Smart Cities & Public Health Emergency Collaboration Framework
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
The coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cities and communities worldwide. From the loss of lives and interruption of essential day-to-day services, to disruption of the global economy, no one person, organization, or country is spared.
Cities have borne the initial burden of the COVID-19 outbreak. As the number of infections and deaths surge, governments are turning to technology and innovative approaches for help. For example, eighteen countries around the world are using mobile phone tracking and contact tracing methods.
Innovative smart city technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), 5G, open data, and analytics, offer the potential for cities to respond to the pandemic more effectively. Existing response activities can be delivered faster, with better quality and accuracy, and with less cost. Furthermore, cities and public health organizations can build on these advanced capabilities to create new services and respond in ways that were not possible before.
However, current efforts to engage the innovation communities are reactive, piecemeal, and have limited effectiveness. Some problems get a lot of attention while others go unaddressed. Many technology companies lack context of how cities and public health systems address health emergencies, and offer solutions that are not relevant. Still other solutions have limited effectiveness because they lack community support or prerequisite infrastructure.
Smart Cities-Public Health Emergency Collaboration Framework
Based on our observations and experiences, we’ve written a white paper describing a Smart City-Public Health Emergency collaboration framework. We define a structured approach to broadly consider and maximize collaboration opportunities between the smart city innovation community and municipalities for the COVID-19 outbreak. It integrates the CDC Public Health Emergency and Response Capabilities standards with components of a smart city innovation ecosystem. The CDC defined capability standards are organized into six domains (Figure One). Each domain contains a defined set of capabilities. Each capability has a set of standardized activities associated with it.
The Smart Cities and Public Health Emergency Collaboration framework is shown in Figure Two. Each intersection in the framework represents a collaboration point where the smart city’s innovation ecosystem and digital capabilities can be used to augment the municipalities’ public health emergency response needs.
This framework broadly captures and proactively maximizes the full range of collaboration opportunities between cities, public health systems, and the technology community for a public health emergency. The more boxes in the framework that can be populated, the more effective the overall response is likely to be.
The Framework in Action
There is no limit to the number of collaboration initiatives possible for each box. Some collaboration initiatives may span multiple CDC capability domains, and some initiatives may span multiple smart city layers.
We share three examples of responses, as reported in the media, and where they fit within this framework. Additional details about the framework, including other examples are in the white paper.
Example 1: Infected Individual Tracing
Collaboration Point: Bio-Surveillance (Public Health Surveillance and Epidemiological Investigation) and Data and Analytics Layer.
A number of governments are using the data from mobile phones to track infected individuals, to see where they went and whom they may have come into contact with. This information is then used to identify those who have potentially been infected, how many people were infected, and when they may have been infected.
Example 2: COVID-19 Screening Website
Collaboration Point: Countermeasures and Mitigation (Non-pharmaceutical interventions) and Community Engagement.
A life sciences company has created a website that screens for COVID-19, and directs people to local testing locations. This effort supports California’s community based testing program, and is available in four counties.
Example 3: Community Broadband
Collaboration Point: Countermeasures and Mitigation (Non-pharmaceutical interventions) and Technology Infrastructure
A national telecommunications company is providing the communities that it operates in with access to broadband Internet service. This includes lifting data caps for its existing customers, and access to its nationwide network of hotspots to non-customers.
In addition, new customers are given two months of free service. This supports the community, businesses, and others affected by “shelter in place” directives intended to reduce community spread of COVID-19.
This framework is most effective when:
- It is used as a starting point for collaboration. Cities and health systems bring domain knowledge, while technology companies bring the digital expertise.
- Cities and health systems use it to plot their existing responses and then identify their capability gaps and needs. They must articulate those gaps and needs to the technology companies.
- Technology companies align their offers to the CDC specified capabilities and activities. It may be necessary to partner to offer an “end to end” solution.
- Everyone thinks beyond individual boxes. The squares are a starting point. Some needs cross multiple capability domains and require a combination of technology, community engagement, and data.
- Collaboration opportunities are separated into two categories. One for tactical immediate responses, and a separate set for mid-term, longer efforts.
With an initial understanding of the framework, the following are recommended next steps for municipalities, communities and public health systems:
- Review the framework and understand each of the fifteen capabilities (Figure One) and the associated activities corresponding to each capability.
- Evaluate the current state of the community’s response capabilities and activities. Identify the level of activities, as well as gaps in your capabilities.
- Map the gaps and wants into the framework. This becomes a list of challenges that can be used to solicit innovative ideas and solutions.
- Invite the technology and innovation community to review this list. Host various brainstorming and ideation sessions. Create open challenges and invite the community to participate.
For technology and innovative solutions providers:
- Review and understand what each of the fifteen capabilities are, and what activities they enable.
- Review the framework, and identify those areas of current and future potential opportunity for your solution or capabilities. It may be necessary to establish partnerships with other technology companies in order to provide an integrated offering.
Using this framework as a guide, discuss with public health and emergency operations and response planners their capabilities, gaps, and areas of potential collaboration and opportunity.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
This article was originally published on September 8, 2020.
Update for April 20, 2021:
After the murder of George Floyd we wrote this article as a kind of blueprint, a beginning to a new way of working with equitable resilience in our cities and beyond. Now, as the trial of Derek Chauvin comes to a guilty verdict in Minneapolis and the whole country reflects on the legacy of that verdict, we have to remember another senseless murder – another young Black man, Daunte Wright, at the hands of law enforcement, just miles from the courthouse. Again, Minneapolis is all of us. We have protested, we have voted. We stood up, we spoke out, we have raged about the anti-Black racism. We have seen people come together, we can feel a shift in this country. But there is so much more to do. No equity, no resilience.
-Ron & Stewart
Housing that is affordable to low-income residents is often substandard and suffering from deferred maintenance, exposing residents to poor air quality and high energy bills. This situation can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory health issues, and siphon scarce dollars from higher value items like more nutritious food, health care, or education. Providing safe, decent, affordable, and healthy housing is one way to address historic inequities in community investment. Engaging with affordable housing and other types of community benefit projects is an important first step toward fully integrating equity into the green building process. In creating a framework for going deeper on equity, our new book, the Blueprint for Affordable Housing (Island Press 2020), starts with the Convention on Human Rights and the fundamental right to housing.
Since the Great Recession of 2008, the housing wealth gap has expanded to include not just Black and Brown Americans, but younger White Americans as well. Millennials and Generation Z Whites are now joining their Black and Brown peers in facing untenable housing precarity and blocked access to wealth. With wages stuck at 1980 levels and housing prices at least double (in inflation adjusted terms) what they were 40 years ago, many younger Americans, most with college degrees, are giving up on buying a home and even struggle to rent apartments suitable for raising a family.
What makes it hard for policy people and citizens to accept this truth is that we have not seen this problem in a very long time. Back in the 1920s of course, but not really since then. But this is actually an old problem that has come back to haunt us; a problem first articulated by Adam Smith in the 1700s.