Part V Sustainable Habitat
13.5 Conclusions
Our analysis highlights the differences in institutional, social and economic envi- ronment that shape the Belgrade Waterfront Project. At the same time, the BWP induced a substantial change of institutional framework (introduction of specific legal and policy instruments) under neoliberal economic pressure, which represents a key source of future changes in the metropolitan tissue. The benchmarking of the developmental effects of the BWP especially underlined: intensive social inequalities, marginal social mobilization of the key actors and stakeholders, intensive impacts on national level, high displacement effects, high public financial risks, strong urban transformations, low development and economic effects, low transparency and public participation, environmental impacts, etc.
The specific nature of the BWP requires specific instruments, including legal, financial, economic, construction, environmental, and more innovative and flexi- ble urban land instruments. The proposed recommendations for their improvement would result in better development effects for the city.
Decentralization of regulation powers is important from the standpoint of plan- ning, decision-making, governance, control, and implementation of megaprojects.
It provides recommendations for future research and application, for a continuing in-depth analysis to mitigate all consequences of the UMPs, including determination of the interplay between different pools of power (“from power to tower”).
Acknowledgements This paper is the result of research carried out within the scientific project Support to Process of Urban Development in Serbia(SPUDS) funded by the SCOPES program of the Swiss National Science Foundation, (2015–2018) and the scientific projectThe role and imple- mentation of the national spatial plan and regional development documents in renewal of strategic research, thinking and governance inSerbia No. 47014 financed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia.
References
Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003).Mega-projects: The changing, politics of urban public invest- ment. Washington, D.C., Cambridge, Mass: Brookings Institution Press.
Bancroft, I. (2015). Op-ed: Beograd na Vodi, the White City’s latest rupture.Balkanist Maga- zine. 27, November 2015.http://balkanist.net/beograd-na-vodi-the-white-citys-latest-rupture-2/.
Accessed November 25, 2015.
Brenner, N. (1998). Global cities formation, and state territorial restructuring in contemporary Europe.Review of International Political Economy, 5(1), 1–37.
Brenner, N. (1999). Globalisation as reterritorialisation: The re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union.Urban Studies, 36,431–451.
Brenner, N. (2004).New state spaces: Urban governance and rescaling of statehood. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (1972).La Question Urbaine. Paris: Maspero.
Cochrane, A. (2006).Understanding urban policy: A critical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davis, D. E., & Dewey, O. F. (2013). How to defeat an urban megaproject: Lessons from Mexico City’s airport controversy. In G. del Cerro Santamaria (Ed.),Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view,research in urban sociology (Vol. 13, pp. 287–315). Bingley: Emerald books.
del Cerro Santamaria, G. (Ed.). (2013). Urban megaprojects: A worldwide view.Research in Urban Sociology, 13(Bingley: Emerald books).
Dewey, O. F., & Davis, D. (2013). Planning, politics, and urban mega-projects in developmen- tal context: Lessons from Mexico City’s airport controversy.Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(5), 531–551.
Dogan, E. (2015). City on the rise: Mega projects vs. public resistance. In A. Gospodini. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Changing Cities II Spatial, Design, Landscape
& Socio-economic Dimensions.University of Thessaly, Porto Heli, Greece, June 22–26, pp.
743–750.
Eror, A. (2015, December 11). Belgrade’s “top-down” gentrification is far worse than any cereal café.The Guardian.http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/dec/10/belgrade-top-down- gentrification-worse-than-cereal-cafe. Accessed December 21, 2015.
Fainstein, S. (2009). Mega-projects in New York, London and Amsterdam.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 768.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets build and what can do about it.Oxford Review Economic Policy, 25(3), 344–367.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2013). How planners deal with uncomfortable knowledge: The dubious ethics of the American Planning Association (APA).Cities, 32,157–163.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014a).Megaproject planning and management: Essential readings(Vol. 1–2). MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014b). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview.Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003).Megaprojects and risks: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S., & Buhl, S. L. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects:
Error or lie?Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279–295.
