPA etc. C& W and P & D City Level: Development Authorities Smart vendors

n/a

Unique addition: Energy Dept.

City Planners, Architects& Consultant

Federal: Creation of a Smart Cities Council

Health, Education and Disaster Management Authority

Provincial level: PITB, City level: LDA

Political Leadership and Influential Citizens Representative of Civil Society organizations

Youth and Senior Citizens

n/a

Unique addition: Police (Youth) Community Leaders (Senior Citizens)

Figure 52 Stakeholder Opinion on Institutional Leadership and Support Structure for Smart City Initiatives-I

Given the silo-ing phenomenon in government departments it is imperative that the multi-disciplinary of smart mobility projects is recognized and interdepartmental coordination enhanced from the inception stage of project roll out. At the provincial level consensus seemed to be on including departments of transport, local government and housing as well as Punjab Board of Investment and Trade in lead roles. At the city level officials proposed that

96

the city District government would be the ideal choice. For effective administration at the implementation level the creation of smart advisory board, smart cell and smart officers appropriately trained can be provisioned to ensure seamless project flow and completion as well as quality assurance. A diagram to illustrate this is given below derived from the working group on smart provisions in the Integrated City Development Strategy as shown in fig. 47.

Figure 53 Stakeholder Consensus on Smart Provisions in the City Administration [Source: Author Led Workshop at the Urban Unit Lahore on Smart Provisions in the Punjab Intermediate City Investment Improvement Program’s Proposed Integrated City Development Strategy (ICDS), Feb 2016]

Smart technology vendors wanted to add one unique addition to the institutional arrangement by including the Energy department in a more leading role and advocating piloting area based smart mobility projects for wider adoption rather than city wide solutions. In the initiation, monitoring and evaluation role the proposed smart mobility task force can be comprise of officials from the following organizations: The Transport department, Transport Planning Unit and the Punjab Mass Transit Authority.

97

Planner and architects wanted to add Education, health and disaster management in support capacity as a complete smart mobility task force could further benefit from functional inputs from these departments. Since smooth functionality of all mobility infrastructure is connected to crime and safety as well as waste collection, therefore they should also be represented in the task force. It was also suggested by the planners that there be representation of visionary political leadership within the task force as well influential citizens. Marginalized citizen left the leadership in smart mobility projects to ‘whoever is able should be leading’. Stakeholders

Institutional Leadership

Institutional Support (Smart Mobility Task Force)

Women

Federal: Ministry of Transport

A transdisciplinary panel of experts

Province: Elected Representatives City: Local Government City Govt. Officials in Transport

Federal Level: Planning Commission

Transport Department

Provincial level: Transport, Local Government, Housing and Punjab Information Technology Board

Transport Planning Unit

City level: District Government

Lahore Development Authority

Punjab Mass Transit Authority

Lahore Metropolitan Corporation Parks and Horticulture Authority Think Tank & Non Profit & International Expert & Academia

Federal: Ministry of Communication

Urban Unit

Provincial: Development Authorities

P&D

City: Dedicated Council

PITB

Figure 54 Stakeholder Opinion on Institutional Leadership and Support Structure for Smart City Initiatives-II

98

4.7

Citizen Preferences on Smart Initiative 4.7.1 Preferences on General Smart City Initiatives

To create informed policy option for city leaders as well for policy makers to prioritize investment and project development on the road map to smart city and smart mobility development it was felt worthwhile to exam both in terms of how various initiatives and projects in the smart cities ranked

Stakeholders

generally with stakeholders as well as smart mobility initiatives ranking in particular.

Builders

Business

Govt.

Arch/ U.Planners

Smart Tech Vendors

Women

Youth/ Senior Citizens

Thinktanks/Academics

5 4 3 2 1 0

Rainwater and Harvesting Irrigation

Waste Water Treatement

Sustainable Water Resource Management

Smart Solution for Natural Resource Management

Sustainable Transport Infrastructure

Technology Figure 55 Smart City Technologies and Initiative (General) part 1

Fig. 48 above shows how stakeholders ranked overall smart city projects. Transport and water topped the list corroborating findings from literature. However references for rain water harvesting and natural resource management remained subdued.

99

Stakeholders

5 4 3 2 1 0

Builders

Business

Govt.

Arch/ U.Planners

Smart Tech Vendors

Women

Youth/ Senior Citizens

Thinktanks/Academics

Accessible To Public Wi-Fi Networks

E-Work Places

Green Infrastructure

Compact Mixed-used Development

E-Governance

High Tech Industerial Park

Technology Figure 56

Smart City Technologies and Initiative (General) part 1

Other technologies that created a priority convergence was E-Governance. While most remained average the priority for industrial parks showed low rankings. This can possibly be attributed to the negative environmental aspects of industrial projects not harmonizing with clean smart city concept (fig. 49).

4.7.2 Preferences on Mobility Specific Initiatives In the mobility specific domain sharing economy initiatives overall and carpooling in particular remained popular choices with air quality indexing and energy profiling transport option fairing as average. However, new technologies such as road power generation and piezo electric tiles scored low given lack of demonstrable projects (fig. 50).

Builders

Business

Govt.

