Toward Smart City Development in Central : A Comparative Assessment

Accepted version of an article published in Central Asian Affairs: Irnazarov, Farrukh, and Marina Kayumova. " Toward Smart City Development in : A Comparative Assessment", Central Asian Affairs 4, 1 (2017): 51-82.

Farrukh Irnazarov Central Asian Development Institute, , [email protected]

Marina Kayumova Independent Scholar [email protected]

Abstract

Increasing urbanization triggered by population growth creates additional challenges in city planning, prompting governments and municipalities to search for innovative approaches. Smart city initiatives have proven efficient solutions for emerging urban challenges in many developed countries. Smart cities aim to improve living conditions, make more efficient use of physical infrastructure, and promote environmental sustainability. Cities in Central Asia face many urban challenges, including deteriorating and aging infrastructure, traffic congestion, inadequate waste management systems, and pollution. Sustainable urban management strategies are needed to address these challenges as well as to improve citizens’ quality of life and welfare in the longer term. This article assesses the potential for introduction of smart city projects in six major cities of Central Asia (Almaty, Astana, Ashgabat, Bishkek, , and ), and suggests an integrative framework for subsequent analysis of smart city development in this region.

Keywords

Smart Cities – Central Asia – Infrastructure

doi 10.1163/22142290-00401003

2 Irnazarov and Kayumova

Introduction

Urban studies have largely neglected Central Asian cities. While the major Central Asian cities—Almaty, Astana, Ashgabat, Bishkek, Dushanbe, and Tashkent—are the hubs of major economic and political processes in their countries, the cities themselves occupy little space in research on modern Central Asia. The reason for this is twofold. First, research tends to focus more on country- level analysis in the region. Second, the overall deficit of city- disaggregated data hampers the emergence of urban studies in Central Asia. As all the above- mentioned cities, with the exception of Astana, were capitals of republics, it is rather interesting to assess their divergent development paths after 25 years of independence. Although none of the cities in Central Asia has attained smart city status yet, it is important to keep in mind that “smart city” is more a process than a final destination. It is, therefore, interesting to have a snapshot of current developments in the major cities of the region to analyze the potential of Central Asian cities to become smart. Drawing on the conceptual literature on smart cities,1 this article examines Almaty and Astana (), Ashgabat (), Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan), Dushanbe (), and Tashkent () in light of the three key pillars (infrastructure, affordability, legal and regulatory framework) and seven categories (transport, human capital and innovation, ICT, electricity, environment, housing and construction, waste management) that define a smart city. Based on these pillars and categories, we have constructed a smart city development index for the urban units under consideration and assessed the comparative level of preparedness to become a smart city. One clarification has to be made in this regard: the index does not indicate that a particular city is “smart” or “not smart”; rather, it determines, based on its smart city development potential, how fast it can fully embrace holistic smart city solutions. The article starts with research questions and methodology, followed by the empirical findings, analysis, and conclusions.

1 J. Belissent, Getting Clever About Smart Cities: New Opportunities Require New Business Model (Forrester Research, 2010); K. Steinert, R. Marom, P. Richard, G. Veiga, and L. Witter, (2011), “Making Cities Smart and Sustainable,” in D. Dutta (ed.), The Global Innovation Index 2011, Accelerating Growth and Development (insead, 87–95); R. Hollands, Will the Real Smart City Please Stand Up? City, 12, no. 3 (2008): 303–320; Karima Kourtit and Peter Nijkamp, “Smart Cities in the Innovation Age,” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25, no. 2 (2012) 93–95; Andrea Caragliu, Chiara Del Bo, and Peter Nijkamp, “Smart Cities in Europe,” Series Research Memoranda 0048 (2009); Patrizia Lombardi, Silvia Giordano, Andrea Caragliu, Chiara Del Bo, Mark Deakin, Peter Nijkamp, and Karima Kourtit, “An Advanced Triple-Helix Network Model for Smart Cities Performance,” Research Memorandum 2011–45 (2011): 1–37.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 3