Gellert, P., & Lynch, D. B. (2003). Megaprojects as displacements.International Social Science Journal, 175,15–25.
Harvey, D. (1973).Social justice and the city. London: Edward Arnold.
Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban gover- nance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler.Series B Human Geography, 71(1), 3–17.
Harvey, D. (2012).Rebel cities: From the Right to the city to the urban revolution. London: Verso.
Kennedy, L. (2013). Large scale projects shaping urban futures. A preliminary report on strategies, governance and outcomes based on eight case studies in four countries. Bonn: EADI.
Kennedy, L., Robbins, G., Bon, B., Takano, G, Varrel, A., & Anrade, J. (2014).Megaprojects and urban development in cities of the south.Thematic Report, 5(Chance2Sustain).
Kennedy, L., Robbins, G., Scott, D., Sutherland, C., Denis, E., & Anrade, J. (2011). The politics of large-scale economic and infrastructure projects in fast-growing cities of the south.Literature Review, 3(Chance2Sustain).
Kontrapress. (2014, October 30). Ispod površine Beograda na vodi: Planovi i posledice (Under- ground of Belgrade Waterfront: Plans and consequences),http://www.kontrapress.com/clanak.
php?url=Ispod-povrsine-Beograda-na-vodi-Planovi-i-posledice. Accessed November 18, 2015.
Lefebvre, H. (1970).La Révolution Urbaine. Paris: Gallimard.
McFarlane, C. (2010). The comparative city: Knowledge, learning, urbanism.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34,725–742.
McFarlane, C. (2011). Assemblage and Critical urban Praxis.City, 15,204–224.
Rankin, K. N. (2011). Assemblage and the politics of thick description.City, 15,563–569.
Roy, A. (2003). Urban informality. Towards an epistemology of planning.Journal of the American Planning Association, 71,147–158.
Sassen, S. (2008).Territory, authority, rights; from medieval to global assemblages. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2015). The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1), 1–15.
Sellers, J. M. (2002).Governing from below: Urban regions and the global economy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shatkin, G. (2011). Planning privatopolis: representation and contestation in the development of urban integrated mega-projects. In A. Roy & A. Ong (Eds.),Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global(pp. 77–97). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Slaev, A. D. (2017). The relationship between planning and the market from the perspective of property rights theory: A transaction cost analysis.Planning Theory, 16(3), 404–424.
Swyngedouw, E. (1996). Reconstructing citizenship, the rescaling of the state and the new author- itarianism: Closing the Belgian mines.Urban Studies, 33(8), 1499–1521.
UN-Habitat. (2009).Planning sustainable cities. Global report on human settlements. London:
Earthscan.
Vujoševi´c, M., Zekovi´c, S., & Mariˇci´c, T. (2010).Postsocijalistiˇcka tranzicija u Srbiji i teritorijalni kapital Srbije. Stanje, neki budu´ci izgledi i predvidljivi scenariji (Postsocialist transition in Serbia and territorial capital of Serbia. Condition, some future prospects and foreseeable scenarios).
Beograd: Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije.
Watson, V. (2012). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues.Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259–2275.
Zekovi´c, S., Vujoševi´c, M., & Mariˇci´c, T. (2015a). Spatial regularization, planning instruments and urban land market in a post-socialist society: The case of Belgrade.Habitat International, 48, 65–78.
Zekovi´c, S., Vujoševi´c, M., Bolay, J. C., Cvetinovi´c, M., Živanovi´c-Miljkovi´c, J., & Mariˇci´c, T.
(2015b). Planning and land policy tools for limiting urban sprawl: Example of Belgrade.Spatium, 33,69–75.
Legal Acts and Plans
Lex specialis—The Law Establishing the Public Interest and Special Procedures of Expropriation and the Issuance of Construction Permit for the Project “Belgrade Waterfront”. Official Gazette of RS, No. 34/2015.