Arch/ U.Planners

Smart Tech Vendors

Women

Youth/ Senior Citizens

Thinktanks/Academics

5

Stakeholders

4 3 2 1 0 Sharing Economy Initiatives

Car Pooling

Air Quality Index

Energy Profiling Transport Option

Road Power Generation

Peizo-electric Tiles

Technology Figure 57 Smart City Technologies and Initiative (Mobility Specific) part 1

100

Although stakeholders showed encouraging indicators for Multi-modal options such as Electric Vehicles, Mopeds and Bicycles, they somehow did not appreciate city wide rental business models for cars and bicycles as workable in Lahore. Again novel technologies such as the driverless car did not garner popular votes, it was the reluctance to embrace the Congestion tax, however, that not only underscored the prevalent citizen mentality on the subject but also went contrary to the positive disposition most stakeholders exhibited towards smart mobility initiatives in general (fig. 51).

Builders

Business

Govt.

Arch/ U.Planners

Smart Tech Vendors

Women

Youth/ Senior Citizens

Thinktanks/Academics

Stakeholders

6 4 2 0

Electric Vehicles

Non-motorized Options like Bicycles

Mopeds Deployment

Driverless Car

Auto Lib

Ve Lib

Congestion Tax

Technology Figure 58 Smart City Technologies and Initiative (Mobility Specific) part 2

4.8

Visions of the Future

Going into the future one builder imagined mobility systems to evolve in feature and functionality offering motion based lighting systems, road to vehicle power generation and car recharge, driverless cars, route optimization through GPS, City Wi-Fi in the car, Multi-modal journeys and proliferation of sharing economy initiatives. Business envisioned a proliferation of sensors, voice activated devices as mobility aids. Resourceful and problem solving. People process and technology are the three principles of smart city initiatives. Security Quality and Efficiency are three principles of smart mobility initiatives.

101

Business visualized a walkable city with clean air with green mobility, surveillance and rule of law as well as cheap power. Officials visualized a smart city with e-governance framework in place, compact land use policies implemented using ICT systems. On the mobility front they saw Integrated Multi-modal transport system, Passenger Information Systems and significant reduction in trip generation through e-commerce. Mobile free society. Planners envision a pollution free city with low mobility requirements due to ICT based service availability and telecommuting taking form route. As a consequence typical travel time for work and household related task would be significantly reduced and there will be more time for recreation, family and socialization. Smart mobility can lead to a happy life in the future they argued. Sustainability expert Mumtaz viewed cities of the future to produce more waste and mobility systems with bigger carbon footprints. ‘No need to imagine the future, it is staring us in the face’, he remarked adding that the ‘smart concept is dangerous and destructive’. Affordability in mobility systems was also flagged as a concern going forward. Stakeholders

Future Visions

Builders & contractors

Home is like LEGO built, high quality pre-fabricated block. -Dist. Gov. provides free city Wi-Fi in your car

Business men

Traffic is managed well through latest tools & technique to keep flow well day and night. All the related departments work efficient to manage complaints of public.

Smart technology vendors

Over breakfast having a quick update about the city on my smart phone; weather, events and other happening etc. (Chairman and CEO Philips Pakistan LTD

City Planners, Architects & Consultant

Walkable city, Livable City, Happy City (Executive director Allied Engineering Consultant) City provides livelihood.

Youth and Senior Citizens and Marginalized Citizen

I got up and go for morning walk near to my home, then ready for my routine and go outside on return, my way to home I found all utilize on roadside and reach home with less pain (youth)

Women

Core service would be placed within community zone including schools, good quality education and sports facilities. (Special Secretary, Women Development Department, Punjab)

102

City Govt. Officials in Transport

Mobile free travel

Think Tank & Non Profit & International Expert & Academia

I open smart phone to check the road condition and define which transportation and which route is best today. (CEO, president Korea research Institute).

Figure 59 Visions of the Future from Stakeholder Panel

Vendor’s vision of the evolution of smart mobility meant greater access, seamless transfer between multimodal options, internet connectivity, and weather and travel information at their fingertips. Organized and safe and their smart mobility morphed into reliable and quick. Women wanted the city in the near future to have smooth running systems be it water, power, gas or traffic. However they wanted optimized temperature control in all mobility system given the extreme weather conditions in the summer. Senior citizens foresaw Lahore having well developed transportation systems but at the same time accommodate cyclists and pedestrians in the new paradigm. A smart city pays attention to local needs and citizens with a good model of governance and smart mobility was economical, ecofriendly and speedy. The city and mobility vision of youth was green offices and green transport in a system that is efficient green and versatile. As interview respondents recapped definitions in the end there is a distinct departure from the complex functionality and descriptors based definitions offered by stakeholders to simple benefits oriented responses. In fact benefits perception could be the tool cities need to deploy new strategies that resonate with the citizens from the outset.

103

Youth wanted more open spaces in their vision of the future for Lahore with energy efficient transport, connectivity and more room per passenger. Think tanks saw a Utopian image of Lahore complete with interconnectedness of all home appliances with smart phones. Electric Solar hybrid cars ploughed the roads and travel conditions relayed prior to commencement of the journey. The smart city is highly planned and mobility well managed (see summary in Fig. 52).

