Smarter Cities Through Shared Data: Why Tech Alone Won’t Save Our Urban Future

Let’s imagine a mid-sized city—let’s call it “Fairfields”. Fairfields has a long-standing issue with traffic congestion, which locals believe is causing spikes in air pollution. Fairfields Hospital is also dealing with an overstretched healthcare system. 

Each Fairfields governmental department has its own digital infrastructure: the transport office uses traffic sensors, the environmental agency monitors air quality and the public hospital collects health data. But none of this data is shared; each department only has access to its own data records.

Now, imagine Fairfields implements a shared data platform—a secure, transparent space—where anonymised data from transport, environmental and health sectors can be pooled together and analysed within context.

Fairfields City Council now discovers that certain crossroads are constantly jammed during school drop-off hours thanks to the traffic data. The air pollution spikes in those zones, as detected by the air quality sensors. And, the hospital’s health records have picked up a pattern of asthma-related hospital visits from neighbourhoods in surrounding areas.

Fairfields springs into action. It introduces a rideshare initiative and installs smart traffic light systems to reduce congestion, rerouting heavy vehicle traffic away from schools. 

Et voila—roads are clearer, pollution is lessened and the burden on Fairfields Hospital’s respiratory department drops significantly. Both healthcare and the health of the local community improve, resulting in a happier, safer population. Go Fairfields!

Cities as we know them are unsustainable 

From gridlocked streets to skyrocketing emissions, today’s cities are grappling with unprecedented pressures. As urban populations swell, so too does the climate crisis. Traditional infrastructure is simply buckling under the weight of modern demands. To mitigate these challenges, it’s time for our cities to get smarter.

According to one recent report from the German Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building (BMWSB), COVID-19 motivated cities across the world “to reach out for data, technological tools and data-based interventions”. Seoul, for example, used its data infrastructure to implement contact tracing, whereas “Melbourne used its pedestrian counting system to monitor activity in the city and inform recovery initiatives”. 

Enter: The “smart city”

So, the so-called smart city is not a new idea. The concept is a vision for urban living grounded in using technology to create more sustainable, efficient and responsive environments, and it’s been circulating since the 1990s. However, as rapid urbanisation collides with the digital revolution at increasing speed, it’s become clear that the smart city is no longer just a futuristic vision, but a necessary response to some of the most urgent challenges of our time.

By integrating digital solutions into everything from energy systems to public transport, smart cities are positioning themselves on the front lines of the fight against climate change and the energy transition.

However, challenges persist. 

Smart cities need more than tech: they need trust

While smart city technology is widely available, many cities struggle to put it into practice. An example is Toronto’s Quayside project. Led by Sidewalk Labs (a subsidiary of Alphabet, the parent company to Google), it aimed to build a data-optimised smart neighbourhood to improve everything from transport to energy use. Its sleek 2017 proposal boasted building “raincoats”— expandable canopies that could retract and expand in response to weather conditions, modular wooden pavements, autonomous vehicles and affordable housing.

Obviously, access to cutting-edge technology was not an issue for Alphabet. However, unclear data governance, a lack of transparency and mistrust between public and private stakeholders meant that Quayside was ultimately cancelled in 2020. 

Much of the criticism was levelled at the project’s backers. Big tech has been behind many smart city initiatives, raising concerns about profit motives and the commodification of citizen data. While Sidewalk Labs pitched the idea of a public “data trust” to protect privacy, critics weren’t convinced. As Jim Balsillie, co-founder of BlackBerry-maker Research in Motion, put it, Quayside felt like “a colonising experiment in surveillance capitalism.”

That point, whilst dramatic, highlights the main public concern. Many worry that smart city tech serves corporate interests first, communities second. And, not without reason. Tech giants are businesses after all, not public service providers. Data, specifically user data, is fundamental to their business model. It fuels their services, shapes their strategies and drives their profits. While this fact doesn’t automatically disqualify them from shaping the cities of the future, it certainly does mean that their projects within our cities and homes deserve scrutiny.

This goes to show—without robust and inclusive data-sharing agreements and, vitally, public education and approval—even the most sophisticated and well-funded smart city plans can break down. 

