This review takes as its starting point: the SmartCityZA collection in the uKESA repository6. The repository was curated between November 2022 and March 2023 and it contains a total of 46 papers, covering conference papers, policy briefs, reports, journal articles, and book chapters. The SmartCityZA collection started from the recognition of the need for a single, easy access place for relevant ‘smart city’ materials for the Global South, given the rapid expansion of smart city activities.
The content of this repository was drawn from several sources. The United Nations University Operating Unit on Policy-driven Electronic Governance (UNU-EGOV) ran a research line on Smart Cities from 2014 until 2022, with many research outputs focussing on Smart City governance. Hence, papers that were deemed relevant were sourced from the institutional repository of the United Nations University (UNU)7 as well as from the UNU-EGOV archives. South African smart city policy papers were included as well as reports and documents from the South African Cities Network. In conjunction with the City of Johannesburg, the Department of Information Systems at the University of the Witwatersrand ran an NRF-funded project from 2014 until 2017, which focused on how information systems could contribute to understanding smart cities in the African context. Papers from that project were included in the repository. Authors and materials referenced in these initial documents were used to identify additional documents fitting the inclusion criteria. The team also sought out sister organisations that have done work on smart cities in other regions of the Global South. For example, work from the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA), drawing on efforts undertaken by the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF) was deemed relevant. All documents were tested against the inclusion criteria to ensure relevance, legitimacy and usefulness.
The inclusion criteria set out the necessary conditions for articles to be eligible. These conditions included the date of publication, language, geographical region, audience, type of publication and authoring institutions. All articles needed to be published from 2010 onwards, written in English and have a general applicability of relevance to the Global South. An important consideration for inclusion was that documents were produced either for, by or with people in the Global South8. The target audience was city practitioners and urban scholars and accordingly, in terms of relevance, the repository documents looked beyond smart technology and extended to include work on city policy, planning, and governance ensuring that it was relevant to Smart City knowledge within the Global South. Material included peer reviewed journal articles as well as grey literature9, but excluded vendor sourced material that did not have a strong critical dimension. For example, documents that were not peer reviewed had to be legitimised by credible authors or organisations. Inclusion of policy papers, briefs and reports was deemed important to provide a robust basis for understanding smart cities directives, monitoring and the models on which they are based.
As a first step, an initial analysis of the repository documents was conducted to identify the major thematic areas covered. The selection was informed by the recurrence of themes and also guided by the authors’ experience. The topics covered in the repository and the geographic focus areas were then used to develop the thematic search in Scopus for further literature.
A search of SCOPUS was conducted to assess the state of the literature on smart cities in Africa. The search was twofold. First we searched using: ‘smart city’ + country name for each African country, restricting the search to academic articles and book chapters in Social Sciences and Management between 2015 and 2023. While smart cities research is conducted across a range of fields, we were not interested in its technical aspects, so prioritised social science research because the aim was reviewing smart cities in relation to citizenship and governance. Second, using the topics identified from the SmartCityZA collection, we searched for ‘smart city’ + Equality + Africa; ‘smart city’ + governance + Africa; ‘smart city’ + review + Africa and ‘smart city’ + ‘sub-Saharan Africa’.
From the Scopus country search it emerged that Morocco, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa produce most of the academic research on smart cities in Africa. Reflecting on this, as well as the literature in the SmartCityZA collection, we decided to focus on the SADC countries, given their significant but varying political, social and economic profiles.
One hundred and twelve papers were identified from SADC countries, with 84 of them being from South Africa. We further reviewed the abstracts of these papers to eliminate any that were not directly concerned with Smart Cities, addressed specific technical issues or technologies, or covered the same material (for example a conference paper later published as a journal article). This left 64 papers. Using the five themes already identified in the repository, we counted the number of papers that addressed these themes.