5.

Conclusion

The research set out to investigate a three dimensional question. First, to assess how understanding of smart mobility and by extension smart cities varies across the stakeholder landscape using a frameworks based approach. Second, what are the challenges and current urban problems faced by the stakeholders and what solutions they see as most workable? Third to add focus, depth and practicality to the inquiry the entire research attempts to build an actual case study of identified challenges and proposed solution for Lahore as a city in a resource constrained developing country scenario. The introduction presented the case for cities as the leading engines of growth for future world economies. It was seen that there was dichotomy that exists between the high energy consumption of cities versus low expanse in comparison to rural areas (Jollands, 2008). The dilemma of reconciling housing large population with producing undesirable carbon footprints demanded a need for balance, optimization and efficiency in managing city assets. In time it was observed that policy, technology and research evolved to address these complexities and this phenomenon gave birth to a convergence in thinking eventually leading to the smart city momentum. Cities instead of countries compete for global business and it was shown that various cities adopted smart city ranking and assessments to show case their progress and attractiveness for livability and tourism in addition to business. Different types of Ranking Typologies were laid out and it was cautioned that smart status attainment was not entirely objective and there were serious shortcomings in smart readiness measurement accuracy due to the

104

‘mystification of data’. Global Experiences with smart cities whether brownfield or greenfield were shown to have mixed success rates. Criticism section on smart cities highlighted the fact that contemporary smart city claims were just a repackaging of earlier works of utopian planners and that cities work best with a live mix of uses. The concept of smart cities in Pakistan was seen to be relatively nascent with low across the board understanding among stakeholders and a nonexistent collaborative institutional arrangement and physical infrastructure. Although urbanization kept a brisk rate Pakistan performance on global development indicators including transport has been lagging. It was shown that the idea of Smart cities in Pakistan can prevent rural stagnation emanating from urban migration and government mobility initiatives in this regard were listed. As the case for urgency challenge in the global and national context was developed the city of Lahore was examined to assess the current urban form, growth pattern, its socio economic and spatial heterogeneity, urban mobility and its problems and finally the behavior aspects of citizens to wards mobility to build a comprehensive and multidimensional analysis. It was shown that the selection of Lahore was based not only on the fact that is a mega city in need for urgent smart intervention but also that it enjoyed deep and widespread funding commitment from political leadership towards its development as a model for other cities to emulate. Various internationally sponsored studies such as Haider (2014), Haque (2014) and JICA (2012) including the Lahore Urban Transport Plan were analyzed. Mobility was identified as the most pressing problem of Lahore using a projected scenario till 2030 and it was shown that Lahore was living on borrowed time and timely and smart mobility interventions were required sooner rather than later. Improving connectivity also provided a proven path to city development and citizen prosperity (Malik, 2013; Javid, 2013). In particular mobility for the poor emerged as persistent issue since transport spending was observed to be skewed in favor of automobile related infrastructure while in contrast only a small percentage of Pakistanis actually owned cars. Statistical data showed significant shortcomings in mobility parameters such as high frequency of private car trips, low percentage of walking trips as well as relatively small

105

adoption of public transport for business, work and leisure to suggest that Lahore needed smart mobility initiatives in terms of connectivity, access, affordability and entertainment. Review of existing literature on smart cities revealed that there was considerable ambiguity on smart city definition. To develop a deeper understanding the evolution of the term smart city over time was reviewed. It was seen that universal agreement on what constitutes a smart city does not exist neither does the concept decidedly distinguishes itself from other terms like Sustainable, Intelligent and Digital as well as lesser known derivatives like Wired, Ubiquitous and Information. Major literature on smart cities existed in three broad categories namely: urban development issue, information and communication technology focus and energy or operational efficiency centered. Major seminal works that emerged from this analysis such as Chourabi, Jacobs, Soltani, Kar, Haider and Malik served as the foundation for developing the stakeholder interview questionnaire. Several framework were analyzed to see how smart cities become conceptualized. From the frameworks of inclusion (Chourabi, 2011), to the transdisciplinary model of Moser (2014), to the evolutionary model of Al-Hader (2009), to the components based also by Al-Hader (2009) and finally to the frameworks of innovation (Nam and Pardo, 2011), none serve to answer the developing country context and what would work best in Lahore. A combination or a hybrid framework was developed that was elegantly simplistic and combined the best of all frameworks known as the CIGM. However from the implementation angle it was deduced that the global frameworks hybrid or otherwise lacked true efficacy as they were not evaluated within the context of developing country scenario as every environment has their unique set of challenges. The Curitiba Model presented a solution to this ‘global practice research- developing country implementation gap’ scenario given its success in applicability and replicability in the developing world context (Soltani, 2012). Downs (2005) argued that the missing link in all frameworks was the dimension of smart mentality. A review of smart city in the developing world shows an emergent phenomenon of uncontrolled sprawl with has resulted in socio spatial polarization in the form of gated communities for wealthy and vast slums for the poor. As