Smart cities are social systems 

After all, cities are built on people and communities, not on sensors, servers or sales. Likewise, smart cities don’t live on a circuit board or in a boardroom; they’re a “sociotechnical system of systems”, a living organism that thrives when technical and social systems work in tandem.

A recent guidebook by the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland proposed that a way to boost the success of smart cities could be via data sharing, rather than in spite of it, as our Sidewalk Labs example might suggest. The report argues that the development of smart cities requires various skillsets, investments and technologies and that a collaborative approach simply makes sense. Remember Fairfields? Think about it. Why should each department or company build its system in isolation when shared infrastructure and open standards could improve efficiency across the board? 

Although, the authors do point out that transparency is key to ensuring that the public is on board. The authors of the guidebook, Pasi Pussanen, Jutta Suksi and Maija Federley, told RESET that “the key for driving active citizen engagement in data-sharing initiatives is to ensure transparency in the development phase of data-based services and simplicity in using these services.” This could include anything from “from awareness building to active participants of data sharing and data using.”

Shared data puts people first

A real life success story is Hamburg, Germany. A well-known frontrunner in smart city polls year on year, Hamburg’s overall city-wide digital strategy focuses on improving residents’ quality of life while making the city eco-friendly and economically attractive.

So, quite a tall task. But, it seems to be working. Since 2018, the main focuses of Hamburg’s transformation process are: sustainable and efficient technology, an urban data platform and a standardised and decentralised data exchange ecosystem. The Urban Data Platform, for example, is a robust, decentralised data exchange that uses standardised APIs to connect city systems and databases. It provides real-time, open data to improve decision-making capabilities and add value in mobility, urban planning, public services and other important domains. Hamburg won second place in the Smart City Ranking 2024 with 86.2 out of a possible 100 points. 

But, crucially, at the heart of this digital strategy is transparency. The Digital Strategy for Hamburg, adopted by the Senate in 2020, emphasises strengthening proactive citizen participation and the city’s 2022 Action Plan was developed “in cooperation with civil society organisations, citizens and administrative staff.” Meanwhile, transparency and security are at the heart of its data governance. Hamburg’s “share, use, protect” approach ensures that data is accessible, while strict privacy and security measures safeguard citizen information. 

So, the strategy is people-centred, aiming to enhance quality of life through sustainable and inclusive digital solutions based on a shared data ecosystem and participation. But, fundamentally, without sacrificing privacy or involving  Big Tech. 

New regulations might help cities strike a balance

In the EU at least, regulations regarding data sharing and privacy mitigate some of the risks that aspiring smart cities face. The Data Governance Act, on the one hand, aims to increase trust in voluntary data sharing. The Data Act, on the other hand, seeks to boost innovation by removing barriers to data access. The latter also helps to answer another common question: who owns the data within a smart city ecosystem? According to the authors of the Data Ecosystems for Smart Sustainable Cities guidebook, “Each data holder within a smart city ecosystem should have control over access to and usage of their data”, making them the sovereign of their data. Sharing of data should be, and is being encouraged by, for example, the Common European Data Spaces Act. 

While cities that follow the recommendations set out by the regulations will be compliant, there are more important outcomes at stake. Those who embrace the balanced approach of Hamburg will be better equipped to leverage data as a tool for improving urban life, reducing emissions and enhancing the overall quality of life of its residents. 

But how should we measure the success of smart city initiatives? 

RESET put this question to Kirsi-Maria Hyytinen, Research team leader, Future-Proof Societies. According to Hyytinen, traditional smart city indicators, on the one hand, “often fall short in capturing the broader societal outcomes that matter most to citizens.” On the other hand, “future-proof cities prioritise a comprehensive, value-driven and future-oriented approach—one that integrates long-term environmental, social, cultural and economic considerations into decision-making and performance assessment.”  She points to VTT’s Impact Leadership model, which advocates for “evidence-based and goal-oriented urban governance”, that contributes to societal well-being, inclusivity and resilience.

By grounding success metrics in societal value, cities can ensure that technological progress contributes meaningfully to the creation of happy, resilient and sustainable urban futures. 

In the end, the future of smart cities depends on a commitment to the common good—where technology and human-centred values go hand in hand.

The post Smarter Cities Through Shared Data: Why Tech Alone Won’t Save Our Urban Future appeared first on Digital for Good | RESET.ORG.