Unusually for a literature review, this article includes policy briefs and reports taken from the repository. This is because such documents aid our understanding of the smart city landscape in SADC, particularly given the relative lack of apposite academic research. Reports offer insights into what smart initiatives are being undertaken and how they have been implemented in specific contexts. Policy documents directly address the implementation issues, providing guidance for governments and other stakeholders and these too, give insight into the application of smart technologies in context. We applied rigour in the selection of such documents for the repository and believe that those reports that are included are credible as a result.
Review Findings
Table 1 below reflects the document in the SmartCityZA collection and our preliminary analysis of publication years and countries as well as themes.
Table 1
Profile of documents in the SmartCityZA collection in the uKESA repository
Type
|
Number
of papers
|
Year(s)
|
Country or region
|
Themes10
|
Brochures and Newsletters
|
7
|
2021/2022
|
Global (1)
South Africa (6)
|
Approaches (1)
Citizenship (1)
Development (1)
Governance (3)
Infrastructure (2)
|
Working paper
|
2
|
2020
|
Africa (1)
Southern Africa (1)
|
Development (1)
Infrastructure (1)
|
Policy Briefs
|
2
|
2020/2021
|
Global (1)
South Africa (1)
|
Approaches (1)
Governance (2)
|
Research Reports
|
7
|
2016/2022
|
Global (7)
|
Approaches (1)
Citizenship (3)
Development (1)
Governance (1)
Infrastructure (3)
|
Books and Book Chapters
|
11
|
2015/2022
|
Africa (1)
Asia (1)
Global (2)
Mexico (1)
Oman (1)
South Africa (5)
|
Approaches (1)
Citizenship (4)
Development (4)
Infrastructure (2)
Governance (1)
|
Academic Articles
|
5
|
2016/2021
|
South Africa (5)
|
Citizenship (2)
Development (2)
Governance (1)
|
Conference Papers
|
11
|
2014/2022
|
Africa (2)
Brasil (1)
Global (4)
Oman (1)
Pakistan (1)
SADC (1)
South Africa (1)
|
Approaches (4)
Citizenship (3)
Governance (4)
Infrastructure (1)
|
Total
|
45
|
|
Africa (4)
Global (15)
Southern Africa / SADC (2)
South Africa (18)
Other (6)
|
Approaches (8)
Citizenship (13)
Development (9)
Governance (12)
Infrastructure (9)
|
Table 2 reflects a similar analysis of the papers from the SCOPUS search, indicating the number of papers found that originated from or researched each country, the publication years and the themes which they addressed.
Table 2
Papers identified in the SCOPUS search, by SADC country
Country
|
Number of papers
|
Year(s) published
|
Themes
|
Angola
|
1
|
2020 (1)
|
Approaches (1)
|
Botswana
|
2
|
2011 (1), 2019 (1)
|
Governance (1)
|
Comoros
|
0
|
|
|
DRC
|
0
|
|
|
Eswatini
|
0
|
|
|
Lesotho
|
0
|
|
|
Madagascar
|
0
|
|
|
Malawi
|
1
|
2023 (1)
|
Infrastructure (1)
|
Mauritius
|
8
|
2016(2),2018(2),2019 (3),2020 (1), 2022 (1)
|
Approaches (8)
|
Mozambique
|
3
|
2016 (1), 2020 (1), 2023 (1)
|
Citizenship (1), Governance (2)
|
Namibia
|
1
|
2020 (1)
|
Infrastructure (1)
|
Seychelles
|
0
|
|
|
South Africa
|
42
|
2013 (1), 2014 (1), 2015 (2), 2017 (4), 2018 (4), 2019 (14), 2020 (3), 2021 (6), 2022 (3), 2023 (4)
|
Approaches (5), Citizenship (9)
Development (6), Governance (12)
Infrastructure (10)
|
Tanzania
|
6
|
2014 (1), 2019 (1), 2021 (1),
2022 (1), 2023 (2)
|
Approaches (1), Citizenship (1)
Infrastructure (5)
|
Zambia
|
0
|
|
|
Zimbabwe
|
5
|
2014 (1), 2015 (1), 2016 (1),
2017 (1), 2018 (1)
|
Citizenship (1), Governance (1)
Infrastructure (3)
|
TOTAL
|
64
|
2011 (1), 2013 (1), 2014 (3), 2015 (3), 2016 (2), 2017 (5), 2018 (5), 2019 (16), 2020 (6), 2021 (7), 2022 (4), 2023 (8)
|
Approaches (15)
Citizenship (12)
Development (6)
Governance (16)
Infrastructure (20)
|
Of the sixteen countries in the SADC, nine produced relevant research on Smart Cities in the years since 2010. Most of the papers (42) came from South Africa, although in some of these, South Africa was not the focus of the research. There were few papers in the early part of the decade, but this number increased towards the end, with 2019 being a particularly productive year.
