Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
Cities are increasingly becoming larger and complex, exposed to many physical, social, environmental, and economic risks (Selvakanmani, 2015; Nam & Pardo, 2011). The United Nations project the world’s urban population to reach 68%, with India alone having 53% urban population by 2050 (UN-DESA, 2019). Assuming that the Smart Cities will tackle the accompanying challenges of urbanization, it has become a leitmotif in the global political arena and scientific discourses (Anthopoulos, 2017; K. Harrison, 2017; Martin et al., 2018). In India, an ongoing Smart Cities Mission represents a utopian vision of the Modi regime to impact a total urban population of more than 99,000,000 (Government of India, 2020). India’s initial approach has an elite-oriented and urban-led techno-managerial focus (Hoelscher, 2016; Datta, 2015). Its long history, diverse cultural setting, and dominating informal sector demand an indigenous tailor-made framework instead of an imported scheme of actions from its western counterparts (Das, 2020; Rajput & Arora, 2017).
Despite extensive literature on smart cities, the concept is still in a nascent stage of research and practice (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017; Mora et al., 2017; Castelnovo, 2016; Ojo et al., 2016). The existing smart cities research is unconnected, fragmented, divergent, and incoherent (Prado et al., 2016; Renata Paola Dameri, 2013). Moreover, there is a growing criticism against this concept and its strategies because of top-down approach, poor adaptation to accommodate the local needs, tendencies to focus on neoliberal economic growth, and privileging affluent sections of the society (Angelidou, 2017; Martin et al., 2018). One of the first critical articles about this concept was authored by Hollands (2008), urging real smart cities to stand up (Kummitha & Crutzen, 2017). The scholars mostly criticize the market-oriented, techno-centric, and utopian visions of smart cities and question whether they can deliver sustainable and socially equitable results (Martin et al., 2018). One of the reasons for such criticisms is the explicit attention given to the positive hypothetical results of smart interventions. On the contrary, the research in urban studies and geography shows more of negative outcomes of smart interventions (Lim et al., 2019).
Majority of the scholars support the vision of a rationalist and balanced approach for Smart Urban Development (SUD), and so do the authors of this study. However, it is only possible if we understand the lacunae in the current development framework and formulate a holistic vision to fill the prevailing gaps. This study’s objectives are framed upon the preliminary research on the subject, highlighting the overlooked and undervalued goals and purpose of smart cities. A strategic SUD framework must chalk-out a roadmap for building future smart cities in such a manner that all existing urban components such as social, economic, political, cultural, institutional, physical, and geographical are well integrated. This study aims to highlight the critical factors essential for formulating such a cohesive framework. This paper targets future researchers, urban professionals, and policymakers who must make informed decisions and strategies for SUD. Authors have proposed a novel Systematic Literature Search and Review (SLSR) framework, coupled with text-analytics-based content analysis and grounded theory methods for meta-synthesis.