Smart Cities for All? Bridging Digital Divides for Socially Sustainable and Inclusive Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I had the pleasure of reading your manuscript on smart cities. The manuscript calls for attention to the increased speed and enthusiasm for developing smart cities because the push is from a technology perspective and is not considered from an inclusion, equity, or social sustainability perspective. This direction of research, innovation, and design of smart cities is increasing the digital divide at all levels.

The authors' perspective on stressing the importance of equity, social sustainability, inclusion, and so forth is highly relevant and welcomed. The manuscript is well-written, organised, and argued.

I have only two aspects that I would improve to enhance the readers' ease of reading the manuscript.

These are:

1) a description of Amartya Sen's capability approach. If the reader is not fully aware of the theory's contents, it is hard to pick it up from the manuscript. If possible, a schema would be very helpful that presents the main points of the capability theory and how it is used in the current manuscript.

2) I was slightly disappointed that fewer aspects were discussed that affect the digital divide and social sustainability than I expected. I understand there is not enough space to discuss all, but maybe just expressing that the authors are aware of many others. For instance, if a citizen lives a life that does not violate laws but is very different from the average, the person can fall out of the digital service without any notice just because the structure does not support such a life. This is hard to describe and notice as it is in the structures. I am not asking to take all of these into account but show that the authors know them but discuss in this manuscript the ones they do and justify why these and not other aspects. 

I want to emphasise that the topic is extremely crucial currently. 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Dear Authors,

I had the pleasure of reading your manuscript on smart cities. The manuscript calls for attention to the increased speed and enthusiasm for developing smart cities because the push is from a technology perspective and is not considered from an inclusion, equity, or social sustainability perspective. This direction of research, innovation, and design of smart cities is increasing the digital divide at all levels.

The authors' perspective on stressing the importance of equity, social sustainability, inclusion, and so forth is highly relevant and welcomed. The manuscript is well-written, organised, and argued.

I have only two aspects that I would improve to enhance the readers' ease of reading the manuscript.

These are:

• a description of Amartya Sen's capability approach. If the reader is not fully aware of the theory's contents, it is hard to pick it up from the manuscript. If possible, a schema would be very helpful that presents the main points of the capability theory and how it is used in the current manuscript.

2) I was slightly disappointed that fewer aspects were discussed that affect the digital divide and social sustainability than I expected. I understand there is not enough space to discuss all, but maybe just expressing that the authors are aware of many others. For instance, if a citizen lives a life that does not violate laws but is very different from the average, the person can fall out of the digital service without any notice just because the structure does not support such a life. This is hard to describe and notice as it is in the structures. I am not asking to take all of these into account but show that the authors know them but discuss in this manuscript the ones they do and justify why these and not other aspects.

I want to emphasise that the topic is extremely crucial currently.

ANSWER TO REVIEWER 1:

First of all, thank you so much for reviewing this paper! We are glad to hear that you find the manuscript well-written, organised, and argued, and that you find the issue dealt with extremely crucial. Below follows the answers to your overall comments.

Answer to point #1:

Thank you for the suggestion; we have now provided a more detailed description of the capability approach. We have placed it under the heading "Paper Objectives" (lines 149-164) in the revised version, and we have also included a figure outlining the main points of the approach as addressed in this paper.

Answer to point #2:

Good point. We have now highlighted this, see lines 115-119.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a well-structured paper that makes a valuable contribution. Self-citation should be limited.

Author Response

Thank You!

Reviewer 3 Report

ICT presents avenues for social inclusion, but challenges remain in crafting inclusive smart cities due to rebound effects and digital disparities. Smart devices expand access, but could exclude marginalized groups. This paper employs Amartya Sen's capability approach--our well-being depends on our ability to function effectively in society--to analyze digital divides in smart cities and prioritize well-being and participation. Policy suggestions encompass enhancing capability-building institutions, empowering citizen engagement, and utilizing academic insights in policymaking.

 Here are my suggestions:

1. Please shorten the introduction section and highlight research questions. The abstract and introduction sections contain several complex sentences that could be simplified for better understanding.

2. What are the objectives? Is it to analyze the role of ICT in smart cities, outline a policy proposal, or experiment with Sen's capability approach. It should explicitly state the purpose of the paper and outline the specific topics or issues it aims to address. Providing a clear roadmap in the introduction would help guide readers through the paper's content more effectively.

3. The language used in the manuscript is sometimes overly complex, which may impede understanding, particularly for readers who are not experts in the field. Simplifying the language and avoiding jargon where possible would enhance accessibility and readability.

4. Given the bureaucratic excessiveness in many European countries, how feasible is it to establish "a unified governing body responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and enhancing the functionality of smart cities"? It warrants careful discussion.

