| Title | Smart city visions: pathways to participatory planning in two American cities |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 37655 |
| Authors | Fletcher, AL |
| Title | Smart city visions: pathways to participatory planning in two American cities |
| Year | 2020 |
| Published | Foresight, 22.0, 5-6 |
| Abstract | Purpose This paper aims to evaluate the use of community visioning in Montgomery, Alabama and Chattanooga, Tennessee, as each municipality seeks to become a globally competitive 21st century smart city while also fostering participatory and inclusive planning processes. Design/methodology/approach This research is qualitative, drawing upon discourse analysis of relevant mass media and public documents to map the consultation process and identify the key themes and challenges arising in the two visioning projects. Findings Montgomery and Chattanooga are committed to using participatory visioning to generate inclusive pathways to smart city status by 2040. Each used the local utility company as the key platform to enable a smart city because of each company's inclusive demographic reach and historical status. The two cities are at different stages of the smart city trajectory and each faces ongoing challenges in ensuring that the benefits of smart city development reach beyond elites to include communities across racial and economic lines. To date, the planning process in each city is more accurately classified as a responsive community visioning rather than participatory. Research limitations/implications This is a pilot assessment of community visioning in Montgomery and Chattanooga. Implementation of each vision is ongoing and further research is needed to illuminate how each city meets ongoing challenges and opportunities, particularly in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and its flow-on economic and social shocks. Originality/value The value of this work lies in the comparison of community visioning across two mid-sized and diverse American cities in the Southern region that must compete with larger and more established technology-hubs in both the USA and globally for investment, amenities and human capital. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
42810
|
Lung-Amam, W; Bierbaum, AH; Parks, S; Knaap, GJ; Sunderman, G; Stamm, L Toward Engaged, Equitable, and Smart Communities: Lessons From West Baltimore(2021)Housing Policy Debate, 31, 1 | |
| 38815
|
Del-Real, C; Ward, C; Sartipi, M What do people want in a smart city? Exploring the stakeholders' opinions, priorities and perceived barriers in a medium-sized city in the United States(2023) | |
| 42878
|
Jung, JK; Kang, JE Smart Engagement and Smart Urbanism: Integrating "The Smart" Into Participatory Planning and Community Engagement(2023)Urban Planning, 8, 2 | |
| 45291
|
Choo, M; Choi, YW; Yoon, H; Bin Bae, S; Yoon, DK Citizen Engagement in Smart City Planning: The Case of Living Labs in South Korea(2023)Urban Planning, 8, 2 | |
| 36035
|
Edge, S; Boluk, K; Groulx, M; Quick, M Exploring diverse lived experiences in the Smart City through Creative Analytic Practice(2020) | |
| 38001
|
Meenar, M; Afzalan, N Urban planners' roles, perceptions, needs, and concerns in smart city planning: a survey of U.S. planners(2023)International Planning Studies, 28, 1 | |
| 45000
|
Wang, CHJ; Steinfeld, E; Maisel, JL; Kang, B Is your smart city inclusive? Evaluating proposals from the US Department of Transportation's Smart City Challenge(2021) | |
| 37644
|
Thomas, V; Wang, D; Mullagh, L; Dunn, N Where's Wally? In Search of Citizen Perspectives on the Smart City(2016)Sustainability, 8.0, 3 | |
| 39230
|
Alverti, M; Hadjimitsis, D; Kyriakidis, P; Serraos, K Smart City Planning From A "Bottom-Up" Approach: Local Communities' Intervention For A Smarter Urban Environment(2016) | |
| 43040
|
Kitchin, R Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings(2015)Cambridge Journal Of Regions Economy And Society, 8, 1 |