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Three hypotheses provide the foundation for the research questions. First of all, it can be envisaged that Astana will top the ranking due to its purpose-built nature and the heavy investments in infrastructure made in the city. It is the newest city among the six, built rapidly and with contemporary infrastructure. Therefore, Astana should significantly outscore other Central Asian cities. The research question to test this hypothesis is: Which Central Asian City Displays the Highest Potential to Become a Smart City More Rapidly? Similarly, it can be anticipated that the cities in resource-rich countries will rank higher than cities from natural-resource-poor countries. In other words, one can expect to see Almaty, Astana, and Ashgabat sharing top spots, as these cities possess extensive resources to develop their urban economies. Bishkek and Dushanbe, on the other hand, will be struggling at the bottom of the ranking since they do not have sufficient resources to challenge the major cities of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Tashkent, as the largest Central Asian city, should gravitate more toward resource-rich countries. While Uzbekistan is not as generously endowed with resources as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, it is, nevertheless, self-sufficient in natural resources. Thus, the question for this hypothesis is: Do Cities from Resource-Wealthy Countries Outperform Cities from Resource-Disadvantaged Countries? Environmental protection and waste management are the least-developed sectors in most developing countries, as their respective governments downgrade these sectors in favor of transport, ICT, and human capital. The major reason is that environment and waste management do not yield immediate results; these domains are quite intangible (especially the environment). It is, therefore, expected that all Central Asian cities will encounter challenges and accumulate low scores on environment and waste management. The research question to test this hypothesis is therefore: What are the Major Areas That RestrICT Smart City Development in Central Asia? To answer these questions, this article offers a unique framework to assess the smart city development potential in the context of Central Asia.

Methodology

There is no consensus in the academic literature on what components are needed for smart cities.2 Research on smart cities in the post-Soviet space in

2 M. Batty, K. Axhausen, F. Giannotti, A. Pozdnoukhov, A. Bazzani, M. Wachowicz, G. Ouzou- nis, and Y. Portugali, “Smart Cities of the Future,” European Physical Journal Special Topics, central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

4 Irnazarov and Kayumova general—and Central Asia in particular—is very limited or even non-existent. The main reason for that is the lack of disaggregated city data, a legacy of Soviet statistical traditions. The present article attempts to address the issue and to provide a unique framework allowing comparisons across cities. The framework of analysis is based on three core pillars shaping the smart city: infrastructure, affordability, and legal and regulatory framework (see Figure 1). The effects of the three pillars is assessed through seven categories: transport, human capital and innovation, ICT, electricity, environment, housing and construction, and waste management.

Infrastructure

Legal & Affordability Regulatory Framework

Smart City

Figure 1 Smart city pillars for Central Asia Source: Authors’ own calculations

214, no. 1 (2012): 481–518; T. Nam and T. Pardo, “Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions,” Proceedings of the 12th Annual Digital Government Research Conference (2011), 282–291; J. Lee, M. Hancock, M. Hu, “Towards an Effective Frame- work for Building Smart Cities: Lessons from and San Francisco, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 89 (2014): 80–99; N. Komninos, H. Schaffers, and M. Pallot, “Developing a Policy Roadmap for Smart Cities and the Future Internet,” in Paul Cunningham and Miriam Cunningham (eds.), eChallenges e-2011 Conference Proceedings (International Information Management Corporation, 2011), 1–8; R. Giffinger and H. Gudrun, “Smart Cities Ranking: An Effective Instrument for the Positioning of Cities?” Journal of the Centre of Land Policy and Valuations, 4, no. 12 (2010): 7–25; H. Chourabi, T. Nam, S. Walker, R. Gil-Garcia, S. Mellouli, K. Nahon, T. Pardo, and H. Scholl, “Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework,” 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society (2012): 2289–2297.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 5

Each identified category is composed of a number of specific indicators. The data for a total number of 133 indicators was collected, including 67 indicators covering infrastructure, 26 indicators covering affordability, and 40 indicators covering legal and regulatory framework. A full list of individual indicators pertaining to each of the seven categories and three pillars can be found in Appendix 1. The data was obtained from secondary sources and for the most part is the authors’ own compilation or calculation based on information from national statistical committees and official government websites, such as the State Com- mittee on Nature Protection of Uzbekistan,3 the Official Internet Resource of Almaty City,4 the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan,5 the Agency for Intellectual Property of the Republic of Uzbekistan,6 the National Center for Patents and Information of the Republic of Tajikistan,7 the Patent Agency of the Republic of Turkmenistan,8 the State Service of Intellectual Property and Innovation under the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic,9 the State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry of the Kyrgyz Republic,10 and the Committee on Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan.11 These data were complemented by relevant indicators developed and reported by inter- national organizations. More specifically, the indicators from the World Bank’s Enterprise Survey and Doing Business project, the Global Innovation Index, gsma Intelligence, the NetIndex, the Broadband Commission, and the Unit- ed Nations Environment Programme were incorporated into the analytical framework.12

3 http://www.uznature.uz/, accessed on November 12, 2015. 4 http://www.almaty.gov.kz/page.php?page_id = 3894&lang = 2, accessed on November 12, 2015. 5 http://kazpatent.kz/ru, accessed on October 29, 2015. 6 http://ima.uz/index.php?action_skin_change = yes&skin_name = Russian, accessed on November 15, 2015. 7 http://www.ncpi.tj/index2.php?lang = en, accessed on November 15, 2015. 8 http://www.tmpatent.org/, accessed on November 16, 2015. 9 http://www.patent.kg/index.php/en/, accessed on November 13, 2015. 10 http://www.nature.gov.kg/index.php/en/, accessed on November 16, 2015. 11 http://stat.gov.kz/faces/mobileHomePage?_adf.ctrl-state = zxy6w0qdn_4&_afrLoop = 2519385445939832, accessed on November 15, 2015. 12 World Bank, Enterprise Survey (Washington, dc: World Bank, 2013); World Bank Global Innovation Index 2015, https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/ GII-2015- v5.pdf; United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects, 2014 and World Urbanization Prospects, 2015; World Bank, Doing Business 2016: Measuring Regulatory Quality and Efficiency (Washington dc: World Bank, 2016); Ookla, NetIndex, 2014; Herfindahl- Hirschman index, GSMA Intelligence, 2015; The State of Broadband 2015: Broadband as

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

6 Irnazarov and Kayumova

In some instances where city-level data was not available, country-level data was adopted as a reliable proxy. Country-level data was used only when such a surrogate for city-level analysis could be logically explained. In particular, some indicators within the human capital and innovation category are country level because most research and development, as well as scientific activity, gravitates toward capitals and the biggest cities. Thus, for data on gross expenditure on R&D (percent of GDP), a number of scientific and technical journal articles use the H index (per billion PPP$ GDP) at the country level. To allow meaningful comparisons within the affordability pillar, prices/ fees/costs in local currencies were converted into us dollars and adjusted for average monthly salaries in respective cities to reflect standards of living. Reflecting the direct influence of total city population and to allow mean- ingful comparisons, a number of indicators were transformed into per capita basis, i.e., the numerical value was divided by population. The indicators affected included number of cars, number of buses, paved roads (km), total number of passengers using public transport per annum (in millions), number of universities, quantity of municipal solid waste generated (tons per annum), and quantity of collected municipal solid waste (year/tons). The data collected reflects 2013–2015. However, in some instances where data for these years was not available, earlier years were used as a proxy for analysis. In particular, the most recent data for average daily concentrations of major air pollutants (micrograms/m3) in Ashgabat is dated 2009. When the complete dataset was compiled, each indicator was attributed points ranging from 0 to 1. Points were attributed comparatively with the best performing city receiving a score of 1. Values of 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2 were assigned depending on performance. The worst performing city was assigned 0.1 points. In cases where the value of an indicator was equal to 0, the worst performing city was attributed 0 points. Binary indicators, i.e., yes/no questions were at- tributed 1 and 0 points, respectively. Missing values for an indicator were re- corded as “no data.” The points for each indicator were multiplied by 100 to arrive at final value on a scale from 0 to 100. The aggregate score is a simple mathematical average of all indicators. The final score is an average of three aggregate scores for three pillars, namely infrastructure, affordability, legal and regulatory framework. “No data” points were not included in the final calculation of any average scores.

a Foundation for Sustainable Development (Geneva: Broadband Commission, 2015); Air Quality Policies (Geneva: UN Environment Programme, 2015).