Thanks.

Fine. 

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

ICT presents avenues for social inclusion, but challenges remain in crafting inclusive smart cities due to rebound effects and digital disparities. Smart devices expand access, but could exclude marginalized groups. This paper employs Amartya Sen's capability approach--our well-being depends on our ability to function effectively in society--to analyze digital divides in smart cities and prioritize well-being and participation. Policy suggestions encompass enhancing capability-building institutions, empowering citizen engagement, and utilizing academic insights in policymaking.

ANSWER TO REVIEWER 3:

First, thank you so much for reviewing this paper! Below follows the answers to your comments.

1. Please shorten the introduction section and highlight research questions. The abstract and introduction sections contain several complex sentences that could be simplified for better understanding.

Answer to point #1:

To improve clarity, we have slightly rewritten the abstract. We have now also shortened the introduction as much as possible, without jeopardizing the key points we want to communicate here. For example, we have deleted some text parts, such as:

In a democracy, the state, local government or other decision-making bodies, could play a pivotal role in this regard, especially when it comes to ensuring that the sustainability goals and targets of Agenda 2030 are met in the smart-city society.

Consequently, equity emerges as a pivotal factor in preventing both societal instability and conflict.

We have also shortened some sentences, for example the following sentence: “The lack of attention to this issue is particularly noticeable in the disparity of individuals' perceptions and appreciation of smart cities. Despite the common assumption that smart cities are inherently climate-smart and designed to benefit all citizens, they do not always fulfill such expectations.”

It has now been replaced replaced by a sentence reading: “The neglect of this issue is evident in the gap between people's views of smart cities. While they're assumed to be eco-friendly and inclusive, they often fall short of these ideals.” See lines 34-36.

Also, we have also shortened the sentence that read:

“Scholars commonly refer to ‘equity´ as the provision of fair resources and opportu-nities to all community members, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups [13]. Equity in the social sustainability literature is frequently linked to social justice and distributional and procedural justice [14]. This entails the fair distribution of social, economic, and environmental costs, damages, benefits and resources, as well as increased participation and democratic influence for citizens in community and societal issues [15].”

The sentence now reads: “Scholars define 'equity' as fair distribution of resources, especially to vulnerable groups. It's often tied to social justice and fair distribution of costs, benefits, and participation in community matters.” See lines 80-82.

Moreover, we have also tried to simplify the language throughout the Introduction section. Please, see separate attached file on Language Revisions.

2. What are the objectives? Is it to analyze the role of ICT in smart cities, outline a policy proposal, or experiment with Sen's capability approach. It should explicitly state the purpose of the paper and outline the specific topics or issues it aims to address. Providing a clear roadmap in the introduction would help guide readers through the paper's content more effectively.

Answer to point #2:

We have now clarified the stated objectives more comprehensively in section 1.1. Paper Objectives, see lines 96-108. Moreover, we have provided a comprehensive description of the capability approach (see lines 146-162) in the revised version, having also included a figure outlining the main points of the approach as addressed in this paper. (see lines 146-162). The roadmap of the paper is outlined in section 1.2. Paper Outline (see lines 163 onward).

3. The language used in the manuscript is sometimes overly complex, which may impede understanding, particularly for readers who are not experts in the field. Simplifying the language and avoiding jargon where possible would enhance accessibility and readability.

Answer to point #3:

We have endeavored to simplify the text as much as possible, avoiding jargon. Given that one of the authors is a native North American speaker, we have ensured that the new version of the paper is more accessible and easier to grasp for Smart Cities readers. For detailed language revisions, please see the separate attached file on Language Revisions.

4. Given the bureaucratic excessiveness in many European countries, how feasible is it to establish "a unified governing body responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and enhancing the functionality of smart cities"? It warrants careful discussion.

Answer to point #4:

Point taken! We have now elaborated further on this issue, having added the following text part (i.e., lines 575-586): “To conclude, it is imperative to establish a unified governing body tasked with monitoring, evaluating, and enhancing the functionality of smart cities. This necessitates the creation of new institutions that facilitate active participation from the bottom-up, with significant involvement from the public sector and civil society actors. Given the bureaucratic challenges prevalent in many European countries, such a body would ideally be integrated with existing pan-European initiatives and programs, leveraging their resources and expertise. One such initiative is the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities (EIP-SCC), initiated by the European Commission in 2012 [93]. The EIP-SCC aims to promote collaboration among cities, industry stakeholders, and other relevant parties to develop and deploy smart city solutions. The EIP-SCC also includes various working groups dedicated to topics such as ICT, citizen participation, and engagement, further facilitating the advancement of smart city initiatives.”

Once again, thank you so much for reviewing this paper!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf