Search results

The chapter advances some critical reflections around commons and commoning in the smart city. It suggests that so-called smart commons – that is, forms of ownership of data and digital infrastructure increasingly central to the discourse around appropriation and co-production of smart technologies – tends to focus more on the outcome (open data or free software) rather than the process which maintains and reproduces such commons. Thus, the chapter makes a positional argument for a “smart approach” to the commons, advocating for a central role for the public as a stakeholder in advancing, nurturing, and maintaining urban commons in the smart city. The argument is illustrated through three brief case studies which reflect on instances of commons and commoning in relation to the implementation of public Internet infrastructure.

This chapter examines the teaching practice of the author in the Faculty of Education, University of Malta, taking sessions in smart learning as part of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) study units in Bachelors of Education and Masters in Teaching and Learning degree programs between 2017 and 2019. My teaching sessions ran concurrent with undertaking separate doctoral research investigating how participants experience “smart learning journeys.” Smart learning journeys in the research were conceptualized as real-world journeys, with geo-spatially relevant points of interest forming a journey of locations related to a topic of learning, providing context-aware content via digital interactions. Research was not connected to teaching practice, though students who took TEL units also participated in the same smart learning journey activity as part of their syllabus.

Though teaching sessions were not part of my research, my classroom practice modified as a result of emerging research findings, and my teaching benefited as I gained deeper understanding about smart learning activities and the role of the learner in them. Using dialogic learning methods and techniques inspired from my research interview methodology, class sessions became noticeably more effective as students engaged directly in discovering their own learning from having participated in the smart learning journey.

Smart city developments have been subjected to technocratic envisioning and neoliberal urban developments. However, there have been attempts to reclaim the right to the city through organizing civic initiatives to widen the access to the making of future technologies and cities. This chapter draws on Mouffe’s concept of agonistic relations to explore the diversifying ideals, rhetoric, and practices of hackathon organization to consider how they might cooperate with or contest one another and provide alternative means to technology and city making. The chapter analyzes different ways of organizing hackathons and discusses the opportunities for participants with diverse social backgrounds, knowledges and technical competences to join and work together. By examining the conflictual positions, articulations, and arrangements to widen participation, the chapter suggests that more open, inclusive, and collaborative city-making events might be possible. Further work is needed to examine conflictual hackathon participation practices and other civic initiatives to pursue a more egalitarian smart city.

This chapter discusses the involvement of procurement in smart city development. Procurement plays a vital role in the development of strategies in planning, and execution in the construction industry. This is further introduced into smart city to find the best possible methods of bringing the ideas behind smart city into realisation. The common procurement methods are explained along with their involvement in smart city. Common drawbacks to smart cities procurement and measures to challenges in the procurement of smart city are also explicitly explained in the chapter. Through an identified and accepted procurement method into smart city, the processes involved in executing smart city will be the ones with directions and proper planning.

The term smartness has been discussed in the academia for many years; prior research has listed numerous advantages and encouraged business entities to implement smart technologies. However, stakeholders’ knowledge level, support intention and barriers to smart technology have been under investigated. Without the support of stakeholders, smart projects can hardly be implemented. This paper aims to explore the above-mentioned under investigated area and identify the gaps between academia and the hotel industry in Taiwan.

In-depth interviews were conducted with nine hotel stakeholders in Taiwan with investors, owners, managers, technology suppliers and information technology consultants. Three key areas were focused on: smart hotel definition, expectations from smart hotel and known barriers for implementing smart technologies.

The definition of smart hotel among all stakeholders was inconsistent. Stakeholders defined a smart hotel according to their role in the organization: revenue boost, service customization, operations effectiveness and in-room automation. However, the key functions of smart technologies, such as interconnectivity and interoperability with business partners’ application (e.g. online travel agencies) and linkage to external Big data for accurate revenue forecast, were not mentioned by the interviewees. In addition, social media monitoring, robots and artificial intelligence were not mentioned during the interview.

This study attempted to identify Taiwanese hotel stakeholders’ perspective on smart hotel and to compare the outcome with academic research. The result indicated that there is a big gap in the definition of “smart hotel” among stakeholders and academia and reflected several barriers that prohibit hotel owners and investors in implementing smart systems.

Social entrepreneurship is an area that has been extensively researched from a variety of angles and across a broad range of academic disciplines. Parallel to this, practitioners have applied social entrepreneurship ideas to a variety of industries and at varying degrees of complexity. The purpose of this study is to understand how the social capital of an entrepreneur drives the growth of social enterprises by contributing to the social entrepreneur skills. A systematic assessment of available literature was carried out based on searches of major academic databases (Web of Science, EBSCO and CAPES Portal de Periódicos), with an initial list of 3,106 publications being narrowed down to 472 articles that were subjected to content analysis after being narrowed down. Further, a theoretical proposal and research propositions were developed, highlighting the relationship between social capital and the activities of social entrepreneurs, as well as their relationships with the collective actors and institutions that make up social entrepreneurship in its totality. The conclusion of the chapter is that the interface between social entrepreneurship and social capital is a latent field for research. Further contributions of the chapter are a theoretical model to help researchers consolidate their efforts by identifying three key themes identified by intensive literature: creation of social capital by the social entrepreneur, relationships between institutions and the formation of groups and social capital as a formation of groups. In these words, a future agenda for discussing these topics is outlined for discussion.

The current datafication of cities raises questions about what Lefebvre and many after him have called “the right to the city.” In this contribution, I investigate how the use of data for civic purposes may strengthen the “right to the datafied city,” that is, the degree to which different people engage and participate in shaping urban life and culture, and experience a sense of ownership. The notion of the commons acts as the prism to see how data may serve to foster this participatory “smart citizenship” around collective issues. This contribution critically engages with recent attempts to theorize the city as a commons. Instead of seeing the city as a whole as a commons, it proposes a more fine-grained perspective of the “commons-as-interface.” The “commons-as-interface,” it is argued, productively connects urban data to the human-level political agency implied by “the right to the city” through processes of translation and collectivization. The term is applied to three short case studies, to analyze how these processes engender a “right to the datafied city.” The contribution ends by considering the connections between two seemingly opposed discourses about the role of data in the smart city – the cybernetic view versus a humanist view. It is suggested that the commons-as-interface allows for more detailed investigations of mediation processes between data, human actors, and urban issues.