courses-img1News
International Respiratory Medicine Conference 2024 JEMP2024 NextGen Omics US 2025 A Topic Collection Dedicated to JEMP 2024 9th Asian Conference on Civil, Material and Environmental Science The 4th Climate, Weather and Water Forum International Conference of the German Society for Plant Sciences Emerging concepts and Novel Mechanisms in Organ Fibrosis Workshop ECB-IBS 2024 Five Editors-in-Chief Featured in the List of "Highly Cited
Sign in Register Submit

Journals Article Details

Rural and Regional Development -logo
Submit to RRD
Review Open Access

Conceptualizing an Informational Paradigm in the Pursuit of Sustainable Cities and Communities

Rural and Regional Development . 2024, 2(1), 10005; https://doi.org/10.35534/rrd.2024.10005
Ilonette Abdeh Tabar 1,2    Elizelle Juaneé Cilliers 1,3 *   
1
School of Built Environment, Faculty of Design Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
2
Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Yasar University, University Road, No. 37-39, 35100 Izmir, Turkey
3
Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 12 Oct 2023    Accepted: 11 Feb 2024    Published: 29 Feb 2024   

Full-Text HTML Full-Text PDF Download PDF

Abstract

This study seeks to conceptualize ‘Informational Sustainability’ by examining the dynamic relationship between Sustainable Development and the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Revolution through the exploration of two prominent urban theories—Lefebvre’s ‘Right to the City’ and Castells’ ‘Rise of the Network Society’—to underscore the importance of knowledge integration in the development of informed, sustainable communities. Conducting a cross-country comparison between developed and developing nations, the study underscores the critical role of informational transformation in enabling resource efficiency, knowledge sharing, innovation, and informed decision-making—key for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while also highlighting potential risks associated with resisting ICT adoption, including hindered growth, increased inequalities, and reduced social engagement and environmental stewardship. The core focus of this conceptual framework is to validate the precursor role of ICT in building sustainable cities and communities by identifying synergies in Sustainable Development, defining dimensions for effective ICT application within the dynamic interplay of global and local levels, and identifying implementation gaps and necessary presumptions for its effective use.

Keywords

Citizen empowerment; Information and communication technology (ICT); Information society; Right to the city; Right to information; Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11); Sustainable information society (SIS)