Twenty of the papers focus on infrastructure, which is unsurprising given that many SADC countries are working on improving aspects of infrastructure from energy and roads to information networks. Governance (16 papers) is also an area of concern for SADC researchers. Twelve of the papers look at issues of citizenship reflecting concerns with how smart cities position people in them and the need to involve people to develop locally relevant smart solutions and strategies. Fifteen papers focused on approaches to smart cities, addressing - and critiquing - the building of “new” cities. Finally, although many papers saw development as a long-term goal of smart cities, six papers explicitly addressed what forms that development would take and how it would result.
Combining the research in the repository and that identified from Scopus, five strong themes were identified from the literature. The following section discusses these key themes.
Smart City themes identified
A review of these papers revealed five key themes which are discussed in this section: (1) vision for development, (2) smart city governance, (3) digital citizenship, (4) smart infrastructure, and (5) smart city approaches.
1. Social development promises of the smart city
Globally, there is a large body of research that identifies a range of discourses around smart cities that range from high-tech utopian visions or fantasies (Watson, 2014) of urban infrastructure, through creating the conditions for business-led innovation in cities, to the use of technology to address social and development concerns (Hollands, 2008; Odendaal, 2016). The discourses and understandings of smart cities drive the type of interventions made, how they are governed, what benefits are sought, and to whom those accrue, making these core definitional elements (i.e. discourses and understandings of smart cities) important for the pursuit of smart agendas.
The majority of research from the SADC region engages with foundational smart cities discourses, emphasising the need for smartness appropriate for the local context (Aurigi & Odendaal, 2022; Backhouse, 2015; Backhouse & Chauke, 2020; Backhouse et al., 2020; Odendaal, 2016; Odendaal, 2020; Phahlamohlaka, 2021). At the high level, two competing discourses are evident: social inclusion and development (social sustainability), and smart-looking, high-tech cities focused on economic development and the needs of business (Aurigi & Odendaal, 2022; Backhouse 2015).
The international literature has questioned whether promised benefits of smart cities have been realised (Lim et al., 2019). Smart interventions can have unintended social consequences such as the breakdown of social values (Gambe 2015) and increased inequality (Brannon, 2017; Datta, 2015; Munro & Samarakoon, 2023; Sajhau, 2017). Localised smart city plans are more socially sustainable (Aurigi & Odendaal, 2022) and researchers suggest skills development, inclusion in agenda setting and monitoring of smart city impacts to ensure that the benefits of smartness accrue broadly (Backhouse & Chauke, 2020; Backhouse & Hadhrami, 2022; Backhouse & Masilela, 2016; Cohen et al., 2016; Przeybilovicz & da Silva, 2022).
The key lesson from the SADC-based research is that smart city plans and interventions need to be informed by local realities and be implementable in messy, crowded and less-than-ideal urban environments where most people, and particularly the urban poor, reside.
The repository contains case studies that illustrate ways to engage and understand diverse stakeholders to develop locally relevant visions and plans (Backhouse & Hadhrami 2022, Backhouse & Masilela 2016, Przeybilovicz & da Silva, 2022) and evaluate how people value city services (Cohen et al., 2016). Researchers also suggest approaches for shifting the focus from infrastructure to smart people and communities (Phahlamohlaka, 2021) and making systemic allowances for bottom-up smart interventions to ensure that the promoted solutions are relevant (Odendaal, 2015).
There are obvious starting points for smart city interventions. Research from South Africa shows that digital connectedness results in better quality of life (Cohen et al., 2018) so that providing free wi-fi in public spaces can reduce inequality of access, delivering social and economic benefits (Backhouse & Chauke, 2020). There are smart city interventions with proven benefits in low-resource contexts (Backhouse & Ben Dhaou, 2021) which deliver results by using technology in ways appropriate to the problems communities face, as well as the available resources and skill levels.
Understanding the systemic interconnections and unintended consequences of city interventions is a subtle but necessary art. The repository includes papers that illustrate this challenge, including the critique of off-grid solar products for energy where supplies are unreliable as reinforcing energy inequality (Munro and Samarakoon, 2023) and research into the negative social impacts of the implementation of smart water metres in Zimbabwe (Gambe, 2015).
2. Institutionalising smart city governance
Smart City developments are driven by both private and public actors including private equity, construction and technology companies, individuals and community organisations, and government entities. Regardless, governments are responsible for directing and controlling smart developments to align with local development goals and priorities. Internationally there is a large body of research on smart city governance, as identified in the Smart Sustainable Cities Reconnaissance Study (Esteves et al. 2016). Smart city governance concerns the planning, regulation and oversight of smart cities and includes providing leadership, setting goals and standards, structures and systems for coordination, facilitating funding, and monitoring smart city efforts and initiatives (Backhouse et al., 2020; Esteves et al. 2016; Manda & Backhouse, 2018). These elements determine how smart cities are institutionalised and to what ends.
In most countries, smart city initiatives are led by cities’ municipal level governing entities, however there are important roles for national governments as well. These include ensuring a supportive political environment, defining national priorities and measures for city performance, providing high-level infrastructure, appropriate legislation and regulations, supportive procurement processes and, in some cases, targeted funding (Backhouse et al., 2020). Some national governments govern smart city programs at the city level as well. This makes sense in very small countries, in countries where there is only one city of any size, or in countries where cities do not themselves have the capacity to conceptualise and sustain smart city initiatives (Fromhold-Eisebith & Eisebith 2019, Johnson 2014, Praharaj & Han 2019). However, where cities have the capacity, there are important governance roles at the city level including matching plans to local conditions and concerns, providing political vision and visibility, safeguarding public interests and coordinating the activities of other city stakeholders (Backhouse et al., 2020).
UN-Habitat promotes the development of National Urban Policies (NUP’s) to identify urban development priorities in line with the New Urban Agenda (UN-Habitat, 2016; Guarneri et al., 2020). They provide a range of tools and information for local and regional governments around smart cities (UN-Habitat 2020a, UN-Habitat 2020b) and support countries to develop NUPs. UN-Habitat has supported the development of NUPs for Angola, DRC, Malawi, Madagascar, Mozambique and Tanzania and their database shows that some form of NUP exists for all SADC countries except Lesotho and Eswatini.11
Control and regulation of smart cities has technical elements, including architectures (Bwalya, 2019; Gobin-Rahimbux et al., 2020; Mudau et al., 2019), urban design issues (Hasse, 2004; Nelson et al., 2002), environmental resource management (CSIR, 2022), information technologies (Backhouse & Myataza, 2017), and systemic interventions (CSIR, 2021; Leung & Perkins, 2019; OECD, 2019). Smart developments also require coordination and integration across government entities. Mechanisms, such as agreements and protocols on data ownership and sharing, facilitate the collection and analysis of data that underpins many smart systems (Manda & Backhouse, 2018). However, institutional weaknesses such as lack of political cohesion, power struggles and poor collaboration, with subsequent loss of public trust, can compromise their effectiveness (Manda & Backhouse, 2018).
