A Socio-Technical Perspective on Urban Analytics: The Case of City-Scale Digital Twins

References

• A. Anas and Y. Liu, “A Regional Economy, Land Use, and Transportation Model (RELU-TRAN©): Formulation, Algorithm Design, and Testing,” Journal of Regional Science 47: 3 (2007) 415–455. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2007.00515.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Batty, The New Science of Cities (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• M. Batty, “Models Again: Their Role in Planning and Prediction,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 42: 1 (2015) 191–194. doi: 10.1068/b4202ed
   Google Scholar
• M. Batty, “Digital Twins,” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 45: 5 (2018) 817–820.
   Google Scholar
• M. Batty, “A Map Is Not the Territory, or Is It?” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46: 4 (2019) 599–602
   Google Scholar
• A. Bolton, L. Butler, I. Dabson, M. Enzer, M. Evans, T. Fenemore, F. Harradence, et al., The Gemini Principles. Report of Cambridge: Centre for Digital Built Britain, 2018. <www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/DFTG/GeminiPrinciples> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• A. Bryman, Social Research Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge City Council, Cambridge Local Plan (2018–2031) (Cambridge: Cambridge City Council, 2018) <www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/Local Plan 2006.pdf> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Interim Local Transport Plan (Cambridge: CPCA, 2017) <https://cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk/assets/Transport/Interim-Transport-Plan-170628.pdf> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan (2011–2031): Long Term Transport Strategy (Cambridge: Cambridgeshire County Council, 2015) <https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-plans-and-policies/local-transport-plan> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridgeshire Insight, Cambridgeshire: 2015-Based Population Forecasts by District and Ward (Cambridge: Cambridgeshire Insight, 2015) <https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/population-estimates-old/> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Cambridgeshire Insight, Population – Population Reports (Cambridge: Cambridgeshire Insight, 2018) <https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/population/report/view/f7de925f5608420c825c4c0691de5af2/E07000008/> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• L. K. Campbell, E. S. Svendsen, and L. A. Roman, “Knowledge Co-Production at the Research–Practice Interface: Embedded Case Studies from Urban Forestry,” Environmental Management 57:6 (2016) 1262–1280. doi: 10.1007/s00267-016-0680-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Carvalho, “Smart Cities from Scratch? A Socio-Technical Perspective,” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 8: 1 (2015) 43–60. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsu010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CPIER, The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review: Final Report (Cambridge: CPIEC, 2018) <https://www.cpier.org.uk/final-report/> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• S. Darby, “Making Space for Co-Produced Research ‘Impact’: Learning from a Participatory Action Research Case Study,” Area 49: 2 (2017) 230–237. doi: 10.1111/area.12321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dassault Systèmes, Meet Virtual Singapore, the City’s 3D Digital Twin (2018) <https://govinsider.asia/digital-gov/meet-virtual-singapore-citys-3d-digital-twin/> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• S. Davoudi, “Evidence-Based Planning,” DisP: The Planning Review 42: 165 (2006) 14–24.
   Google Scholar
• O. Dawkins, A. Dennett, and A. Hudson-Smith, “Living with a Digital Twin: Operational Management and Engagement Using IoT and Mixed Realities at UCL’s Here East Campus on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual GIScience Research UK Conference: GISRUK 2018. (Leicester, 2018) <https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10056521/> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• DfT. 2018. Transport Analysis Guidance (UK: Department for Transport, 2018) <www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• M. Flinders, M. Wood, and M. Cunningham, “The Politics of Co-Production: Risks, Limits and Pollution,” Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 12: 2 (2016) 261–279. doi: 10.1332/174426415X14412037949967
   Google Scholar
• Greater Cambridge Partnership, City Access and Bus Service Improvements Update (Cambridge: GCP, 2018) <https://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s108578/7-City Access.pdf> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• M. Grieves and J. Vickers, “Digital Twin: Mitigating Unpredictable, Undesirable Emergent Behavior in Complex Systems,” in Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems: New Findings and Approaches (Cham: Springer International, 2017), 85–113.
   Google Scholar
• L. Hooghe and G. Marks, “Types of Multi-Level Governance,” European Integration Online Papers (EIoP) 5: 11 (2001) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=302786> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Y. Jin, M. Echenique, and A. Hargreaves, “A Recursive Spatial Equilibrium Model for Planning Large-Scale Urban Change,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40: 6 (2013) 1027–1050. doi: 10.1068/b39134
   Google Scholar
• R. Kitchin, “Making Sense of Smart Cities: Addressing Present Shortcomings,” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 8: 1 (2015) 131–136. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsu027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. B. Ku and J. Y. C. Kwok, “The Action Research Practice of Urban Planning: An Example from Hong Kong,” in The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, edited by Hilary Bradbury (London: Sage, 2015) 118–130.