References

1.
Hilty LM. Sustainable Development and the Information Society. In Human Choice and Computers: Issues of Choice and Quality of Life in the Information Society; Springer: London, UK, 2002; pp. 305–315.
2.
Castells M. Urban sustainability in the information age. City 2000, 4, 118–122. [Google Scholar]
3.
Fuchs C. Towards a Global Sustainable Information Society (GSIS)? tripleC 2006, 4, 40–99. [Google Scholar]
4.
Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UK, 2011.
5.
Castells M. The education of city planners in the information age. Berkeley Plan. J. 1998, 12, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
6.
Afradi K, Nourian F. Understanding ICT’s impacts on urban spaces: a qualitative content analysis of literature. GeoJournal 2022, 87, 701–731. [Google Scholar]
7.
Mamadouh V, Van Der Wusten H. Revisiting Castells’ Take on the City and the Informational Age. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 2022, 113, 230–239. [Google Scholar]
8.
Castells M. European cities, the informational society, and the global economy. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 1993, 84, 247–257. [Google Scholar]
9.
Siqueira ON, de Souza Lehfeld L. The contribution of the knowledge society to the eco development and the smart cities. Revista de Direito da Cidade 2022, 14, 855–876. [Google Scholar]
10.
Blokland T, Hentschel C, Holm A, Lebuhn H, Margalit T. Symposium: Urban Citizenship and Right to the City. Int. J. Urb. Reg. Res. 2015, 39, 655–665. [Google Scholar]
11.
Shaw J, Graham M. An informational right to the city? Code, content, control, and the urbanization of information. Antipode 2017, 49, 907–927. [Google Scholar]
12.
Sol D. Inclusive Internet Participation in the Network Society. Master’s Thesis: Major Research Paper, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada, 2011.
13.
Soma K, Termeer CJ, Opdam P. Informational governance–A systematic literature review of governance for sustainability in the Information Age. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 56, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
14.
Stevenson N. Technological citizenship: Perspectives in the recent work of Manuel Castells and Paul Virilio. Sociol. Res. Online 2006, 11, 172–182. [Google Scholar]
15.
Keskinen A. Editorial: Social implications of sustainable information society. Progr. Ind. Ecol. Int. J. 2005, 2, 275–302. [Google Scholar]
16.
Graham S. Space of Flows, Space of Places: Materials for a Theory of Urbanism in the Information Age. In The Cybercities Reader, 1st ed.; Routledge Urban Reader Series: London, UK, 2003; pp. 82–93.
17.
Kostoska O, Kocarev L. A novel ICT framework for sustainable development goals. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1961. [Google Scholar]
18.
Mayo SM, Mirza DAI, Ahmad I, Aziz A, Rahman A, Sharif MB. Envisioning Human Settlements in the Information Age and the Underlying Opportunities and Threats for Sustainable Urbanization. Pak. J. Sci. 2013, 65, 365–370. [Google Scholar]
19.
Mandarano L, Meenar M, Steins C. Building social capital in the digital age of civic engagement. J. Plan. Lit. 2010, 25, 123–135. [Google Scholar]
20.
Kellogg WA, Mathur A. Environmental Justice and Information Technologies: Overcoming the Information‐Access Paradox in Urban Communities. Public Adm. Rev. 2003, 63, 573–585. [Google Scholar]
21.
Lefebvre H. The Production of Space, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
22.
Lozano-Díaz A, Fernández-Prados JS. Educating Digital Citizens: An opportunity to critical and activist perspective of sustainable development goals. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7260. [Google Scholar]
23.
Pantić M, Cilliers J, Cimadomo G, Montaño F, Olufemi O, Mallma ST, et al. Challenges and opportunities for public participation in urban and regional planning during the COVID-19 pandemic—Lessons learned for the future. Land 2021, 10, 1379. [Google Scholar]
24.
UN SG. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811 (accessed on 20 August 2023). 
25.
Pallasmaa J. Architecture and Biophilic Ethics. Human Nature, Culture, and Beauty. Int. J. Arch. Theory 2017, 22, 57–69. [Google Scholar]
26.
Cook IR, Swyngedouw E. Cities, Social Cohesion and the Environment: Towards a Future Research Agenda. Urb. Stud. 2012, 49, 1959–1979. [Google Scholar]
27.
Bendik-Keymer J. Environmental Maturity. Soc. Theory Pract. 2003, 29, 499–514. [Google Scholar]
28.
Berry T. The Dream of the Earth: Our Way into the Future. CrossCurrents 1987, 37, 200–215. [Google Scholar]
29.
Beatley T. Handbook of Biophilic City Planning & Design; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
30.
Kellert SR. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
31.
Lapka M, Vávra J, Sokolíčková Z. Cultural Ecology: Contemporary Understanding of the Relationship between Humans and the Environment. J. Landsc. Ecol. 2012, 5, 12–24. [Google Scholar]
32.