106

the focus narrowed to smart mobility the literature revealed unique challenges in the developing world scenario such as shortage of quality infrastructure, low individual mobility, modal splits due to income, low leisure trips, in adequate access and comfort in public transport, low safety and environmental issue. Vasconcellos (2014) advises combining engineering based transport planning and sociological research to arrive at a more accurate strategy in a developing country setting which underscores the behavioral aspect of Javid (2013). Also in a developing country project decision making is more personality based rather than delegative as in most European democracies. Kar (2015) laid down key factors for implementation success in developing economies and warned that unfortunately a key ingredient for smart projects is innovative thinking which is precisely what is discouraged in government machinery. Congestion, pollution, safety and energy use were identified as mobility challenges and Special lane construction to improve walkability and cycle-lability, improvement in public transport, construction of ring roads, bypasses, underpasses and flyovers, reduction in illegal encroachments and utilization of waterways as alternate means of transport are proposed as smart mobility solutions for developing countries. Idea of smart cities was extended to smart villages as a more sustainable thinking paradigm. A gap is identified in the research is of collecting stakeholder based primary data in mobility challenges and solutions research as most data for developing world is secondary and based on conclusion primarily drawn on developed world studies. New method of collecting primary mobility data (night lights) were shown to be very effective in identifying trade corridors for future mobility planning such as the emergence of the Lahore Delhi Agglomeration (Ellis, 2015). It was shown that the city core was dimming and smart mobility solutions held the key to urban core regeneration. Finally the participatory planning model known as the Curitiba Model seemed a good candidate to address the mobility challenge of Lahore meaning when packaged street will become pedestrianized zones the urban poor will essentially become part of the cities mobility narrative. Similarly instead of building expensive transportation systems existing bus route segregated lane BRT system was shown to be plausible for Lahore.

107

It was analyzed that Smart mobility within the smart city framework has its own framework such as the Okuda’s Hitachi model and Tiwari’s Developing country framework. Smart mobility was divided into mass transit, individual mobility and intelligent transportation systems each with its own set of smart solutions that could benefit developing countries specifically in the context of frugal low cost innovations and transformations to include such disruptive business models such as Uber taxi and others. Analysis of optimization models in transport systems showed that it was smarter to optimize the overall system rather than optimizing different modes of transport independently (Okuda, 2012). As an example the 5-layer Hitachi model was used to illustrate transportation functions as three types of mobility system optimization was achieved through seamless interfacing between user and company as well as through analysis of operational data to realize efficiency gains. In the developing country context where demand growth outpaced transport infrastructure capacity, smart mobility meant improving access and affordability in public transport without capital intensive transit system spending and its corresponding environmental impact. Furthermore the smart initiative should extend to the rural areas as well. It was discovered from literature that as far as smart cities are concerned government success in projects meant abandoning the silos based model approach to a more collaborative institutional framework involving all stakeholder, building partnerships and a relentless focus on sectoral innovation and entrepreneurship (Glasmier et. al., 2015). Literature review findings, frameworks, hybrids and models from literature would have remain theoretical, untested and non-implementable unless corroborated by evidence from stakeholder based field testing (Lahore in this case). Stakeholder opinion largely echoed research findings with some very interesting points of divergence. Most stakeholders showed considerable understanding of smart city concept and were able to come up with reasonably accurate definitions. Livability and sustainability were prominent as descriptors of smart city and showed convergence and some even included happiness, community and neighborliness but equity, fairness and

108

transparency as part of the definition showed a contrasting view compared to the literature review, an aspect policy makers need to register. Occasionally a sustainability based view of a stakeholder permeated the smartness discourse in the form of resistance to the smart city idea labeling it as carbon intensive development and hence a non-environmentally friendly concept. Yet others found the methodology of defining smart cities fundamentally flawed and derided the whole investigation as research intended to validate a predetermined outcome. The definitions of smart city by women were conspicuous by their uniqueness as they held smart cities to mean convenience and ease of living while the youth harbored more utopian definitions of an idealized society. Mobility to most meant efficiency, convenience and innovative governance of transport assets. Low carbon footprint and multi-modal design seemed a major parameter for smart mobility status. Smart mobility was described as a holistic concept and it was considered not very smart (by urban planners) to improve mobility for motor vehicles at the cost of reducing it for pedestrians and bicyclists. On the need for readiness most stakeholders agreed to heightened level of urgency citing several reasons. Chiefly included among them were the pace of uncontrolled urban sprawl, increase in vehicle count and traffic mismanagement which has made the city dysfunctional for the most part. Others in the panel considered urgency as artificially induced and cautioned on the tendency of major transportation projects threatening the urban fabric of Lahore. Humane rather than smart was offered as a more viable objective. The role of government to stimulate smart city awareness to achieve critical mass was stressed by think tanks. Urban problems of Lahore were extensively listed by stakeholders and serves as a blue print for city managers to inform their development and administration strategy. Most identified problems revolved around energy, waste, parking, migration, governance and environment but mobility related challenges emerged as the most prominent particularly the rising private vehicle count on Lahore’s road creating as sense of social exclusion for those not able to afford it. In a rapidly expanding city that is absorbing satellite towns any mobility initiatives most stakeholders should be in the regional context and not just limited to city limits. An expanding city and transport systems create