   Google Scholar
• I. S. Lowry, A Model of Metropolis, Report (Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA, 1964)
   Google Scholar
• A. Maiello, C. V. Viegas, M. Frey, and J. D. Ribeiro, “Public Managers as Catalysts of Knowledge Co-Production? Investigating Knowledge Dynamics in Local Environmental Policy,” Environmental Science and Policy 27 (2013) 141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Meuleman, Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets (Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 2008).
   Google Scholar
• L. Mora and M. Deakin, Untangling Smart Cities: From Utopian Dreams to Innovation Systems for a Technology-Enabled Urban Sustainability (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• NIC, Data for the Public Good (London: National Infrastructure Commission, 2017) <https://www.nic.org.uk/publications/data-public-good/> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• T. Nochta, L. Wan, J. M. Schooling, L. Lemanski, A. K. Parlikad, and Y. Jin, “Digitalisation for Smarter Cities: Moving from a Static to a Dynamic View,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Smart Infrastructure and Construction 171:4 (2018) 117–130. doi: 10.1680/jsmic.19.00001
   Google Scholar
• T. Nochta, N. E. Badstuber, and L. Wan, “Evidence-Informed Decisionmaking in Multi-Stakeholder Settings: The Case of City Digital Twins for Planning and Management,” paper presented at Data for Policy 2019 (London, 11–12 June, 2019a)
   Google Scholar
• T. Nochta, N. E. Badstuber, and N. Wahby, “On the Governance of City Digital Twins: Insights from the Cambridge Case Study,” CDBB Working Papers 12 (Cambridge: Centre for Digital Built Britain, 2019b) <www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/293984> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• T. Nochta, A. Parlikad, J. M. Schooling, N. E. Badstuber, and N. Wahby, “The Local Governance of Digital Technology: Implications for the City-Scale Digital Twin,” Report (Cambridge: Centre for Digital Built Britain, 2019c) <www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/296276> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• NRF, Virtual Singapore (Singapore: National Research Foundation, November 7, 2018 ) <https://www.nrf.gov.sg/programmes/virtual-singapore> Accessed March 26, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• J. Pierre, “Comparative Urban Governance: Uncovering Complex Causalities,” Urban Affairs Review 40: 4 (2005) 446–462. doi: 10.1177/1078087404273442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Polk, “Transdisciplinary Co-Production: Designing and Testing a Transdisciplinary Research Framework for Societal Problem Solving,” Futures 65 (January 2015) 110–122. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Pollitt and G. Bouckaert, Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
   Google Scholar
• C. D. F. Rogers, “Engineering Future Liveable, Resilient, Sustainable Cities Using Foresight,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering 171: 6 (2018) 3–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Skelcher, “Changing Images of the State: Overloaded, Hollowed-out, Congested,” Public Policy and Administration 15: 3 (2000) 3–19. doi: 10.1177/095207670001500302
   Google Scholar
• F. Tao and Q. Qi., “Make More Digital Twins,” Nature 573: 7775 (2019) 490–491. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02849-1
   Google Scholar
• M. Tomko and S. Winter, “Beyond Digital Twins: A Commentary,” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46: 2 (2019) 395–399.
   Google Scholar
• G. Verbong, F. W. Geels, and R. Raven, “Multi-Niche Analysis of Dynamics and Policies in Dutch Renewable Energy Innovation Journeys (1970–2006): Hype-Cycles, Closed Networks and Technology-Focused Learning,” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20: 5 (2008): 555–573. doi: 10.1080/09537320802292719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Waddell, “Integrated Land Use and Transportation Planning and Modelling: Addressing Challenges in Research and Practice,” Transport Reviews 31: 2 (2011) 209–229. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2010.525671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Wan and Y. Jin, “Assessment of Model Validation Outcomes of a New Recursive Spatial Equilibrium Model for the Greater Beijing,” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46: 5 (2017) 805–825.
   Google Scholar
• L. Wan, S. Gao, C. Wu, Y. Jin, M. Mao, and L. Yang, “Big Data and Urban System Model: Substitutes or Complements? A Case Study of Modelling Commuting Patterns in Beijing,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 68 (2018) 64–77. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Wan, T. Nochta, and J. M. Schooling, “ Developing a City-Level Digital Twin: Propositions and a Case Study,” in International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019 (ICSIC) (London: ICE, 2019) 187–194.
   Google Scholar
• M. Wegener, “Operational Urban Models State of the Art,” Journal of the American Planning Association 60: 1 (1994) 17–29. doi: 10.1080/01944369408975547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Wegener, “Overview of Land-Use Transport Models,” Handbook of Transport Geography and Spatial Systems 5 (2004) 127–146. doi: 10.1108/9781615832538-009
   Google Scholar
• A. Wiig, “The Empty Rhetoric of the Smart City: From Digital Inclusion to Economic Promotion in Philadelphia,” Urban Geography 37: 4 (2016) 535–553. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2015.1065686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar