How can the success of Seoul’s smart city be replicated in Bahrain?

Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie
Published: 26th March 2016
SEOUL – SOUTH KOREA

Reflection on preliminary work

In the preliminary work, the focus was on the importance of infrastructure and technology when I t comes to developing a smart city. It is strongly believed that such city should reflect convenience for the users while ensuring that resources are utilized in a sustainable way. By sustainability, the resources should be able to provide the needs of the prevent generation while also allowing the future generation to satisfy their own needs. In order to effect such outcome, the preliminary work also pointed out on the importance of a strong economy, government policies, education and awareness, and the commitment of people and communities towards delivering such smart values.

In the course of comparing the city of Seoul with Bahrain, it was made clear that smartness in Seoul were induced by four major factor as management, technology, social and economic factors. In the area of management, the understanding presented is that the county comprises of diverse network of stakeholders that converge their skills, expertise and values towards creating a wonderful city that is lively for all. This is widely support by the strong economy stream of the system (as it boost diverse revenue generation medium), a welcoming social factor (with the people and communities more willing to ensure smartness) and advanced technological features that make the process much effective and efficient.

Although it was noted that the government of Bahrain has been successful with respect to implementing a number of e-government practices that are geared towards delivering better governance to its diverse society and creating awareness on the need for a smart city, it was noted that the country suffers in the areas of management, technology and economy. The issues of economy comes in as Bahrain is an oil dependent economy, which implies that the policies (choice of infrastructure, maintenance and expansion) of the government with respect to developing a smart city is highly dependent on the price of oil in the market. Thus, the decisions will be fluctuation, limiting overall stability in the course of transforming Bahrain to a smart city. In relation to management, the system of Bahrain is based purely on government control, which implies that whatever the city gets is what the government gives them (and such might not be a clear reflection of the city’s choices). Additionally, full government control also limits potential for innovation that can arise from competition as is obtainable in the capitalist nature of the Seoul system. Thus, these issues needs to be addressed if Bahrain is to successfully transform into a smart city like

Discussion of changes

From the above discussion, a number of elements can easily be highlighted as missing when it comes to creating a smart city and they include:

Capitalistic market system – in a government control setting (socialistic monarchy as obtainable in Bahrain), innovation is always slow. This is based on the understanding that the market has limited variety as they are forced to accept whatever the government presents them with. This negates the fact that variety is the spice of life, as consumers will at all cost adjust to whatever is obtainable. However, a capitalistic market (in the course of letting capitalism reap) does focus on satisfying the needs of consumers by creating more sophisticated products (that are hard for competitors to imitate in order to ensure market leadership) and offering these products at a relatively affordable price. Thus, companies are forced to continually innovative in order to meet the continued changes in consumers’ purchase choices. Thus, it is recommended that in order to develop a global mart city, Bahrain needs to privatize certain aspects of its economic systems in order to bring about industrial competition.

Economic diversification – it is also recommended that the Bahrain government should look towards diversifying it economic stream in order to ensure that it is not dependent on oil. Such diversification can be made in the technology sector towards enhanced technological aspects of its systems and providing citizens with direct access to smart city based technologies as is obtainable in the case of Seoul.

Update of graphical model

Source: Smart Cities Seoul: a case study. ITU-T Technology Watch Report - February 2013. Pages 1-5

Good lessons from practice of urban government in Seoul

In the case of Seoul, there are three major building blocks to the city’s smartness as: 1) ICT infrastructure – which entails the need to secure a system that will not only address present needs but be able to meet the demands of consumers in the future; 2) integrated city management framework – the city should be designed to function around each other with the aid of the ICT infrastructure, allowing for overall convenience to the users as their best preferred moments; 3) smart users – the city need to be rich with smart users that are not only willing to use the infrastructures available but actually understand how these infrastructures are applied and overall benefits of such applications. From the Seoul experience, there are numerous lessons obtainable as discussed below, but most of these lessons emanate from the infrastructure available. They include:

Smart devices for all – in the case of Seoul, it was discovered that a smart city does comprise of network of smart device users, with the residents of such city constantly demanding or creating the services that are considered most valuable. In the case of Seoul, an inclusive network system is adopted which features high-speed broadband optical wire and vast wireless networks (comprising of NFC technologies, Wi-Fi and so on). The overall purpose of this is to ensure that all citizens have a free voice which they can express at any given time, and they are also aware of the need to maintain a smart city in the constantly changing world. In essence, people can easily access the internet and shop as desired from any given point, easing the stress of going to a physical store while also reducing overall traffic congestion. The essential purpose of this is to ensure that relative importance is accorded to convenient livelihood in the city, something that is expected to enhance overall living standards and make the city residents much happy. Additionally, it helps reduce the need for maintenance as well as overall maintenance value for government infrastructure such as roads and other social amenities as people will seldom ply on such resources for their own personal gain.

Device donation – another significant discovery made in the case of Seoul is that the city initiated distribution of second-hand devices to low-income households in the city as well as other people that are in need of such devices. In the city of Seoul, it is widely understood that the ICT market experiences rapid movement and on the typical ground, smart users are known to buy products very often in the course of the useful life of the products that they presently employ. Thus, the residents are continually encouraged to donate their old devices in the course of buying new ones; once the manufacturers inspects and repairs these devices they are circulated to the needy at free will. Some the beneficiaries are the Korea’s National Basic Living Security. The donators are normally motivated by the government through tax deduction which fails in the region of US$ 50 to 100 for each device donated. In this effect, the lesson is pivotal in the sense that it ensures sustainability of resources through reuse of old products while also enhancing overall adoption of smart city standard by providing every resident with equal opportunity to contribute towards delivering the city’s value.

Smart workplace / bus station / community – in Seoul, the government a system for people to actually work without the need to be in their workplace. All they need to do is to check into a smart workplace close to their residence and perform the same functions as required if they were to be in their workplace. The bus stations are equipped with ICT systems that allow for easy identification of routes, GPS mapping, shopping and relaxation. Additionally, the u-Seoul system ensure connectivity of offices and businesses, while providing residents with the opportunity to communicate any emerging issue in their locality with the appropriate authorities for necessary redress.

How to implement these lessons in Bahrain

Implementing these measures in Bahrain would require easy access to internet and other connectivity networks. Thus, the first measure would be to establish connectivity within the city. The residents should be able to access internet for information required and constantly updates with changes in relation to their city features.

On the same not, ICT infrastructures need to be made affordable for residents in order to ensure full and easy adoption of these features. As recoded in the case of Seoul, the government encourages users to donate their old devices through tax deduction incentives, providing such devices (following necessary repair) to those that need them the most – ensuring that residents across the city can easily access smart devices and services.

Finally, the offices should be well connected for easy sharing of information, and there should be platform for residents to share their ideas as well as issues that they experience in their locale. This will bring about higher innovation and utilization of smart city services. Overall, replicating the case of Seoul is highly possible in Bahrain, but such require that the government invest in services geared towards transforming the city into a smart system.

Source: Smart Cities Seoul: a case study. ITU-T Technology Watch Report - February 2013. Pages 5-14

Research question

How can the success of Seoul’s smart city be replicated in Bahrain?

Justification for research question

The overall purpose of the above research question is to understand the success measure from the case of Seoul and how they can be replicated in Bahrain. Seoul is a strong reflection of a smart city for other cities that intend transforming its systems. It is globally acknowledged as the blue print for a highly convenient city and as such has transformed into role model for other cities and a high tourist attraction for people across the globe. In essence, it will help highlight the main factors that helps Seoul’s transformation as well as the measures that can be used to replicate such success outcomes in Bahrain.