109

enormous amounts of data which technology vendors argued could be harnessed to optimize existing and new systems. Mode of transport was correlated with respectability dimension by the youth thereby asserting attitude towards certain transport classes clearly underscoring Javid’s (2013) behavioral orientations of users. Women kept comfort above all. City thinkers must incorporate these sensitivities and address inherent misperceptions specifically in the sphere of public transport. Stakeholders also felt confident that the youth bulge can be transformed into a competitive human resource pool offering a smart solution to solve major urban challenges identified for Lahore. Stakeholders went to great lengths to offer innovative and creative solutions to identified mobility challenges. To recap a few examples: power outages on traffic signals was solved through solar power backups, curtailing vehicle counts and city populations by building new cities, road congestion and noise was resolved through widening and car-sharing initiatives, peak traffic through staggering school and work timings and odd-even number vehicle criteria, pedestrian mobility through sky bridges, road safety through education and so and so forth all extensively detailed in summarized in previous section. Of course technology vendors presented problems that supported their existing market solutions like smart street lighting by Phillips and Smart Traffic by IBM. Youth identified lack of adequate compensation as a reason for poor transport management and recommended enhanced compensation and skills training as a solution. Marginalized citizens felt bumpy rides were a challenge and suggested the creation of smoother roads. As the hybrid framework CIGM developed from the analysis of frameworks was tested for suitability with stakeholders in the Lahore context there emerged convergence on the role of government from all stakeholders while other dimensions were significantly recognized and validated by most (fig 50). Creative solutions for smart mobility presented some refreshing ideas like introducing the double decker bus in Lahore as well as business to business carpooling. The youth felt that Lahore’s canal system should be remodeled to work as a parallel transportation system. Replication and growth of Critical Mass Lahore, a nonprofit obsessed

110

with the over throw of motorized transport options, was stressed as wholesale adoption of the bicycle makes them a primary mode of urban transport. A set of organizations emerged as contenders to lead the smart city task force and a list of recommended institutions that will constitute the task force has been suggested. An institutional hierarchy for smart positions was developed as part of the Integrated City Development Strategy (fig 52). A complete list of citizen preferences was tabulated for smart city in initiatives in general which showed water management, sustainable transport and e-governance enjoying widespread stakeholder preference. On mobility specific initiatives carpooling and sharing economy initiatives in any form were preferred. Multi-model options were preferred but adoption of the bike rental model (for e.g.) remained unpopular with stakeholders as was the optimism with Congestion Tax. The most common vision stakeholders perceived about how they see the future of Lahore, points of convergence were environment quality and access to transport that is sustainable and green. Of course most envisioned proliferation of pervasive and distributed technologies overwhelming city governance and management functions. The result from field testing smart city and smart mobility challenges and solutions above have largely corroborated developing country literature, the CIGM model and learnings form Curitiba. The interviews have also added to the body of knowledge and research in the Lahore context with specific objectivity and insight. As points of convergence and divergence are discovered it is suggested that governments heads, policy makers and city thinkers prioritize and pursue those interventions which enjoy wide spread stakeholder backing and preferable postpone projects that appear to signify lack of agreement regarding their understanding, citizen engagement and preference level, institutional set up and funding modality. City decision makers are advised to pay attention to the most frequently identified challenges and incorporate stakeholder devised solutions in their smart city and smart mobility development plans. At the higher level smart city and mobility understanding, awareness areas and future visions may serve as an introspective guide for policy makers to develop future plans for smart projects with the full support across the stakeholder spectrum. This will ensure success and sustainability in the long run since they will

111

be designed on the key framework dimension of ‘stakeholder engagement’ to ensure implementation success. Naturally not only stakeholder convergence on project priorities should be examined but re-alignment with other public sector programs to create efficiencies of scale and scope. Other dimensional challenges like funding strategies, operationalization and technical capacity building may be resolved by similar stakeholder consensus. , The hybrid framework inspired by the Curitiba model may serve as a cohesive roadmap or the optimum model to the smart city-mobility challenges of Lahore as it moves towards becoming a genuine smart city.

112

6.

References

1. Al-Awadhi, S., & Scholl, H. J. (2013). Aspirations and realizations: The smart city of Seattle. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1695-1703). IEEE.

2. Al-Hader, M., & Rodzi, A. (2009).The smart city infrastructure development & monitoring. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 4(2), 87-94.

3. Al-Hader, M. et al., (2009). Smart City Components Architecture.2009 International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation.

4. Bowerman, B., Braverman, J., Taylor, J., Todosow, H., & Von Wimmersperg, U. (2000). The vision of a smart city. In 2nd International Life Extension Technology Workshop, Paris.

5. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of urban technology, 18(2), 65-82.

6. Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., & Scholl, H. J. (2012).Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 2289-2297).

7. Cocchia, A. (2014). Smart and Digital City: A Systematic Literature Review. In Smart City (pp. 13-43). Springer International Publishing.

8. Cohen, B. (2012). What exactly is a Smart City? Co. Exist, 19.

9. Downs, A., (2005). Smart Growth Why We discuss it More Than We Do. Journal of the American Planning Association Vol. 71, No. 4 autumn 2005. American Planning Association Chicago, IL.

