Publications

This paper considers how the (de)territorialised appeal of international schools in China can reflect, enforce and expand pre-existing patterns of urban segregation. Whilst exploration of the effects of educational marketplaces on urban environments has become a focus of scholarly research, the recent expansion in the supply of, and demand for, international education has caused these effects to become more nuanced. As (de)territorialised entities, international schools can cause multiple forms of spatial and psycho-social distinction and (dis)association to become intertwined, the effects of which start from the school and radiate out from there. International schools can therefore cause segregation to become a structurally entrenched phenomenon. These ideas are illustrated through an empirical examination of three international schools located in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou. We explore the ways in which these schools are branded spaces that reproduce socio-spatial boundaries and thus foster a (de)territorialised sense of inter-belonging amongst their students.

In this article, we survey a growing body of literature within geography and other intersecting fields that trains attention on what inclusive smart cities are, or what they could be. In doing so, we build on debates around smart citizens, smart public participation, and grassroots and bottom-up smart cities that are concerned with making smart cities more inclusive. The growing critical scholarship on such dis- courses, however, alerts us to the knowledge politics that are involved in, and the urban inequalities that are deeply rooted within, the urban. Technological interventions con- tribute to these politics and inequalities in various ways. Accordingly, we discuss limitations of the current discourses around inclusive smart cities and suggest a need for a nuanced definition of ‘inclusiveness’. We also discuss the necessity to further engage with critical data studies in order to ‘know’ what we are critiquing.

Quantifying the economic benefits of built heritage facilitates the formulation and assessment of conservation policies and programs. There is however a lack of empirical research about the economic value of built heritage in Asian cities. This lack is problematic, given the rapid pace of demolition and redevelopment of historic landscapes in Asian cities. This study seeks to reduce the current gap in built heritage research by examining whether real estate premiums are generated by the designation of buildings as ‘conserved’ in Singapore, a city-state in South East Asia. Using 20 years of housing transaction data, and controlling for building, neighborhood and year fixed effects, we found that conservation designation had a positive impact on average sale prices per square meter of built area that was largest at residential locations between 800 m to 1.6 km from the conserved site. Findings also suggest that lower-cost public housing resale units gained a substantially smaller premium compared to private housing units. While our findings suggest an economic justification for building conservation programs in Asian cities, they also raise questions about such programs potential impact on neighborhood gentrification, and the need for appropriate taxation policies to ensure horizontal equity between property owners.

This paper argues that the divergent logics of “smartness” and “sustainability” can lead to parallel regimes of sustainability. Whilst sustainability is often used to justify the need for smart cities, smart cities are often undermined by the neoliberal logics of digital governance. Moreover, because the intersection of digital technologies and society is a negotiated one, smart solutions often fail to provide adequate solutions to social problems. This is especially true when smart solutions are used to augment or replace hitherto human-centred processes, like caregiving.Parallel regimes of sustainability are a response to these failures. Drawing on an analysis of a trial of in-home smart eldercare technologies in Singapore, four binary pairings – public-private, individual-community, remote-proximate and passive-active – are used to define the parallel regimes of sustainable eldercare that emerged in response to smart technologies. To conclude, the need for urban paradigms to evolve in conversation with society is emphasised.

This paper argues that the divergent logics of “smartness” and “sustainability” can lead to parallel regimes of sustainability. Whilst sustainability is often used to justify the need for smart cities, smart cities are often undermined by the neoliberal logics of digital governance. Moreover, because the intersection of digital technologies and society is a negotiated one, smart solutions often fail to provide adequate solutions to social problems. This is especially true when smart solutions are used to augment or replace hitherto human-centred processes, like caregiving.Parallel regimes of sustainability are a response to these failures. Drawing on an analysis of a trial of in-home smart eldercare technologies in Singapore, four binary pairings – public-private, individual-community, remote-proximate and passive-active – are used to define the parallel regimes of sustainable eldercare that emerged in response to smart technologies. To conclude, the need for urban paradigms to evolve in conversation with society is emphasised.