ISTANBUL – TURKEY

Ideal institutional setup for a governance system facilitating the development of resilience in urban systems

Resilience in urban system is without doubt a major step for global cities based on the understanding that it ensures sustainability of resources. In line with existing literatures, the major issue facing the world at present is on how to ensure sustainability of its present resources. By sustainability, what is implied is that the resources should be able to provide for the needs of the present generation, while also ensuring that the needs of the future generation can be catered for. The overall importance is based on the understanding that it is only through such sustainability that the human race can be made sustainable. For instance, if food is not sustainable, people would eventually die of hunger and that can bring about an end to the human race.

However, continued industrialization and urbanization now imply that attaining such outcome is a big problem. This is because the earthly resources are constantly being pushed to their limits. Added to this, the world is increasing in population, which will bring about a further increase on the level of pressure that these resources undergo. As such, it is ever important that necessary measures be drafted and enacted towards building a form of resilience to these resource usage in order to further enhance overall level of sustainability for these resources.

When it comes to building a government system that facilitates such resilience, there are certain factors that must be put into consideration as: Political, Social, Economic, and Technological factors. These elements play both individual and group roles in the course of delivering such outcomes and they are further discussed below.

Political – this entails the overall stability of the political system. It plays an important role in the sense that if the system is stable, incoming government will be more willing to continue from the policies of present government geared towards enhancing overall level of resilience. They will be more willing to spend towards such common goals or might actually become entrenched to do things better. However, instability can bring about an opposing outcome, something that could results to drastic effects in relation to ensured sustainability and resilience of available resources.

Social – besides the government, the people have a role to play and that is the main feature of the social factor. In a system where the society understands the need for ensured resilience, necessary measures can easily be enacted towards delivering such purpose while the reverse will be the case in a society where such need is not fully understood or employed by the people. In order to bring about the desired outcome, it is necessary that awareness campaign be made to ensure that people are aware of such needs.

Economic – resilience is brought about by enacting a number of policies, activities and measures. This does reflect the importance of a buoyant economic system. Once the money is available, the government will be both motivated and better positioned to enact measures geared towards delivering such purpose. However, the reverse will be the case in a different economic setting. Thus, the economies of the state does play significant role in such regard.

Technological – resilience is mostly developed by adopting advanced and sophisticated technologies which help enhance overall efficiency of the resources, allowing for less resources to be used to bring about higher performance. Without technology, the pressure of these resources would be much higher and sustainability virtually impossible. This is because it would not be possible to reduce resources usage and as the population of the world increases, volume of resources available to meet their needs will continually depreciate until it becomes obsolete.

How these factors are related

Although independently important, it is impossible for these factors to independently bring about the desired objective of resilience. This is based on the understanding that they must be fused together in order to deliver the desired outcome. There must be a stable political system, a welcoming populace, a good economy to fund the process and advanced technologies to being about the outcome. They all play related role for the same objective.

For instance, if the government is willing but has no money to fund the process, it would be virtually impossible. On the same hand, is the government is willing, can fund the process and have necessary technologies but the populace don’t share the need to create such resilience, it is also impossible for the urban system to attain such goals. Thus, they must come together in order to deliver the desire outcome and the absence of any of the factors will make it impossible to bring about such outcome.

How these factors should be taken into consideration

These factors must be considered in relation to their relative importance as: the government system must be stable and willing to bring about such effect; the people must welcome the idea; the economy must be buoyant; and necessary technologies must be in place.

Source: THE RESILIENT CITY. Pages 160-170

The institutional set-up of the urban governance structure in Istanbul

Istanbul is one of the biggest cities in the world and renowned for being the meeting point between the West and East. Thus, is a commercial city with high interest from countries across the world, a hub for sales between Europe and Asia, and a city center that is diverse in cultures. Thus is expected that these features will bring about higher population and pressure on the resources as demand for such resources will be higher. In any case, the government has been working towards bridging this gap and enhance overall resilience of the city through its master plan.