10. Falconer, G., & Mitchell, S. (2012). Smart City Framework: A Systematic Process for Enabling Smart+Connected Communities. CISCO Internet Business Solutions Group (IBSG)

113

11. Gibbs, D. and Krueger, R. (2012) Fractures in meta-narratives of development: An interpretive institutionalist account of land use development in the Boston city region, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), pp. 363–380. 12. Hollands, R.G., 2008. Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12, pp.303–320. 13. Horbarty, R. (2013). Das Label Energiestadt: Eine Einführung [The label Energiestadt: An introduction]. Liestal: Trägerverein Energiestadt.

14. Jollands, N., Kenihan, S., & Wescott, W. (2008). Promoting energy efficiency: Best practices in cities. Paris: International Energy Agency.

15. Mahizhnan, A. (1999).Smart cities: the Singapore case. Cities, 16(1), 13-18.

16. McCann, E. (2011) Urban Policy Motilities and Global Circuits of Knowledge: Toward a Research Agenda, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(1), pp. 107-130. 17. Moser, C., Wedel, T., & Carabias-Hütter, V. (2014) Scientific and Practical Understandings of Smart Cities.

18. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times (pp. 282-291). ACM.

19. PCGIP (2013). Urban Development Unit of the Planning and Development Department, Government of Punjab in the Report titled: ‘Environmental and Social Management Framework for Cities for Punjab Cities Governance Improvement Project’

20. Peck, J. (2011) Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation, Progress in Human Geography 35(6), pp. 773–797.

114

21. Pakistan 2025 (2014).One Nation, One Vision. Pakistan Vision 2025 Secretariat. Ministry of Planning, Development & Reform Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Accessible through http://pakistan2025.org

22. Haider, M. (2013). Pakistan’s Urbanization Challenges: Transport and Mobility. Pakistan’s Runaway Urbanization: What Can Be Done?

23. Haque, N. (2014). Frustrated Urbanization and Failed Development in Pakistan. Pakistan Runaway Urbanization: What can be done? The Wilson Center.

24. Greenfield, A. (2013). Against the smart city.

25. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3-21. 26. Ricciardi, F. (2010). ICTs in an ageing society: an overview of emerging research streams. In Management of the Interconnected World (pp. 37-44). 27. Glasmeier, A., & Christopherson, S. (2015). Thinking about smart cities. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 3-12. 28. Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. WW Norton & Company.

29. United Nations (2011). Climate neutral cities: How to make cities less energy and carbon intensive and more resilient to climatic challenges. New York: United Nations.

30. United Nations (2014).World Population Prospects: The 2010 revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 revision.

31. Habitat III (2014). Issues Paper on Smart Cities: United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development. New York.

115

32. Vanolo, A., (2013). Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy. Urban Studies, July, pp.1–16.

33. Giffinger, R., & Gudrun, H. (2009). Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the positioning of the cities? ACE: Architecture, City and Environment. 34. Zygiaris, S. (2013). Smart City Reference Model: Assisting Planners to Conceptualize the Building of Smart City Innovation Ecosystems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 217-231. 35. NESPAK (2004). Integrated Master Plan for Lahore (IMPL 2021), Volume-I-III, LDA, (8,1-3) 36. Glocalization of smart city in Indian perspective. Case Study: AMANORA Park TOWN PUNE. Maharashtra

37. Smart City In Developing Countries , Hiroaki Suzuki Lead Urban Specialist , Finance, Economic and Urban Department : The world Bank

38. Smart Cities –The Critical Need of the Hour in India: Tony Spizzichino, CEO Telit RF Technologies

39. Okuda, T., Hirasawa, S., Matsukuma, N., Fukumoto, T., & Shimura, A. (2012). Smart Mobility for Smart Cities. Hitachi Review, 61(3), 141.

40. Ellis, P., & Roberts, M. (2015). Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia: Managing Spatial Transformation for Prosperity and Livability. World Bank Publications.

41. Tiwari, R. (2012). Smart mobility for India: Needs, opportunities and challenges. Germany Contact India, (2), 16-17.

116

42. Petts, J., Owens, S., & Bulkeley, H. (2008). Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum, 39(2), 593-601. 43. Soltani, A., & Sharifi, E. (2012). A case study of sustainable urban planning principles in Curitiba (Brazil) and their applicability in Shiraz (Iran). International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 1(2), 120134. 44. Chatterjee, S., & Kar, A. K. (2015). Smart Cities in developing economies: A literature review and policy insights. In Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), 2015 International Conference on (pp. 2335-2340). IEEE. 45. Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.

46. Cicmil, S., & Marshall, D. (2005). Insights into collaboration at the project level: complexity, social interaction and procurement mechanisms. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 523–535.

47. Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., & Carver, S. (2008). Managerial complexity in project-based operations: a grounded model and its implications for practice. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 15–26.

48. Remington, K., & Pollack, J. (2007). Tools for complex projects. Gower Publishing, Ltd

49. Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

50. Vidal, L. A., Marle, F., & Bocquet, J. C. (2011). Measuring project complexity using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), 718–727.

