Policy-making bodies such as the UNISDR have frequently emphasized the role of community resilience in disaster risk management. However, this community-centered approach to enhancing a city's resilience may overlook other critical variables. Few studies have been conducted on the city's process of building urban resilience, as well as the factors that impede or accelerate the resilience process. This article aims to add to the body of literature on urban resilience processes by analyzing the disaster experience and urban resilience of Malabon City, a flood-prone city in Metro Manila's northwestern region. The purpose of this article is to answer the questions, “How does the process of urban resilience occur?”, “What factors impede or accelerate the process of urban resilience?” and “Why such factors impede or accelerate the process of urban resilience?” Furthermore, the article adds to the debate about how shifting the responsibility for resilience building to society and the community reduces government and political accountability to the people it is supposed to serve. The article will critically assess the policy environment surrounding the flood infrastructure development in Metro Manila and how it gravely affected Malabon City. The case analysis demonstrates that urban resilience does not follow a linear pattern or a single equilibrium, but rather multiple equilibria of resilience building. It highlights that urban resilience is complex and considers the connections between and among sectors and dimensions within the city. The article indicates resilience as a value-laden and politically charged concept.@en

This paper aims to explain how the governance model changes in smart cities by using South Korea's experience as a case study. South Korean smart city development is divided into three phases according to the national master plan and maturity of smart cities. Phase 1 took place from 2008 to 2013, phase 2 extended from 2014 to 2018, and phase 3 began in 2019 and will last into 2023. The cases under consideration are three representative smart cities: Seoul, Songdo, and Sejong. The analysis traces how the governance model of each city changes throughout the three phases. According to stakeholders’ roles and relationships, the governance model is categorized into four types (corporate, market, multilevel, and network governance). The governance model in all three cities showed little change. In Seoul and Songdo, market governance was dominant, while in Sejong, multilevel governance was. However, in phase 3, the institutional setting is changing to facilitate network governance in all three cities. The government guided the collaboration, giving more opportunities for private, academic, and civil actors to engage.@en

This paper aims to explain how the governance model changes in smart cities by using South Korea's experience as a case study. South Korean smart city development is divided into three phases according to the national master plan and maturity of smart cities. Phase 1 took place from 2008 to 2013, phase 2 extended from 2014 to 2018, and phase 3 began in 2019 and will last into 2023. The cases under consideration are three representative smart cities: Seoul, Songdo, and Sejong. The analysis traces how the governance model of each city changes throughout the three phases. According to stakeholders’ roles and relationships, the governance model is categorized into four types (corporate, market, multilevel, and network governance). The governance model in all three cities showed little change. In Seoul and Songdo, market governance was dominant, while in Sejong, multilevel governance was. However, in phase 3, the institutional setting is changing to facilitate network governance in all three cities. The government guided the collaboration, giving more opportunities for private, academic, and civil actors to engage.@en

Smart cities aim to provide benefits such as economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and high quality of life to their citizens. However, we do not have a comprehensive understanding of how and to what extent these benefits are realized. This paper aims to find empirical evidence of both positive and negative results of smart city development. Smart City Impact Index is developed with indicators in four pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, social, and governance) and technological dimension as technology is main driver of smart cities. The index was applied to South Korean cities, which are categorized as 1) first-wave smart cities that focus on transportation and security infrastructure, 2) second-wave smart cities that emphasize comprehensive urban management, and 3) non-smart cities. The index score was calculated for the years 2008 and 2018 to compare the before and after of smart city development. The results showed that the second-wave smart cities scored highest in both 2008 and 2018. However, the second-wave smart city had a lower score in both the environment and social dimensions. Smart city development in South Korea has had positive impacts on facilitating equality and citizen participation but negative impacts on people's perceptions of transparency and privacy.@en

Smart city is an innovative urban development that aims at sustainable development and a high quality of life (Dirks & Keeling, 2009; Toppeta, 2010; Washburn et al., 2009). There are abundant studies on political and technological strategies to make smart cities, however, the changes induced by those strategies have not been comprehensively understood. In this regard, the purpose of this paper is to identify the results of smart city development using the systematic literature review method. We reviewed 55 papers and found 12 positive and 4 negative results are frequently mentioned. Among 12 positive results, six were purely hypothetical without any evidence: (1) enhancing citizen involvement, (2) protecting environment, (3) facilitating social development, (4) facilitating sustainable development, (5) fostering innovation, and (6) increasing social capital. There is relatively less attention to negative results. Two out of four negative results are purely hypothetical: (1) privacy and security issues and (2) diminishing freedom of speech and democracy. Further studies are needed in discovering the evidence for purely hypothetical impacts and comparing smart city development in advanced and emerging economies.@en

One positive impact of smart cities is reducing energy consumption and CO2 emission through the use of information and communication technologies (ICT). Energy transition pursues systematic changes to the low-carbon society, and it can benefit from technological and institutional advancement in smart cities. The integration of the energy transition to smart city development has not been thoroughly studied yet. The purpose of this study is to find empirical evidence of smart cities’ contributions to energy transition. The hypothesis is that there is a significant difference between smart and non-smart cities in the performance of energy transition. The Smart Energy Transition Index is introduced. Index is useful to summarize the smart city component’s contribution to energy transition and to enable comparison among cities. The cities in South Korea are divided into three groups: (1) first-wave smart cities that focus on smart transportation and security services; (2) second-wave smart cities that provide comprehensive urban services; and (3) non-smart cities. The results showed that second-wave smart cities scored higher than first-wave and non-smart cities, and there is a statistically significant difference among city groups. This confirms the hypothesis of this paper that smart city development can contribute to the energy transition.@en