There is some SADC research into funding mechanisms. Batisani & Yarnal (2011) examine the benefits of subsidising capital, rather than land, to develop affordable housing in Botswana. The working paper by Ruiters (2020) examines how the Development Bank of South Africa can support smart city development. International, but relevant resources include the National Urban Policy work of UN-Habitat which builds towards coordination of public and private investments in Smart City projects and Ben Dhaou et al. (2017) on public private partnerships in India.
Technology interventions are notorious for promising benefits which do not materialise and the same is true of smart city interventions (Lim et al., 2019). Accordingly, it is important to monitor the outcomes of smart interventions to be sure that the desired results are achieved, alongside identification and management of unintended consequences. Research from the United Nations University looks at the kinds of measures that are available for smart cities, how to select contextually appropriate measures and how to ensure that measures align with local priorities and do not encourage perverse behaviour (Backhouse 2020a, 2020b). Selection of indicators needs to balance international comparability with local priorities (UNU-EGOV 2020).
In particular, impacts on equity need to be foregrounded in planning smart interventions and then monitored after implementation. The report, ‘Gender and Gender equality across the board: Smart implementation for the long haul’ (OECD, 2017) assesses the institutional framework (institutions, mandates, resources, capacity, and accountability mechanisms) in place to monitor gender equity. This report makes several points that apply to monitoring more broadly, including the challenge of monitoring across many institutions at different levels of government and the need to be able to desegregate data appropriately. The choice of indicators needs to reflect equity goals which are not always included in international monitoring standards.
3. Smart cities and digital citizenship
Increasing levels of digitisation and digitalisation12 through the pursuit of smart cities has led to the creation of a new form of citizenship with new modes of urban governance and forms of participation (Antenucci and Tomasello, 2023). Digital technologies are reshaping citizenship and enabling urban residents to socialise, care for one another and participate in governance and activism in new ways (Antenucci and Tomasello, 2023; Lorini and Gomez, 2021). This shift has important consequences for access and inclusion and thus needs to be understood, especially in the SADC context, when seeking to develop smart and inclusive cities.
According to Antenucci and Tomasello (2023: 248), citizenship can be defined as “both a set of citizen practices and a condition (not necessarily a legal status) that allows subjects to claim, access, and exercise a number of rights, under certain preconditions that are determined by political authorities and social forces”. More and more, the ways that citizens practise and exercise their rights is through digital means.
To capitalise on the potential of these technologies, there is a need to move away from the normative arrangement where big tech controls digital citizenship and instead promote alternatives that are more egalitarian (Antenucci and Tomasello, 2023). In South Africa especially, the idea of smart cities developing from the bottom up is gaining traction as more research focuses on citizen centric or citizen led approaches which are more flexible and agile in responding to challenges and are less bureaucratic than traditional top down, state-led smart city approaches (Lorini and Gomez, 2021). Bottom-up approaches stimulate active citizenship and participation, thus creating better, more sustainable, smart solutions. Technologies can also empower citizens through what Mitchell and Odendaal (2015: 155) refer to as ‘digital enabled activism’ where digital tools are used to hold government actors accountable. At the same time, in light of expanding scales of civic tech in Africa which has significant implications for the future of democracy and governance in the SADC region (Karuri-Sebina and Mutua, 2023).
This new form of citizenship raises important questions around the state of digital access and inclusion. Much of the literature on South Africa suggests that having access to digital technologies improves individual quality of life. These technologies include wireless connectivity, access to mobile phones and the availability of e-services that provide residents with relevant information (for example, public transport schedules). It is also thought that ICTs have a role in addressing developmental challenges (Backhouse and Chauke, 2020). A study by Cohen et al. (2018) showed that people with digital access are less likely to feel isolated and overall are more satisfied with their quality of life. The dilemma then becomes that digital access remains a challenge in many parts of SADC. This ‘digital exclusion’ reflects and perpetuates the high levels of inequality within the regions “digital exclusion co-exists with other forms of social and economic exclusion” (Cohen et al., 2018: 10).