In history, it is widely acknowledged that the Turkish central government has strong wield of significant control over its municipalities, with Istanbul being no exception. In any case, there have been recorded accounts of decentralization and reforms from the local government which formed the main focus of the AKP government in the early days of 2000s (partly because of the acceleration of the EU accession process). The most feature element is the law enacted in 2004 on Metropolitan Municipalities (no. 5216), which served the central purpose of restricting the Metropolitan Municipalities (with Istanbul inclusive) and drafted the responsibilities that will be used to bring about higher levels of urban planning measures. Thus, this brought about a transformation of the urban planning process in Istanbul as it made it more transparent, decentralized and integrated.

The main feature of this transformation is an enlarged scale of planning, which was expanded to include broader region; new agents such as the IMP being brought and empowered into the transformation process; analysis of the risks associated with environmental and earthquakes; the initiation of urban transportation systems which has been made more prominent in the discourse of urban planning; and local actors being given higher level of flexibility through programs like Urban Regeneration.

In any case, the plan received a number of criticism, which lead to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipal preparing another version of the plan, allowing for higher contribution from the district municipalities, civil engineer, and other NGOs; with higher emphasis placed on the need to balance economic and environmental priorities. The plan was designed to deliver the following objectives:

1.    Ensure that the city is adapted and oriented in line with the dynamic features of globalization and the accession process obtainable in EU;

2.    To protect the interest of ecological balance while fostering developments that will bring about sustainability of resources and resilience to disaster;

3.    To help Istanbul attain a status as a world culture city;

4.    To help Istanbul develop closer economic ties with other global cities and also them it to become more establishing as a global city; and

5.    To improve overall quality of life in the city of Istanbul.

Essentially, the institutions identifiable from the case of Istanbul are: government (political), social (engineer, NGOs and local authorities), economic and technological. These institutions come together for the common good of the city by combining their views to develop a shared value that will be used to build a better Istanbul resilience to resource overuse and sustainable in the future.

However, there seem to be continued crash between varied facets of the government system and other social agencies, limiting the potential of the government to ensure resilience resources being deployed across the city. Majority of the incoming government seem to drift from existing standard by creating their own; bring about ambiguity in both the process and people. This high level of instability does form a stumbling block for the overall success of the city. In order to control such measures, laws have been enacted to regulate the process and what is required now is the zeal of the government towards ensuring that these laws are kept as necessary. Meeting such standards will help the city to develop higher resistance.

Source: Mega Projects and the Limits of Urban Planning in Megacities: The Case of Istanbul in the AKP Era. Pages 1-6

Comparison of the institutions in Istanbul’s urban city development with the institutions required in the development of an urban city

Earlier on, it was noted that the main features for the development of a resilient urban city is the present of stable government, which will bring about assured continuity in the governance process; the presence of a supporting community that both understands the need for a resilient city and are willing to create such; a buoyant economy; and the presence of necessary technological features required to effect the desired outcome.

In the case of Istanbul, these factors are easily visible but in a varied form. The most significant element that has impact on the overall success of the outcome is the political factor. Although it can be largely agreed that the Master Plan created by Istanbul does market an important turning point in relation to the city’s attempt towards balancing how it utilizes land and the development of environment protection, it has been noted that implementing such measures have been incomplete in the course of time, widening the gap between what is plan and the actual outcome undertaken by the IMM in relation to land use policy and practice. As such, it can be considered essential to ask questions as to whether or not the master plan has been able to bring about any meaningful effect on the city’s growth and development, with special reference to its historical and natural areas that the plan had actually highlighted for preservation and protection.

Anyone visiting Istanbul will easily notice the vast level of construction, with numerous other projects being planned for the future as the government seeks to transform the city into a mega meeting point for the world. However, this does put the topography of Istanbul under a severe pressure and further limits the ability of the city to defend its self in the occurrence of natural disaster. This is a big issue when it comes to delivering the desired outcome of a resilient city, and it does not clearly reflect with the overall objective that the city had highlighted in its master plan.

In the case of social factor, there are limited campaign geared towards creating awareness for the creation of a resilient city. Thus, majority of the city’s populace are still accustomed to their traditional infrastructures, something that is dampening the overall potential of the city to attain such objectives.

