|
Describe:
|
Digital transformation in urban planning is gaining momentum, and with it, digital twins for cities are on the rise. However, a coherent position on what city/urban digital twins are, has not yet emerged.
Different perspectives emphasize various aspects of what city/urban digital twins can be in different
circumstances. Examples range from emphasizing emerging technologies and advanced data analytics
to revisiting existing digital techniques and technologies with a fresh outlook; and include
interdisciplinary perspectives that conceptualize city/urban digital twins as an innovative tool for
decision-making, and/or a novel user-friendly participatory mechanism, and form of communication,
with stakeholders and citizens. The concept of a digital twin is not new. The term was first used by David
Gelernter, and first applied by Michael Grievesin manufacturing two decades ago. According to Grieves,
a digital twin concept consists of three main elements: (1) a physical product in real space; (2) virtual
products in virtual space; and (3) the connections of data and information that ties the virtual and the
real product together.
Even this seemingly simple and unproblematic characterization of digital twins throws up unresolved
issues when it comes to digital twins for cities. At present, the term digital twin is used for a variety of
digital simulation models that run alongside real-life social, economic, and physical processes and
systems. However, digital twins for cities are still in their infancy as digital twin experiments often
involve visual urban representations and neglect real-time analytics, as well as the complexities
involved in real-world urban governance and policy. While often matured and also experimental
technologies are applied, there remains a lack of in-depth critical reflection on integration maturity,
alongside issues relevant to policy, governance and practice, such as participation, transparency,
accountability, and interoperability. Further challenges for city/urban digital twins are connected to
how close the digital twin is to the ‘real’ system, however this ‘real’ system might be interpreted by
modelers. This is also reminiscent of discussions about abstractions of the model, input versus output,
and gained results, representing a longstanding conundrum.
Let us remember that urban digital twins are cost and time-intensive virtual models. City/urban digital
twins are per se not self-evident, and no one digital twin fits all purposes. However, the transferability
of digital twin results to urban policy recommendations is key in enabling equity and sustainability in
future cities. This is an important consideration for stewardship that determines the context of the
digital twin and how it is used in the planning process. Consequently, stewardship, data policy and
management, and application context are influential for the digital twin content.
Given the variety of conceptualizations for digital twins, it is not yet clear how such broad concepts can
be translated into a meaningful tool for decision-making in cities, taking into consideration the
following: (a) the practical implementation and operationalization of digital twins in urban planning; (b)
how close are digital twins to ‘reality’; (c) how are sensors used and which physical features are sensed
to digitally reconstruct this reality; (d) what are the distinctive tangible and non-tangible features or
city/urban digital twins that are needed at different city scales; (e) in what ways does a digital twin
connect to governance, for example through participatory planning; and (f) how can these connections
be configured to be meaningful for planning processes?
We are seeking research articles that employ pertinent and relevant state-of-the-art methods for digital
twins with data stewardship, novel and innovative models related to processes and their outcomes,
comparative simulation techniques, and comparative case stu
|