Lehmann S. Transforming the City for Sustainability: The Principles of Green Urbanism. J. Green Build. 2011, 6, 104–113. [Google Scholar]
33.
Jamieson D. A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, 1st ed.; Blackwell Publishers: Malden, MA, USA, 2007.
34.
Duvall P, Lennon M, Scott M. The ‘Natures’ of Planning: Evolving Conceptualizations of Nature as Expressed in Urban Planning Theory and Practice. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 26, 480–501. [Google Scholar]
35.
Lennon M. The Art of Inclusion: Phenomenology, Placemaking and the Role of the Arts. J. Urb. Des. 2020, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
36.
McCann JE. Design Guidelines for Social Problem-Solving Interventions. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 1983, 19, 177–189. [Google Scholar]
37.
Kassiola J. Can Environmental Ethics “Solve” Environmental Problems and Save the World? Yes, but First We Must Recognise the Essential Normative Nature of Environmental Problems. Environ. Values 2003, 12, 489–514. [Google Scholar]
38.
Satz D, Gould RK, Chan KM, Guerry A, Norton B, Satterfield T, et al. The Challenges of Incorporating Cultural Ecosystem Services into Environmental Assessment. AMBIO 2013, 42, 675–684. [Google Scholar]
39.
Friedmann J. Globalization and the emerging culture of planning. Progr. Plan. 2005, 64, 183–234. [Google Scholar]
40.
Mol APJ. Environmental Governance in the Information  Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2006, 24, 497–514. [Google Scholar]
41.
Zeebaree M, Aqel M. A Weight-Analysis Technique of Existing Research on E-Government Implementation Challenges in Developing Countries. JOIE 2021, 14, 135–152. [Google Scholar]
42.
Günther O. Environmental information systems. SIGMOD Rec. 1997, 26, 3–4. [Google Scholar]
43.
Rahman H. Utilizing ICT for Sustainable Development in Developing Countries. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies Network (SASNET), Lund, Sweden, 6–9 July 2004.
44.
United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (accessed on 22 August 2023).
45.
THE 17 GOALS Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN). Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 22 August 2023).
46.
Andersson A, Hatakka M. ICT4D and the Sustainable Development Goals: a road well-traveled. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2023, 29, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
47.
Ulbrich P, De Albuquerque J, Coaffee J. The Impact of Urban Inequalities on Monitoring Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Methodological Considerations. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 8, 6. [Google Scholar]
48.
ElMassah S, Mohieldin M. Digital transformation and localizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Ecol. Econ. 2020, 169, 106490. [Google Scholar]
49.
Goel RK, Vishnoi S. Urbanization and sustainable development for inclusiveness using ICTs. Telecommun. Policy 2022, 46, 102311. [Google Scholar]
50.
Diaz-Sarachaga JM. The Contribution of Smart Cities to the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal SDG11 “Sustainable Cities and Communities”. In Proceedings of the XI International Greencities Congress, Oviedo, Spain, 1 October 2020.
51.
Stewart R, Dayal H, Langer L, Van Rooyen C. The evidence ecosystem in South Africa: growing resilience and institutionalisation of evidence use. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 1–12. doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0303-0.
52.
Rothe F. Rethinking positive and negative impacts of ‘ICT for development’ through the holistic lens of the sustainable development goals. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2020, 26, 653–669. [Google Scholar]
53.
N’dri LM, Islam M, Kakinaka M. ICT and Environmental Sustainability: Any differences in developing countries? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126642. [Google Scholar]
54.
Tjoa AM, Tjoa S. The Role of ICT to Achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol. 2016, 481, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
55.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Available online: https://www.undp.org/home (accessed on 7 January 2024).
56.
Digital Technologies to Achieve the UN SDGs. ITU. Available online: https://www.itu.int:443/en/mediacentre/backgrounders/Pages/icts-to-achieve-the-united-nations-sustainable-development-goals.aspx (accessed on 7 January 2024).
57.
Ochara NM. Grassroots community participation as a key to e-governance sustainability in Africa : Section I : Themes and approaches to inform e-strategies. Afr. J. Inf. Commun. 2012, 2012, 26–47. [Google Scholar]
58.
Perez-Morote R, Rosa CP, Cortes EA. Exploring the Relation Between the Digital Divide and Government’s Effort to Develop E-Participation: A Global Longitudinal Analysis. In Research Anthology on Citizen Engagement and Activism for Social Change; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 997–1018.