117

51. Ngoc, S. (2010), “Project Management: Supplier Conference.” Available at: http://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/10826/Thesis%20-%20Final.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed on: 24-03-2013]. 52. Pinto, J. K. (2007). Project management: Achieving competitive advantage. Pearson/Prentice Hall. 53. LSE (2014). Cities for the Urban Age. Governing Urban Futures Conference. Delhi, November 2014. 54. Lew, Y. D., & Leong, W. Y. (2009). Managing congestion in Singapore—a behavioral economics perspective. Journeys, 15. 55. Lal E. and Palm, D, (2011). Brazil as a Model for Community-Oriented, Sustainable Urban Development 56. Moore, S. A. (2007). Alternative routes to the sustainable city: Austin, Curitiba, and Frankfurt. Lexington Books. 57. Barter, P. (2009). Earning a Public Space Dividend in the Streets. JOURNEYS, 32. 58. Gorini, Alessandra. (2009). Young People—The Future of Public Transport. JOURNEYS, 38. 59. Kim, T. S., Kwon, J. K., & Sung, D. K. (2000). Mobility modeling and traffic analysis in three-dimensional high-rise building environments. Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 49(5), 1633-1640. 60. Gerard Lacey, B. A. I., & McNamara, S. (2000). User involvement in the design and evaluation of a smart mobility aid. Journal of rehabilitation research and development, 37(6). 61. Midgley, P. (2009). The role of smart bike-sharing systems in urban mobility. Journeys, 2, 23-31. 62. Chin, R. (2010). Sustainable Urban Mobility in 2020. Futurist, 44(4), 27. 63. Mitchell, W. J. (2010). Reinventing the automobile: Personal urban mobility for the 21st century. MIT press. 64. Malik, A. A. (2013). Policy options for financing urban transportation in resource constrained environments: the case of Lahore, Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 52(2), 139-155.

118

65. Muhammad, A. J. (2013). A study for public perceptions in integrating transportation demand management measures in developing countries: A study in Lahore. 66. Javid, M. A., Okamura, T., Nakamure, F., Tanaka, S., & Wang, R. (2013). Public Attitude Towards travel Demand management (TDM) Strategies in Lahore Pakistan: Importance of Lifestyle, Social and Travel Related Beliefs. 67. Javid, M. A. (2015). Influence of situational constraints and public transport incentives on acceptability of car use restrictions in Lahore, Pakistan. Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences, 52(2), 109-116. 68. Tahir, M. N., Haworth, N., King, M., & Washington, S. (2015). Observations of road safety behaviors and practices of motorcycle rickshaw drivers in Lahore, Pakistan. In Proceedings of the 2015 Australasian Road Safety Conference. Australian College of Road Safety (ACRS). 69. UNCTAD, 2016. Proceeding of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development Inter-sessional Panel 2015-2016 on Issues Paper on Smart Cities and Infrastructure. 70. Rosenberg, N., & LE Jr, B. (2008). How the West grew rich: The economic transformation of the industrial world. Basic books 71. Dawson, Catherine., (2002), Practical Research Methods, New Delhi, UBS Publishers’ Distributors 72. Kothari, C.R., (1985), Research Methodology- Methods and Techniques, New Delhi, Wiley Eastern Limited. 73. Kumar, Ranjit, (2005), Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, (2nd.Ed.), Singapore, Pearson Education. 74. Saunders, M. N., Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education India. 75. Booth, WC, Colomb, GG and Williams, JM (2003) The Craft of Research, 2nd Ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago

119

76. Creswell, J. W. (2003) Research Design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. 77. Collins, A, Joseph, D, and Bielaczye K, (2004) Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1),p15-42 78. Denzin NK, and Lincoln YS (2000) (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage, 2nd Edition 79. Groat L and Wang D (2002) Architectural research methods, New York: Wiley 80. Jones, JC (1992) Design Methods, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York 81. Silverman D (2004) Doing Qualitative Research, London: Sage 82. Yin, R. K. 1984. Case Study Research, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications. 83. De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research. Psychology Press. 84. Foddy, W., & Foddy, W. H. (1994). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: theory and practice in social research. Cambridge university press. 85. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 86. Remenyi, D. Williams, B. Money, A and Swartz, E., (1998), Doing research in business and management: an introduction to process and methods, Sage publications, London. 87. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G (1982) Sociological paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann. 88. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2012). Management research. London Sage. 89. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell publishers. 90. Friedman, Kayla (2012) Lectures on Introduction to Research. Cambridge IDBE. VLE portal. http://mst.iceonline.cam.ac.uk/my/, accessed March 2015. 91. Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing; theory, technique, and cases. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

120

92. Komninos, N., Schaffers, H., & Pallot, M. (2011). Developing a Policy Roadmap for Smart Cities and the Future Internet. E-Challenges e2011, 1–8. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2013.6525605.

93. Lau, A. (2012). Masdar City: A model of urban environmental sustainability. Social Sciences Available at: http://www.

Stanford.

Edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/2012/09/Lau_SocSci_2012. Pdf, [Accessed 22 February 2013].

