Smart Cities and COVID-19: Implications for Data Ecosystems from Lessons Learned in India

Abstract

This brief distils best data practice recommendations through consideration of key issues involved in the use of technology for surveillance, fact-checking and coordinated control during crisis or emergency response in resource constrained urban contexts. We draw lessons from how data enabled technologies were used in urban COVID-19 response, as well as how standard implementation procedures were affected by the pandemic. Disease control is a long-standing consideration in building smart city architecture, while humanitarian actions are increasingly digitised. However, there are competing city visions being employed in COVID-19 response. This is symptomatic of a broader range of tech-based responses in other humanitarian contexts. These visions range from aspirations for technology driven, centralised and surveillance oriented urban regimes, to ‘frugal innovations’ by firms, consumers and city governments. Data ecosystems are not immune from gendered- and socio-political discrimination, and technology-based interventions can worsen existing inequalities, particularly in emergencies. Technology driven public health (PH) interventions thus raise concerns about 1) what types of technologies are appropriate, 2) whether they produce inclusive outcomes for economically and socially disadvantaged urban residents and 3) the balance between surveillance and control on one hand, and privacy and citizen autonomy on the other.

Pandemic management, citizens and the Indian Smart cities: Reflections from the right to the smart city and the digital divide

“…Apart from the failures mentioned earlier, we found successful examples of decentralized management with citizen participation within the smart cities in Kerala (e.g., Kochi) and Odisha (e.g., Bhubaneswar). Kochi practiced community-level COVID-19 management of testing and contact tracing, forming functional datasets from multiple sources, and creating a blended data environment ( Gupte, 2021 ). The Kerala model of a decentralized “robust healthcare system and a participatory mode of governance or social democracy” ( Chathukulam & Tharamangalam, 2021 , p. 9) helped oversee the first two COVID-19 waves resulting in the lowest number of cases and fatality ratio.…”

“…The decentralized administration conducted through ICTs during the pandemic created intermediary citizens who reflect the characteristics of Datta's (2018a) ‘ chatur citizenry,’ participating through what Andrade (2019) suggested as modes of ‘street-smart’ and resourceful bottom-up ways. These citizens comprise community volunteers of Kochi, who used WhatsApp and their limited training to expedite information sharing, fight misinformation, gain public buy-in, and monitor the outbreak's movement in a common language across multiple stakeholders and marginalized people ( Gupte, 2021 ). At the same time, as discussed earlier, the women-run SHG Kudumbashree in Kerala acted as a reference point for solving information issues through neighborhood WhatsApp groups ( Gupte, 2021 ).…”

“…These citizens comprise community volunteers of Kochi, who used WhatsApp and their limited training to expedite information sharing, fight misinformation, gain public buy-in, and monitor the outbreak's movement in a common language across multiple stakeholders and marginalized people ( Gupte, 2021 ). At the same time, as discussed earlier, the women-run SHG Kudumbashree in Kerala acted as a reference point for solving information issues through neighborhood WhatsApp groups ( Gupte, 2021 ). Similarly, local COVID-Sachetak Committees (Awareness creation committees) and Pragati Sathis (development peer leaders) in Bhubaneswar undertook awareness and identification of symptomatic cases in slums.…”