59.
Marzouki A, Chouikh A, Mellouli S, Haddad R. From Sustainable Development Goals to Sustainable Cities: A Social Media Analysis for Policy-Making Decision. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8136. [Google Scholar]
60.
The Sustainable Development Goals Report. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2018/ (accessed on 9 January 2024).
61.
Harvey D. The Right to the City. Int. J. Urb. Reg. Res. 2003, 27, 939–941. [Google Scholar]
62.
Chiuba D, Nwachukwu M, Ukonze I. The Worldwide-City Hypothesis of Global Cities for Africa in the Era of Globalization - Introducing Time-Efficient City Model. J. Settl. Spat. Plan. 2022, 13, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
63.
Fagerholm N, Oteros-Rozas E, Raymond CM, Torralba M, Moreno G, Plieninger T. Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 74, 30–46. [Google Scholar]
64.
Jang KM, Kim Y. Crowd-sourced cognitive mapping: A new way of displaying people’s cognitive perception of urban space. PLOS ONE 2019, 14, e218590. [Google Scholar]
65.
Calcagni F, Amorim Maia AT, Connolly JJT, Langemeyer J. Digital co-construction of relational values: understanding the role of social media for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 1309–1321. [Google Scholar]
66.
Shaw J, Graham M. Digital information and the right to the city. In The Routledge Companion to Smart Cities, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 61–73.
67.
Middha B, McShane I. E-gentrification: Digital Community Engagement, Urban Change and Digital Rights to the City. In Citizen Participation in the Information Society: Comparing Participatory Channels in Urban Development; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 141–165
68.
Tonnarelli F, Mora L. Smart urbanism in Africa: when theories do not fit with contextual practices. Reg. Stud. 2023. doi:10.1080/00343404.2023.2235407.
69.
Geertman S, Stillwell J. Handbook of Planning Support Science; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2020.
70.
Srl MP, Emilia R, Srl P. Developing Countries and the ICT Revolution. Chambers G, Karapiperis S, eds.; European Parliament Directorate General for Research Directorate A The STOA Programme. Published online 1 March 2001. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1340434/developing-countries-and-the-ict-revolution/1950971/ (accessed on 12 August 2023).
71.
Acuto M, Dickey A, Butcher S, Washbourne CL. Mobilising urban knowledge in an infodemic: Urban observatories, sustainable development and the COVID-19 crisis. World Dev. 2021, 140, 105295. [Google Scholar]
72.
Sietchiping R, Omwamba J. The Future of Urban Policy in Africa. Localization of SDG 11 and the New Urban Agenda. In Local Governance in the New Urban Agenda; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 275–291.
73.
Bandauko E, Nutifafa AR. A critical analysis of ‘smart cities’ as an urban development strategy in Africa. Int. Plan. Stud. 2023, 28, 69–86. [Google Scholar]
74.
Pouikli K, Kalantzi F, Dichala D, Katsoras E, Evangelia KR. The Legal and Socio-Political Context of Urban Sustainability: Experiences from Greece. J. Law Policy Glob. 2020, 95, 62–76. [Google Scholar]
75.
Mishra AK. Smart Cities and the Poor: Towards an Agenda for Inclusive Urbanization in India; Taylor & Francis: New York, USA, 2023
76.
K’Akumu OA, Alhamoudi AM. The Smart City as Policy Concept in the Arab World: A Critical Research into the Strategic Visions of Urban Development in Abu Dhabi. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 2023. doi:10.1177/00219096231192316.
77.
Liu T, Peng R. Globalization, Urbanization and Rural Transformation. Rural Reg. Dev. 2023, 1, 10010. [Google Scholar]
78.
Kornberger M, Clegg S. Strategy as performative practice: The case of Sydney 2030. Strateg. Organ. 2011, 9, 136–162. [Google Scholar]
79.
Sipe N, Vella K. The Routledge Handbook of Australian Urban and Regional Planning; Routledge: New York, USA, 2017.
80.
Ilieva R, McPhearson T. Social-media data for urban sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 2–17. [Google Scholar]
81.
Larimian T, Sadeghi A. Measuring Urban Social Sustainability: Scale Development and Validation. Environ. Plan. Urb. Anal. City Sci. 2021, 48, 621–637. [Google Scholar]
82.
Liu J, Bi H, Wang M. Using multi-source data to assess livability in Hong Kong at the community-based level: A combined subjective-objective approach. Geogr. Sustain. 2020, 1, 284–294. [Google Scholar]
83.
Thiagarajah J, Wong S, Richards D, Friess D. Historical and contemporary cultural ecosystem service values in the rapidly urbanizing city state of Singapore. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 2015, 44, 666–677. [Google Scholar]
Creative Commons

© 2024 by the authors; licensee SCIEPublish, SCISCAN co. Ltd. This article is an open access article distributed under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).