Ordnance of pre-feasibility study. Official Gazette of RS, No. 1/2012.
Ordnance/Pravilnik o metodologiji i proceduri realizacije projekata od znaˇcaja za Republiku Srbiju.
Official Gazette of RS, No. 59/2006 and 1/2012.
Regulation/Uredba o uslovima i postupku otu -denja ili davanja u zakup gra -devinskog zemljišta u javnoj svojini RS po ceni manjoj od tržišne ili bez naknade. Official Gazette of RS, No. 67/2011, 85/2011, 23/2012 and 55/2012.
The Act confirming the Agreement on Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Government of United Arab Emirates (Zakon o potvr -divanju Sporazuma o saradnji izme -du Vlade Republike Srbije i Vlade Ujedinjenih Arapskih Emirata). Official Gazette of RS, No. 3/2013. http://www.salter.rs/zakoni/me%C4%91unarodni/zakon-o-potvr%C4%91ivanju- sporazuma-o-saradnji-izme%C4%91u-vlade-republike-srbije-i-vlade. Accessed November 13, 2015.
The Agreement on Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Gov- ernment of United Arab Emirates. (2013). Official Gazette of RS, No. 3/2013.
The Amendments on the Master plan of Belgrade(Izmene i dopune Generalnog plana Beograda 2021). (2014). Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade, No. 70/2014.
The Belgrade waterfront Spatial plan(Prostorni plan podruˇcja posebne namene ure -denja dela priobalja grada Beograda – podruˇcje priobalja reke Save za projekat “Beograd na vodi”). Official Gazette of RS, No. 7/2015.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
What Can the South Learn from the North Regarding the Implementation of IoT Solutions in Cities? The Case of Seoul-Born Smart Transportation Card Implementation in Bogota
Maxime Audouin and Matthias Finger
14.1 Introduction
Over the past decade, the urban population of the Global South has been grow- ing at an average rate of 1.2 million people per week (UN Habitat2013), bringing developing countries to center stage on issues relating to urban development. Due to continuous urbanization and growth, cities have become increasingly complex envi- ronments (McHale and al.2015; Hillier2009), calling for the development of inno- vative solutions to ensure service delivery and well-being of their citizens. Collecting and processing the data produced by the operation of urban infrastructure systems, such as transportation, telecommunication, water, waste, or energy, can actually be seen as one of those solutions. Creating an interconnected network (Internet) of physical components from urban infrastructure systems (Things), that is to say the Internet of Things (IoT) (Dijkman and al.2015), is indeed viewed as an efficient way to deal with much of the complexity associated with urban systems (Zanella et al.
2014), and for enhancing development. As a matter of fact, IoT solutions appear as having the potential to support the development of solutions contributing to make cities more resilient, sustainable, safe, and inclusive (SDG 11) and more generally to environmental sustainability (MDG 7).
However, most of IoT solutions usually originate from developed countries, part of what is often referred to as the “Global-North”, and one might wonder their degree of transferability to the “Global-South”. This chapter thus seeks to explore the conditions required to reproduce IoT “success stories” from the North to the South by answering the following question:what can the South learn from the North regarding the implementation of successful Internet of Things (IoT) solutions?
M. Audouin (
B
)·M. FingerChair Management of Network Industries (MIR), EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]
M. Finger
e-mail: [email protected]
© The Author(s) 2018
S. Hostettler et al. (eds.),Technologies for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91068-0_14
165
To answer this question, we present the cases of development of the same IoT solution, being a smart transportation card, in Seoul (North) and Bogota (South), based on archival data and data collected from semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the projects. We then conduct a comparative analysis of the two cases using a conceptual framework building on co-evolution between technology and institutions theory, to understand the extent to which technological innovation can be a driver for institutional changes in urban transportation systems, and vice versa.