One example of digital exclusion is in the shifting of government services to online platforms. While this may improve efficiency, it may further exclude already marginalised communities who do not have the resources to access these services, and widen the inequality gap. Concerted efforts are therefore needed to expand and improve digital access. Mitchell and Odendaal (2015: 156) state that “ICT infrastructure provision should form part of the essential service delivered to communities”. However, the paper by Topo and Backhouse (2015), points out that while great efforts have been made to provide connectivity in South Africa, the use of this digital infrastructure remains low. In addition, adoption of new technologies requires concerted efforts in training citizens (Rensburg et al., 2019).
Understanding these trends is important as we look to expand access. Research in Information Systems has long been concerned with the question of what makes people adopt technologies and insights from the discipline are brought to bear on the problems cities face with the low uptake of smart city services. Research conducted in Johannesburg (Topo and Backhouse, 2015) shows that value, effectiveness, user needs, alternative sources, access, awareness, and trust significantly influence residents’ use of smart city services. Understanding these factors could aid cities in addressing obstacles to use that exacerbate inequality.
However, while considering issues of inclusion, Cohen et al. (2018) warn against technological determinism. Simply providing access to digital technologies cannot address development issues or inequality. Addressing digital access should therefore be part of broader efforts to improve socio-economic conditions, equality and inclusion. Similarly, discussing community activism, Mitchell and Odendaal (2015: 155) stress that digital technologies must coexist with other “forms of communication”. Backhouse et al. (2020) also highlight that in South Africa, smart city development has not led to significant social or environmental benefits and may have in fact, increased levels of inequality.
At the outset of the review, we anticipated that new forms of smart citizenship in the SADC region may have an impact on issues around migration and the digitalisation of identity. However, this theme was not prominent in the literature and may be an area that requires further study.
4. Smart city [as] infrastructure
Research on infrastructure is central in the pertinent smart city literature for this review. The importance of foundational infrastructure is highlighted because it is necessary to enable digitalisation and the creation and management of smart cities. Calderón and Cantú (2021) argue that digital technologies are important for the development of cities and can improve their productivity, leading to economic growth, helping to tackle poverty and inequality. This infrastructure includes the availability, reliability and affordability of electricity and communications networks (broadband, 5G, etc) (IIASA, 2019). While smart city infrastructure is growing in Africa, this growth is slower than in other regions and residents have significantly less access to mobile devices and internet connection (Calderón and Cantú, 2021). This foundational infrastructure also includes basic administrative infrastructure to ensure efficient governance, communication and data management as well as the long term planning, regulation and policy environment in a country or region (Backhouse et al, 2020; Calderón and Cantú, 2021).
Additionally, literature on innovative digital infrastructure tends to dominate smart cities discourse with the majority of focus on smart solutions. These innovative infrastructure developments present solutions and opportunities in sectors such as energy, finance, transport, housing and water. Munro and Samarakoon (2023) discuss how off grid solar innovations can be used to tackle energy poverty, especially in rural areas. Calderón and Cantú (2021) discuss how innovations in fintech have led to increased financial inclusion. An OECD report (2019) on how smart technologies can improve road networks found that investing in ICTs (together with other strategies) could optimise the flow of traffic. Increasingly, there is a recognition that there are low-tech or alternative forms of smart infrastructure. The paper by Backhouse and Myateza (2017) identified 17 transport apps developed in SADC countries and evaluated how smart they were, and the potential for developing them further. They found that where infrastructure is lacking, people with cellphones form ad-hoc social sensor networks that can be used to address transport problems.