94. Lazaroiu, G. C., & Roscia, M. (2012).Definition methodology for the smart cities model. Energy, 47(1), 326332.

95. Paroutis, S., Bennett, M., & Heracleous, L. (2013). A strategic view on smart city technology: The case of IBM Smarter Cities during a recession. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

96. Paskaleva, K. A. (2009). Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 405-422.

97. Rios, P. (2012). Creating" The Smart City" (Doctoral dissertation).

98. S. & Bari, N., 2012. A Development Framework for Smart City Services. Available at: http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/41493781/LTU-EX-2012-41209202.pdf

99. Tranos, E., & Gertner, D. (2012). Smart networked cities? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 175-190.

100.

Washburn, D., Sindhu, U., Balaouras, S., Dines, R. A., Hayes, N., & Nelson, L. E. (2009). Helping CIOs

Understand “Smart City” Initiatives. Growth, 17. 101. Vasconcellos, E. A. (2014). Urban Transport Environment and Equity: The Case for Developing Countries. Routledge.

102. Sorensen, Andre, and Okata, (2010). Megacities: urban form, governance, and sustainability. Vol. 10. Springer Science & Business Media.

121

103. Verebes, T. (2013). Masterplanning the adaptive city: computational urbanism in the twenty-first century. Routledge.

122

7.

Appendix Interview Sample (Condensed)

A Stakeholder Based Assessment of Smart City – Smart Mobility Initiatives Deployment Challenges and Solutions: A Case of Lahore Name Organization Qualifications Occupation Signature 1. How would you define a ‘Smart City’? 2. How would you define ‘Smart Mobility’? 3. Are you currently involved in or associated with any projects related to smart city or related initiatives, planning or research? Please describe one of the projects. 4. Do you think Lahore should move towards becoming a smart city? Yes OR No Reasons 5. Do you think Lahore is ready for smart interventions (technology based or otherwise) to resolve urban problems. Enumerate some of the problems you face: 6. What do you think is the most pressing urban problem of Lahore specifically in terms transportation and mobility? 7.Do you think there should be more smart mobility initiatives in Lahore OR do you think Lahore is doing enough already? Give reasons for your position. 8. What type of smart interventions/infrastructural facilities do you want to see more in Lahore? Rank on a scale of 1 to 5 [1 low; 5 high] Facilities Rank Rainwater and harvesting irrigation Waste water treatment Sustainable water resource management Smart solutions for natural recourse management Sustainable transport infrastructure Accessible to public Wi-Fi networks E-workplaces Green infrastructure Compact Mixed-use development E- governance High tech industrial park 9. What are some of major challenges (in order of intensity) you see in transportation and mobility systems in Lahore to overcome your identified problems. What solutions do you propose? Challenges to overcome problems Proposed solution

123

10. Do you think Citizen Participation(C), Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Role of Government (G) and Smart Mentality (M) play a key role in better smart mobility adoption and successful implementation? Factors Key Role is [low, medium or high] Reasons C ICT G M 11. How much time would you allocate to your identified problems/challenge’s solution implementation? Problem/solution Time allocated for solution implementation

12. What percentage of city development budget should be allocated to smart mobility initiatives? 13. Can you think of any other creative ways (out of the box solutions) within the Lahore context to resolve your identified smart mobility problems?

14. Which government organization should lead smart mobility initiatives? Name of organization At Federal Level

Reasons

At Provincial Level At City Level

15. Do you think creation of a smart mobility task force is the solution to the problem? What organizations would you include in such an institutional arrangement? Organizations 1) 2) 3) 16. Borrowing from a global context which Smart Mobility Initiatives/technologies would work best in the Lahore context. Rank on scale from 0 to 5. [5 Hi; 0 Lo] Sr. SMART TECHNOLOGIES Ranking 1

Sharing economy initiatives

2

Car pooling

3

Air quality index sensors deployment for transport impact alert

124

4

Energy profiling in transport options

5

Road power generation (Car motion generates power)

6

Piezo-electric tiles (Power from pedestrian energy)

7

Electric Vehicles Deployment

8

Non-motorized options like bicycles

9

Mopeds deployment (Scalable Bike Rentals for public transport)

10

Driverless car

11

Autolib (Scalable and distributed Car Rentals for public transport)

12

VeLib (Scalable and Distributed Bicycle Rentals for public transport)

13

Congestion Tax (UK)

17. Smart Mobility deployments globally are relatively large scale projects with their unique challenges typical of mega projects. Do you agree or not? Give reasons for your position: 18. If yes to 17 then to what extent do you think the ‘Mega Project’ phenomenon (Flyvbjerg’s sublimes) would impact smart mobility project dynamics specifically in the Lahore (developing country) context? Give reasons for assessment in the light of your selected smart mobility project or challenges. Flyvbjerg’s Project Sublimes Medium Low Reasons High Technological Political Economic Aesthetic Additional Questions Thought experiment based City Visioning 19. Imagine waking up in the city of future. Describe your typical day from waking up in the morning going to walk and recreational activity in the evening with special focus on usage of mobility systems. 20. What THREE words would you associate with smart city and smart mobility? Smart City

Smart Mobility

125