Economically, Istanbul is very buoyant as it is a globally renowned trading point with revenue flowing from both West and East. As the central point where Asia comes to do business with Europe, there are numerous rooms for the city to generate the necessary finances required towards building a resilient city. Additionally, such network also provides the medium through which it can sources for expertise necessary to deliver a resilient city.

Technologically, the features some of the most advanced infrastructures, which include an underwater tunnel that connects Asia with Europe, allowing for easy movement of people and goods.

In comparison, the city of Istanbul has necessary institutions for the creation of a resistant city. However, its political sphere is hindering the overall success of the outcomes. This is because the authorities are not implementing measures as standardized by the master plan, limiting the potential of the city to be fully resilient as nature demands.

The way forward

Basically, the key factor that must be put into consideration in relation to the above discussions is that of the political setting. This is because such holds strong influence on the overall success of the project. If the government are not willing to do the right thing, there is no way the city will be able to build desired resilience. Thus, the government must shake up its commitment and ensure that all relevant authorities work towards a common good by abiding to all established standards. Additionally, necessary campaigns needs to be enacted in order to ensure that the populace understand as well as familiarize themselves with the need to establish a resilient city. This will go long way towards attaining such goals. In the absence of such, building a resilient Istanbul will be virtually impossible.

Source: Mega Projects and the Limits of Urban Planning in Megacities: The Case of Istanbul in the AKP Era. Pages 1-6

Importance of housing infrastructure on resilience development

Resilient city does depend heavily on the structures that are erected in the city. Such entails how and where they are built. Every topography has its own characteristics, which serves as the basics for understanding what to do, where to do it and how to do it. For instance, building on sandy soils could led to collapse possibly due to soil erosion and other factors. Additionally, areas that are prone to earth quakes needs to have different building pattern when compared with areas that are not prone to the same natural disaster.

When houses are built to standards, there is always a greater chance that the environment will be more resilient to disasters. This is because such standards are normally established following careful review of the topography. However, the absence of standardized housing structure does put more pressure on the environment. As such, it is inevitable to create a resilient environment without monitoring the structures that are erected in the environment.

In majority of the advanced and smart cities, the kind of housing infrastructure obtainable are normally determined by the relevant authorities who put into consideration varied intentions with the overall objectives of making the environment safer. In the cases that constructors violate such standards, there is always a high possibility of such houses being demolished by the government and constructors paying fine to such effect.

The importance of housing structure also comes to play when discussing environmental preservation and conservation. Smart city and resilience is all about sustainability of the environment. Thus, present building structures should never in any way be allowed to impact on the overall potential of the future generation to enjoy their own lives. Thus, it must seek to protect and conserve natural heritages. Thus, the structure must be one that allows for such outcome to become a possibility.

Reference to Bahrain

In the case of Bahrain, majority of the houses (especially in the rural areas) are constructed based on individual choices, which might not be a reflection of the standards needed to ensure geological stability. As such, it is necessary that certain measures be enacted to bring about the desired outcome with respect to building favorable houses for better environmental resilience.

Thus, the lesson that can be learned from this discussion is that housing structures in Bahrain should be built to reflect the city’s main heritage – towards preserving and conversing them for the future generation. Additionally, there is a need for a clear standard in the construction process to be established in order to ensure that the environment is made resilient to disasters that might occur. Resilience is linked to smart city in the sense that it is only a resilient city that will look towards being smart. Thus, it is important that necessary measures be enacted to create the desired resilience for Bahrain.

Research question

How can Bahrain be made more resilient to environmental disasters and topographic issues?

Justification of research question

The justification for this research question is that it will allow for a comprehensive study of the factors that are used to create a resilient city, highlighting the roles played by these individual factors and how they are employed to bring about the best outcome. On the same note, this question when answered will help to understand to what extent the city of Bahrain is resilient to natural disasters, the potential natural and topographic disasters that the city might face and necessary measures needed to ensure that the city does resist such issues when the time comes.