Search

In the last decades, planners have explored various approaches to sustainable urban planning and development. Scholars widely argued the limits to uncontrolled physical growth, to the exploitation of resources, and the necessity of finding alternatives. Within the general framework of sustainability, urban planners are in the search for approaches aimed at coping with current uncertainties that cities have to face, based on the deterioration of natural-socio-cultural environments and uncontrollable economic and financial flows. Notwithstanding, the rise of post-industrial urban economies has introduced Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as successful devices that are proposed for the fulfillment of sustainability and for the interpretation of uncertainties. Then, the "label: Smart" has emerged as a specific approach to sustainability based on ICTs as opportunities to create networks, to collect a wide amount of data (the so-called "big-data"), to improve urban planning. The rising debate about Smart Cities and Communities is widely supported by the EU through the homonym programs, partnerships, and so forth. Meanwhile, various corporations are investing in order to spread out the message that ICTs are powerful devices for the pursuit of better life. Scholars such as Townsend (2001), Allwinkle et al. (2011), Batty (2013), Anthopoulos et al. (2013) and Bettencourt (2013) have focused the potentials generated by the relationship amongst big data, networks and urban planning. On another side, some critical reflections about the rhetoric use of the term "Smart" have been proposed, such as in Hollands (2008). At the local scale, a growing number of cities are adopting the "label: Smart" through initiatives supported by administrators and non-governmental organizations, while some skeptics argue that the "label: Smart" is just a trend. Within this variegated cultural framework, experts agree on one point: ICTs are not a panacea; ICTs alone cannot solve any problem. The central question is: "does the "label: Smart" apply anywhere at the same way? This paper presents lessons learnt through an empirical research conducted in three metropolitan cities in South Italy aimed at exploring how the framework "Smart" may improve urban planning in cities with lacks in planning processes. Authors argue that organized networks of citizens and institutions are needed in order to improve the smartness of a city, using technologies as supports for more inclusive and informed decision making processes, i.e. as a tool not as a goal for an effective smartness. The Paper discusses primary findings of a Research Project conducted at University of Naples, DICEA, funded by EU ((PON 04A2_00120 R & C Axis II), "Smart Energy Master - Toward Energy-based approaches for Regional Planning". Methodology is based on case study whose sources of evidence are: quantitative indicators; archival documents, excerpts of key-stakeholders' interviews. Findings show the two-fold use of technologies for cities: isolated and episodic experiments, or coordinated and well-connected initiatives, being the second experiences feasible approaches for improving urban planning in challenging South-European cities. References Anthopoulos L.G., Vakali A. (2013), "Urban Planning and Smart Cities: Interrelations and Reprocities" The Future Internet: 178-189, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin. Batty, Michael (2013), "Big data, smart cities and city planning" Dialogues in Human Geography 3: 274/279. Bettencourt, Louis (2013), The Uses of Big Data in Cities. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper, Santa Fe. Allwinkle, Sam, and Peter Cruickshank (2011), "Creating smart-er cities: An overview." Journal of Urban Technology 18.2: 1-16. Townsend, A. (2001), "Network Cities and the Global Structure of the Internet." American Behavioral Scientist 10.44: 1697-1716 Hollands, Robert (2008), "Will the real Smart City please stand up?" City 12.3: 303/320.

Previous studies have investigated how resilience can play a pivotal role in strategic urban design in the Netherlands and in some regional and municipal planning laws in Italy. Here, we have analysed several European projects that utilised the resilience approach successfully. Dutch policies already include resilience and climate adaptation in urban strategies. Moreover, they share those strategies with urban communities, making the innovation of the city real and cutting-edge. In Italy, on the other hand, the concept of resilience is present only in some regional laws and is still not used as an urban tool. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate how resilience can become the new paradigm of smart planning. Furthermore, we demonstrate how resilience is fundamental at all levels of urban intervention, involving municipal authorities, architects and urban planners, firms and enterprises, citizens and communities. The urban governance must establish specific goals and objectives to create a smart and sustainable city. Resilience should be one of these main aims, in order to achieve an innovative city design. A climate strategy should also be part of urban smart planning, enabling the implementation of a safer and resilient city.

With most of the global population and capital goods concentrated in urban areas, cities are key to social development and economic prosperity. They are drivers of national economic growth and innovation, and act as cultural and creative centers. Many development partners and other organizations are active on the topic of resilience in cities, and there has been a recent upswing in the development and promotion of innovate programs, tools, and initiatives. Arup International and the Rockefeller Foundation have developed the city resilience framework, which provides a lens through which the complexity of cities and the numerous factors that contribute to a city’s resilience can be understood. The framework is being used to facilitate agenda-setting sessions in cities selected to participate in the 100 resilient cities challenge. Within this global context, the city strength diagnostic was developed to help World Bank staff apply this new holistic approach to urban resilience to operations. It was designed to help facilitate a dialogue among stakeholders (for example, government, civil society, residents, and the private sector) about risks, resilience, and the performance of urban systems. The city strength diagnostic results in the identification of priority actions and investments that will enhance the city’s resilience as well as increase the resilience building potential of planned or aspirational projects. It stresses a holistic and integrated approach that encourages cross-sectoral collaborations to more efficiently tackle existing issues and to unlock opportunities within the city.

Thailand needs to avoid the high-carbon growth path of many developed countries and, instead, take a low-carbon growth path. A green low-carbon growth path is in Thailand's own interest as it can simultaneously tackle local environmental degradation, global climate change, and energy security challenges. It can also position Thailand as a regional leader in green, sustainable growth. Green low-carbon growth in Thailand could focus on the following four pillars: 1) maintaining rapid economic growth while adjusting the country's economic structure toward a less energy, and carbon-intensive economy; 2) achieving greater urbanization while shifting toward green livable low-carbon cities; 3) meeting the huge thirst for energy while transforming the energy sector toward one of high energy efficiency and widespread diffusion of low-carbon technologies; and 4) improving quality of life while shifting toward a resource-efficient and sustainable lifestyle.