IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsrrp/qt5mt4m51n.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Benchmarking “Smart City” Technology Adoption in California: An Innovative Web Platform for Exploring New Data and Tracking Adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Post, Alison PhD
  • Ratan, Ishana
  • Hill, Mary
  • Huang, Amy
  • Soga, Kenichi PhD
  • Zhao, Bingyu PhD

Abstract

In recent years, “smart city” technologies have emerged that allow cities, counties, and other agencies to manage their infrastructure assets more effectively, make their services more accessible to the public, and allow citizens to interface with new web-and mobile-based alternative service providers. This project developed an innovative user-friendly web interface for local and state policymakers that tracks and displays information on the adoption of such technologies in California across the policing, transportation, and water and wastewater sectors for a comprehensive set of local service providers: connectedgov.berkeley.edu. Contrary to conventional smart city indices, our platform allows users to view rates of adoption in maps that attribute adoption to the local public agencies or service providers actually procuring or regulating the technologies in question. Users can construct indices or view technologies one by one. Users can also explore the relationship between technology adoption and local service area conditions and demographics, or download the raw data and scripts used to collect it. This report illustrates the utility of the data we have collected, and the analytics one can perform using our web interface through an analysis of the rollout of three technologies in the transportation sector: electric vehicle (EV) chargers, transportation network company (TNC) service areas, and micromobility services across California.

Suggested Citation

  • Post, Alison PhD & Ratan, Ishana & Hill, Mary & Huang, Amy & Soga, Kenichi PhD & Zhao, Bingyu PhD, 2021. "Benchmarking “Smart City” Technology Adoption in California: An Innovative Web Platform for Exploring New Data and Tracking Adoption," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt5mt4m51n, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsrrp:qt5mt4m51n
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5mt4m51n.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2018. "Impacts of Shared Mobility," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt9vx1m1t9, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Rick Grahn & Corey D. Harper & Chris Hendrickson & Zhen Qian & H. Scott Matthews, 0. "Socioeconomic and usage characteristics of transportation network company (TNC) riders," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-21.
    3. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Lazarus, Jessica & Pourquier, Jean Carpentier & Feng, Frank & Hammel, Henry & Shaheen, Susan, 2020. "Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt96g9c9nd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    5. Rob Kitchin, 2015. "Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 8(1), pages 131-136.
    6. Rick Grahn & Corey D. Harper & Chris Hendrickson & Zhen Qian & H. Scott Matthews, 2020. "Socioeconomic and usage characteristics of transportation network company (TNC) riders," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3047-3067, December.
    7. Frick, Karen Trappenburg PhD & Kumar, Tanu PhD & Mendonça Abreu, Giselle Kristina & Post, Alison PhD, 2021. "Benchmarking “Smart City” Technology Adoption in California: Developing and Piloting a Data Collection Approach," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt3797p0ws, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    8. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam, 2020. "Mobility on Demand in the United States," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt14f893rv, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    9. Araz Taeihagh & Hazel Si Min Lim, 2019. "Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 103-128, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Arias-Molinares, Daniela & Romanillos, Gustavo & García-Palomares, Juan Carlos & Gutiérrez, Javier, 2021. "Exploring the spatio-temporal dynamics of moped-style scooter sharing services in urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Elnert Coenegrachts & Joris Beckers & Thierry Vanelslander & Ann Verhetsel, 2021. "Business Model Blueprints for the Shared Mobility Hub Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    4. Xiaojia Guo & Chengpeng Lu & Dongqi Sun & Yexin Gao & Bing Xue, 2021. "Comparison of Usage and Influencing Factors between Governmental Public Bicycles and Dockless Bicycles in Linfen City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Ma, Xinwei & Ji, Yanjie & Yuan, Yufei & Van Oort, Niels & Jin, Yuchuan & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 148-173.
    6. Sobrino, Natalia & Gonzalez, Juan Nicolas & Vassallo, Jose Manuel & Baeza, Maria de los Angeles, 2023. "Regulation of shared electric kick scooters in urban areas: Key drivers from expert stakeholders," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-18.
    7. Cheng, Long & Huang, Jie & Jin, Tanhua & Chen, Wendong & Li, Aoyong & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Samadzad, Mahdi & Nosratzadeh, Hossein & Karami, Hossein & Karami, Ali, 2023. "What are the factors affecting the adoption and use of electric scooter sharing systems from the end user's perspective?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 70-82.
    9. Riggs, William & Kawashima, Matt & Batstone, David, 2021. "Exploring best practice for municipal e-scooter policy in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 18-27.
    10. Gao, Kun & Yang, Ying & Li, Aoyong & Li, Junhong & Yu, Bo, 2021. "Quantifying economic benefits from free-floating bike-sharing systems: A trip-level inference approach and city-scale analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 89-103.
    11. Daniela Arias-Molinares & Juan Carlos García-Palomares & Gustavo Romanillos & Javier Gutiérrez, 2023. "Uncovering spatiotemporal micromobility patterns through the lens of space–time cubes and GIS tools," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 403-427, July.
    12. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    13. Hasnine, Md Sami & Hawkins, Jason & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2021. "Effects of built environment and weather on demands for transportation network company trips," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 171-185.
    14. Loa, Patrick & Hossain, Sanjana & Liu, Yicong & Nurul Habib, Khandker, 2022. "How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the use of ride-sourcing services? An empirical evidence-based investigation for the Greater Toronto Area," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 46-62.
    15. Shahram Heydari & Garyfallos Konstantinoudis & Abdul Wahid Behsoodi, 2021. "Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on bike-sharing demand and hire time: Evidence from Santander Cycles in London," Papers 2107.11589, arXiv.org.
    16. Namkung, Ok Stella & Park, Jonghan & Ko, Joonho, 2023. "Public bike users’ annual travel distance: Findings from combined data of user survey and annual rental records," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Lei Zhu & Zhouqiao Zhao & Guoyuan Wu, 2021. "Shared Automated Mobility with Demand-Side Cooperation: A Proof-of-Concept Microsimulation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Fei-Hui Huang, 2021. "User Behavioral Intentions toward a Scooter-Sharing Service: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    20. Cheng, Long & Yang, Junjian & Chen, Xuewu & Cao, Mengqiu & Zhou, Hang & Sun, Yu, 2020. "How could the station-based bike sharing system and the free-floating bike sharing system be coordinated?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Engineering; Smart cities; data collection; micromobility; ridesourcing; electric vehicle charging; local government agencies; private sector; market penetration; databases; web applications;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsrrp:qt5mt4m51n. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.