In Botswana there is research into measures to reduce urban sprawl, suggesting that deregulation and flexibility could minimise sprawl and help to achieve affordable housing (Batisani & Yarnal, 2011). In Malawi, research into the market for off-grid solar energy products reveals that while they offer some relief to energy supply challenges, they also support existing inequalities since the market serves only those with the means to access it (Munro and Samarakoon 2023). Research is also being done into the use of smart meters in African cities (Gambe, 2015). Smart electricity and smart water meters are being implemented, offering better tracking of consumption and the potential for municipalities to collect much needed revenue. However, these solutions require pre-payment and people are reluctant to move from post-payment models, particularly in situations of economic hardship. Implementation is difficult, particularly where electricity supplies are erratic and where people oppose the plans and tamper with the equipment (Gambe, 2015). Provision of power and water are political and human rights issues, further complicating their implementation (Gambe, 2015). Research into network security for smart cities has been carried out in Namibia (Erastus et al., 2020).
Finally, the literature raises a point about the centrality of data and the importance of effective management and governance of this data (Loideain, 2017). The impacts of ‘big data’ on individual privacy are highlighted as well as the need for management frameworks (Loideain, 2017). To ensure that data is protected, there is a need for the adoption of security frameworks to collect, clean, store, share, use and delete data in line with agreed data policies (Erastus et al., 2020; Loideain, 2017). Thus, the importance of security frameworks is being recognised as we increasingly adopt smart city tech and a number of countries have begun to develop these frameworks (Erastus et al., 2020). Additionally, Cinnamon (2023) discusses the idea of data culture which he defines as the “values, behaviours, and norms ascribed to data by groups or organisations that together shape practices of data collection, management, use and sharing” highlighting that realising certain smart city goals requires alignment with the prevalent culture in a society (e.g. open data cities cannot happen within a culture of secrecy). If this underlying culture is not addressed, smart city progress may be constrained.
5. Approaches to “smarting” the city
New smart cities, linked to megaprojects, are very common occurrences in Africa. In SADC new cities have been announced in the DRC, in Malawi, and recently Tanzania. It becomes clear that there are two major approaches to the development of smart cities. The first one is linked to the idea of retrofitting existing cities through technology, while the second is linked to the idea of a new-build city, constructed from scratch, often in the form of megaprojects. In the continent, megaprojects like Eco Atlantic City in Lagos, Nigeria, New Cairo in Egypt and Nairobi’s Konza City that were initiated a decade ago are being developed very slowly.
The emergence of smart cities frameworks are connected to the development of Special Economic Zones, especially when assumptions about direct linkage between smart cities and economic development are made. In Namibia, for instance, there have been incentives to the economy in the form of an enterprise architecture framework for realising Windhoek as a smart city (Shaanika, 2021).
Research from Mauritius looks at the relationship between existing cities and plans to create new smart cities. The debate in Mauritius is concerned with the question of urban regeneration and the impact of smart cities programmes on the island. Allam and others (2018) show that in the case of Port St Louis it is possible to incentivise positive urban regeneration through the locale’s Smart Urban Regeneration Plan. Research conducted through surveys (2018) and focus groups (2019) shows that the regeneration plans made through tax incentives for investments are determining factors for the success of smart cities programmes. The case of Port St Louis speaks to the attempts to regenerate existing old city centres through the employment of smart technologies, and fostering tourism. Many SADC cities lack the financial and technical resources to implement smart solutions. While loans are readily available to purchase technology, mismanagement of funds means that projected benefits from these projects may not be realised and the city left further in debt (Gambe, 2015). Research conducted in Johannesburg also discusses the link between smart cities and cities built from scratch. Herbert and Murray (2015) show that the examples of Waterfall City and Lanseria Airport City speak to ideas of erasing the complexity of the current city to create from a clean slate. The author also shows the increased, privileged role of private developers in the choices to build from scratch.
As well as being a region, SADC has an identity as a political and economic institution with a mandate to provide a framework for regional integration. As an entity, SADC produces many strategic and policy documents. Since the review addresses smart cities related outputs for this geographic and regional area, we undertook content analysis of more recent pertinent documents from the SADC to ascertain if these make any direct reference to supporting smart cities across the area. In particular, we looked at SADC Vision 2050, and SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) 2020–2030, as well as prior outputs since 2012 towards the 10-year RISDP and the 30-year vision.
The substance of both outputs are based on foundations of Peace, Security and Democratic Governance, for overall goals of Industrial Development and Market Integration; Infrastructure Development in support of Regional Integration; and Social and Human Capital Development. The concept of ‘smart’ is not mentioned in either output, and even the related concept of ‘technology’ or ‘IT / ICT’ receives only minimal mention. The term ICT gets applied in relation to cross-sectoral areas for advancement (RISDP), and for “leveraging science, technology, and innovation” in industrial development and market integration, as well as pertaining to “science and technology” skills for SADC citizens in social and human capital development (Vision). In this way, the concept of smartness is not explicit but rather can be deduced as an implicit aim if it serves overarching, high-scale infrastructure and development goals.
Given the influence of the Smart City discourse and practice in the region, this literature helps us understand the complexities of “smart city” making, emphasising the different approaches and the need for ongoing research in the SADC area.
Smart insights
Between 2010 and 2023 there has been a growing body of research into smart cities and their application in the SADC region, as well as growing interest from city administrators, developers, government, activists and other actors. Considering both academic papers and the policy reports, working papers and other practitioner materials from reputable sources, we found five themes that predominate and perhaps distinguish the work in SADC from other regions. These were detailed above.
There are a range of discourses considering what makes a city ‘smart’, however it is clear from the literature that rather than imposing one way of being smart, it is important to respond to the local context. There is general consensus that smart city concepts cannot be imported unchanged from other contexts and always need dedicated efforts to localise plans and their execution. While some approaches advocate for social inclusion, others are focused on creating a friendly environment for business and economic growth. These approaches have implications that need to be considered. Similarly, the approach taken in developing smart cities varies between retrofitting existing cities with smart features to completely developing new cities.
Matters of governance and citizenship are prominent in both the academic and practitioner literature. While there are many actors involved in smart city development, ultimately the responsibility falls on the government, with both national and local governments occupying a central role in the governance requirements of smart cities. Governance is seen as necessary to coordinate between stakeholders, set acceptable goals and monitor effects. There remains concern as to how to ensure that smart city initiatives address inequality and deliver promised social benefits, especially in the SADC context. To this end, the literature emphasises the need to monitor smart city initiatives to understand their impact, but also to assess equity.
While infrastructure is seen as central in the smart city literature, the SADC region faces challenges in development of infrastructure. Smart solutions are also prevalent in the region, with innovative solutions being developed and promoted across a range of sectors. This often involves various stakeholders and managing the different actors can be a difficult undertaking. For example, private sector construction and technology companies are quick to support smart initiatives but are often less interested in the long-term local impacts or equality, and so their interests need to be balanced with those of the broader populace.
It is therefore important to consider how to balance and sequence these various considerations and priorities across the five emerging themes, which has implications for institutional architecture. Government actors across the three spheres (local, national, international), as well as in regional partnerships face the challenge of steering their context-specific “smart city” agenda without being influenced by the hype and marketing that surrounds smart city development. Developing a more robust and focused body of knowledge hinging on local perspectives could be useful to support governments in this regard.
The paucity of strategic focus by SADC on opportunities from ICTs and their associated data, a central element utilised in any smart city, arguably demonstrates an oversight on impacts faced by digitalisation through pursuit of smartness in the rapidly changing (digital) data landscape, with associated ‘datafication’ (Van Dijck, 2014; Lycett, 2013). Governments also need a clear citizen-centric position regarding data ownership, and ensuring mechanisms for engaging with the global debates on appropriate data use (including collection / creation). Following legal requirements, for instance around personal data, or legal channels for onward use of data, ought to be the bare minimum as societies face new frontiers such as increased AI tools and algorithm use in public services provision and governing (Luusua et al., 2023).