The Response of Local-Level Public Authority to the Digital Transformation in Three Contexts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The dominance of the rational planning paradigm has prompted the urban digital transformation. This transformation can be seen in the computational advancements that unlock faster and more detailed representations of urban ecosystems; the public and private investments in smart city research and development; and the urgent demand for more robust and responsive infrastructure management systems at the local government level. Local governments, especially municipalities, shoulder a tremendous burden in adapting to an increasingly digital—and supposedly more rational—urban landscape. The idea is that ubiquitous digital infrastructure systems that enable more extensive data collection and analysis, will improve governance practices and redress past socioeconomic, political, and environmental harms and prevent future ones. Through studies of the traditional trajectory of technology adoption, corporate re-imaginings of urban life, and the challenges of cybersecurity and governing ubiquitous digital infrastructure at scale, this dissertation explores how local-level public authorities negotiate and practice digital infrastructure governance. The overall finding from this research is that local governments determine the efficacy of urban digital infrastructure because of their remit and administrative capacity. While developers and entrepreneurs argue that government incompetence or a lack of advanced technology thwarts the realization of their utopias, the oft-derided bureaucracy reveals—and protects against—threats to the erosion of public authority as guarantor of the public interest. This research finds that this emergent dual-function will be a critical attenuating force against technology developers asserting their perceived entitlement to public governance. Each chapter studies rational planning as the prevailing ideology guiding urban governance and shows how cities respond to external forces that leverage rational planning to drive the urban digital transformation. Chapter 1 demonstrates how advancements in traditional analytical tools in research and practice can be used by local departments of transportation (DOT), a group whose authority to implement traffic management strategies has historically exceeded their capacity to analyze network dynamics. Through conducting a simulation of the City of San Jose's Safer Streets strategy, I find that local DOTs can virtually implement and analyze the neighborhood-level and network-level impacts of localized traffic management strategies; two key results from the simulation are that imposing the 20 mph speed limit cap on residential streets in San Jose EPCs leads to a 39% reduction in passthrough traffic on those streets, and in some cases, the diverted vehicles contribute to a 76% increase in traffic on streets in the surrounding network. Chapter 2 uses a case study of the cancelled Quayside smart city project in Toronto to explore the influence of public authority on how smart city entrepreneurs develop and implement their initiatives. There, I find that public authority can block entrepreneurial rational planning initiatives, namely, smart cities, whose development is heavily sanctioned by technology firms. This finding challenges the prevailing notion in smart city scholarship that local governments are at a governance authority disadvantage relative to the private sector. Chapter 3 shows that the progressive rollout of rational planning tools expands a costly and unbounded infrastructure risk profile that local governments cannot manage alone. Through a study of the sources of transaction costs of municipal cyber risk management, I present the procedural requirements that cities must satisfy in order to address threats to their cyberphysical systems. I find that municipalities are ill-positioned to independently manage cyber risk, meaning that they will incur transaction costs in establishing and maintaining the governmental and business relationships needed to address cybersecurity. Accounting for these requirements provides local governments a more complete picture of the required expenditures for technology adoption and deployment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».