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 7

Each score accumulated by a city implies a certain potential for comparative smart city development. The higher the score, the higher the potential for smart city development. It is important to note that these scores and their definitions are applicable only within the Central Asian context. In this index the numerical values for each item indicate the following ranking:

90–100 Very high potential for smart city development 70–89.99 High potential for smart city development 50–69.99 Average potential for smart city development 30–49.99 Low potential for smart city development 0–29.99 Very low potential for smart city development

Limitations and Further Research

This study does have limitations. First of all, the major challenge faced by the authors was the lack of city-disaggregated statistics in Central Asia. During Soviet times a city was not considered as a unit for statistical purposes; analysis was based on the region rather than city. Thus, finding city-level data was particularly difficult. Second, although indicators falling into the legal and regulatory framework pillar were chosen with particular consideration of their practical influence, en- forcement mechanisms are hard to measure. Assessing enforcement, implementation, and regulatory compliance was beyond the scope of the present study. Finally, the present study provides a comparative assessment of six Central Asian cities. The core idea of this research was to get an idea of which of the six largest Central Asian cities has the potential to become smart faster than the others. The large number of indicators used to compute final scores helped reduce bias and increase the reliability of the results. However, this study does not answer the question of which city is “smart” or “not smart” and does not analyze cities’ performance against the set benchmark.

Results and Discussion

Infrastructure Infrastructure is an essential element that determines the smartness of the city, and it serves as a major artery of the urban structure. The availability of complex infrastructural solutions predefines the successful development of

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

8 Irnazarov and Kayumova

Infrastructure 90.00 80.00 70.00

60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00

20.00

10.00 0.00 Aggregate Transport Aggregate Human Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Housing Aggregate Waste Aggregate Electricity Score Capital & Innovation ICT Score Score Environment Score & Construction Management Score Score Score Almaty Astana Ashgabat Bishkek Dushanbe Tashkent

Figure 2 Infrastructure in major Central Asian cities (compared) Source: Authors’ own calculations the city. It is important to note that infrastructure in this index is not limited to physical infrastructure per se, it extends much further, encompassing such elements as human capital and environmental sustainability. In this analysis, infrastructure was broken down into seven sub-categories that define the general situation. Figure 2 depicts the scores, and the analysis below unpacks all categories pertaining to each city in detail.

Transport In terms of transport infrastructure, Tashkent (73.70)13 ranked first, followed by Almaty (70.00). These scores imply that the transport infrastructure in these cities is at quite high levels. At the bottom of the ranking is Bishkek (31.25), with a transport infrastructure score that indicates that the city is currently experiencing issues with its transport infrastructure. Compared with the top- ranked city in this category, Bishkek’s transport infrastructure scored almost 2.5 times less than Tashkent’s transport infrastructure, which should be regarded as a serious drawback in the development of the Kyrgyz . Dushanbe (47.50) finds itself in the lower half of the ranking. The results for Astana (57.50) and especially the gap between Tashkent/Almaty and Astana raises reasonable questions, particularly, how can a modern city with a rapid urban development plan and access to finance end up scoring that low? The reasons for the lower score might be attributed to the inefficient public transportation systems along with the glut of private cars and vehicles. Whether an inefficient/insufficient

13 The number in parentheses reflects the index score for a particular city.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 9 public transportation system drives the demand for cars or wide affordability/ availability of cars is a major disincentive for developing a public transportation system remains unclear. Ashgabat (56.00) was not represented in three indicators, such as (1) the number of cars per capita; (2) paved roads per capita; and (3) percent of firms identifying transport as a major constraint that may have affected the Ashgabat score. Therefore, Ashgabat’s score should be treat ed with caution.

Human Capital and Innovation In the human capital and innovation category, Tashkent (76.92) and Almaty (74.00) occupied leading spots, whereas Ashgabat (40.00) scored the lowest. Tashkent and Almaty scored particularly high on entrepreneurship, innovation, and intellectual property (trademarks and patents), while the result for Ashgabat should be treated with caution, as there was data only for three of 15 indicators— namely the number of universities per capita, annual enrollment, and registered patents. While Astana (57.33) scored higher than Dushanbe (50.77) and Bishkek (50.00) on this indicator, the percentage of firms identifying an inadequately educated workforce as a major constraint is rather high, which in turn dropped Astana in the ranking.

Information and Communications Technology The two Kazakh cities are clear-cut leaders in terms of ICT introduction and development within their urban spaces. Almaty (82.50) slightly surpassed Astana (80.00), and the difference was related to the lower number of inter- net users and slower internet speed in Astana compared with Almaty. On the other hand, the percentage of companies having their own websites and using emails in their daily activities was slightly higher in Astana. In general, the score for ICT development for both cities is very high. Tashkent (62.50), Dushanbe (60.00), and Bishkek (57.50) have somewhat similar results, and these results are significantly behind Almaty’s and Astana’s scores. While Tashkent lags on the industry concentration score, internet speed, and percent of firms having their own website and using emails in their daily activities, it is doing well on the number of internet users. Dushanbe, on the other hand, scored high on the industry concentration indicator, but the city is not offering or implementing machine-to-machine (M2M) solutions, which signal the first step toward holistic smart city initiatives. As for the percent of firms having their own website and using emails in their daily activities, the situation in the Tajik capital is similar to that in Tashkent. Bishkek scored very low on M2M solutions and availability of free Wi-Fi in public spaces, but, similar to Dushanbe,

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

10 Irnazarov and Kayumova it scored high on industry concentration. Ashgabat (26.67) scored low in five out of six measured indicators (there is no data for the number of firms using emails and having their own website).

Electricity As for electricity, Tashkent (76.92) tops the list. Out of 13 indicators, Tashkent scored low on the percent of firms owning or sharing a generator. Second-place Almaty (70.00) scored low on the number of electrical substations and the av- erage proportion of electricity from a generator (in case it is used). In most other categories these two cities scored high enough to propel them to the top of the rankings. Astana (65.45) and Ashgabat (53.33) received average scores for their electricity sector development. In particular, Astana scored low on the number of electrical substations and duration of a typical electrical outage. Again, for Ashgabat the score should be treated with caution, as the data was available for only three out 13 indicators. While Bishkek (41.67) scored low on the number of electrical substations, days to obtain electrical connection, and the percent of firms identifying electricity as a major constraint, Dushanbe (40.00) scored low on most indicators.

Environment The environment category puts a particular emphasis on air quality and pol- lution. Indeed, air quality is most affected by transport and energy. Astana (73.33) leads the environment index. The situation with air quality in Dushanbe (68.75) is better than in other cities. However, the issues that must receive special attention in Dushanbe are the average daily concentrations of dust and formaldehyde, which are high compared with other Central Asian cities. High levels of average daily concentration of formaldehyde signal a high volume of emissions from transport sources including private cars and vehicles. In contrast, Ashgabat (56.00) has a high average daily concentration of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (co). Tashkent (51.11) has high concentrations of dust and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). In addition, the emissions to the atmosphere from stationary sources are quite high in Tashkent. This may be due to the presence of a large number of industrial enterprises in the city. Almaty (50.91) finds itself lower in the ranking due to having the highest index of air pollution among all cities studied, emissions from mobile sources and daily concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

Housing and Construction The housing and construction scores put Almaty (80.00) and Astana (72.00) at the top of the ranking. It is not surprising as both cities scored high on all six

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 11 indicators within this category. The biggest problem for Bishkek (60.00) is the housing issue, as the housing stock (m2 per capita) in Bishkek is the second smallest in Central Asia after Dushanbe. Tashkent (53.33) substantially exceed- ed Dushanbe (46.67) in housing stocks and the number of procedures required to obtain construction permits, while Dushanbe topped Tashkent in terms of the days needed to obtain a construction-related permit and the building quality control index. Ashgabat (40.00) took last place in the ranking but yet again this data is not robust as data was available for only two out of six indicators.

Waste Management Tashkent (80.00) dominates the landscape in the waste-management sector. Almaty (65.00) and Astana (52.00) scored well across the indicators of waste management, but stumbled in the quantity of generated municipal solid waste per capita and the quantity of city landfill equipment. Bishkek (63.33) did not receive the lowest scores within the indicators of waste management, but registered at average levels. Ashgabat (40.00) and Dushanbe (40.00) received the same results as they do not involve the private sector for waste collection, which significantly lowered their index scores.

Aggregate Infrastructure Score The analysis suggests that Almaty (70.34) has the most developed infrastructure in the region, as shown in Figure 3. The city has accumulated the highest score and ranked first in three out of seven categories under consideration. The only category in which Almaty did not occupy the leading position was the environment. The aggregate score of Almaty suggests that the city’s infrastructure is better developed than in the other five cities and that the city

Aggregate Infrastructure Score

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 Almaty Astana Ashgabat Bishkek Dushanbe Tashkent Aggregate Infrastrure Score 70.34 65.37 44.57 50.25 50.53 67.79

Figure 3 Aggregate infrastructure score by city Source: Authors’ own calculations

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

12 Irnazarov and Kayumova has the prerequisites for becoming a full-fledged smart city should it be able to improve its environmental sustainability. Tashkent (67.79) ranked second in infrastructure development in Central Asia. The score for the city suggests that Tashkent’s infrastructure is somewhat similar to Astana’s infrastructure. The difference is marginal, and both cities exhibit average potential for smart city development with the probability of turning into cities with high potential of smart city development. Astana (65.37) occupies third place in the infrastructure ranking. According to its scores, Astana shows average potential for smart city development based on its aggregate infrastructure score, but the capital of Kazakhstan is on the cusp of becoming a city with high potential. As it stands now, Astana has a very high level of ICT development and strong environmental management policies, which offer good prospects for smart city development. Dushanbe (50.53) has problems with electricity supply and waste management. It ranked at the bottom for these two categories. Moreover, the scores for these indicators imply that Dushanbe is at the threshold of low and very low potential for smart city development for electricity and waste management, respectively. While the environment score is the second-highest in the region (after Astana), transportation, ICT, housing and construction, human capital, and innovation are less developed in the capital of Tajikistan. Bishkek (50.25) takes the fifth spot. As this low classification suggests, Bishkek is characterized with average potential for smart city development; however, Bishkek’s environmental sustainability was ranked the worst in the region. Ashgabat (44.57) is ranked sixth. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the score for Ashgabat should be treated with caution due to missing data points. Based on the available data, Ashgabat is well behind other Central Asian cities in terms of ICT development. This can be considered a primary issue for smart city development of the Turkmen capital. The transport score exhibits high potential of smart city development, however, human capital and innovation as well as housing and construction illustrate low potential of smart city development.

Affordability Affordability is another key element that defines a smart city. Infrastructural solutions and public services have to be accessible and affordable to enable citizens to use them. Therefore, it is essential to assess levels of affordability across Central Asian cities and to analyze objective and subjective factors that influence affordability. The scores accumulated by each city within these cat- egories are displayed in Figure 4.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 13

Affordability

100,00

90,00

80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00

30,00

20,00 10,00 0,00 Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate ICT Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Housing Aggregate Waste Management Transport Innovation Affordability Score Electricity Environment & Construction Affordability Score Affordability Score Affordability Score Affordability Score Affordability Score Affordability Score

Almaty Astana Ashgabat Bishkek Dushanbe Tashkent

Figure 4 Affordability Source: Authors’ own calculations

Transport Ashgabat (75.00) and Astana (70.00) top the ranking for transport affordability. Ashgabat received high scores in three out of four indicators. The only area in which Ashgabat did not score high was the taxi price per kilometer. In terms of public transportation, it remains the most affordable city in Central Asia. Astana’s record is also convincing except for the monthly pass price for public transportation. Almaty (65.00) also scored high within this category, but lags behind on the monthly pass price. Tashkent (37.50) and Bishkek (35.00) scored rather low in this dimension. While the taxi price in Tashkent is considered affordable compared with most cities of Central Asia, the other three categories remain quite expensive for citizens of the Uzbek capital in comparative terms. The monthly pass for public transportation in Tashkent is the most expensive in Central Asia. Taking into account the affordability of taxis in Tashkent, the public transportation system becomes less attractive. However, the increasing number of traffic jams, a new bus fleet, and dedicated bus lanes should level the issue in the future. In Bishkek the monthly pass is more affordable than in Astana, Almaty, and Tashkent. However, in all other categories Bishkek’s transportation is quite costly for its citizens. Dushanbe (27.50) was found the most expensive/least affordable in terms of transportation. With respect to one-way tickets, taxis, and gasoline prices, Dushanbe was ranked the most expensive city in Central Asia. It is evident that the lack of natural resources, particularly energy resources, makes the city expensive.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

14 Irnazarov and Kayumova

Innovation Astana (100) is the absolute champion in this category, obtaining the maximum score in all four indicators. This is followed by Almaty (80.00) and Dushanbe (53.33). Tashkent (45.00) has average scores on all the indicators, which resulted in the city’s fourth place in the ranking. Bishkek (27.50) and Ashgabat (13.33) round out the list. The fees for patent registration, utility model, industrial design, and trademark applications are rather high and discourage innovation in the capitals of Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan.

ICT Almaty (66.67) and Tashkent (66.67) lead the rankings in terms of ICT afford- ability. It is important to note that in Central Asia ICT still remains quite ex- pensive and is far from inclusive. The mobile phone connection level, on the other hand, is one of the most affordable in the world. Astana (60) is ranked third, but, in fact, the affordability of ICT is comparable with Almaty and Tashkent. Bishkek (43.33), Dushanbe (43.33), and Ashgabat (40) close the ranking.

Electricity Ashgabat (100.00) is the clear champion in terms of electricity affordability. The city has the cheapest electricity not only in Central Asia, but well beyond the region as well. This is explained by the energy resource abundance and targeted government policy subsidizing utilities for citizens of Turkmenistan. Astana (80.00) takes up the second spot and Almaty (60.00) is ranked third, mainly due to the costly electricity for households in the former capital of Kazakhstan. Bishkek (53.33) exhibits average potential for smart city development in terms of electricity affordability. This is surprising, as the country lacks domestic energy resources, and power outages in the Kyrgyz capital are frequent. Dushanbe (43.33) is characterized with low potential for smart city development, which can be explained by the previous argument of the energy resource insufficiency. Tashkent (23.33) closes the ranking. This is also surprising, given the self-sufficiency of energy resources in Uzbekistan.

Environment To discourage polluters from atmospheric emissions, appropriate fines and charges should be in place. Thus, the higher those fines and charges are, the better. Almaty (85.00) turned out to be a clear champion in this dimension. The city’s fines and charges for emissions are the highest in Central Asia, which should prompt industries and other legal entities to care more about the environment, reduce emissions into the atmosphere, and embed sound environmental solutions into their corporate strategies and corporate social

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 15 responsibility projects. Astana (65.00) and Ashgabat (60.00) also introduced higher fees and fines for emissions. Compared with other cities studied, Du- shanbe (45.00) and Tashkent (32.50) have very affordable fees and fines on environmental issues, which may continue to discourage industries from be- coming more prudent about their emissions. Bishkek (22.50) currently under- charges for environmental damage.

Housing and Construction Astana (90.00) and Almaty (86.67) occupy the top two spots in the ranking of housing and construction availability. In fact, compared with other Central Asian cities, housing and construction are not that cheap in Kazakhstan; rath- er, they are more affordable due to higher salaries in the northern and south- ern capitals of Kazakhstan—they were ranked first and second accordingly. There is a huge gap between second-place Almaty and third-place Tashkent (46.67). Public utilities and the cost of construction permits in Tashkent remain comparatively very high. Ashgabat (40.00) and Dushanbe (30.00) have comparatively high prices per square meter for real estate. The Dushanbe score is exacerbated further by the high-priced rental market in the city. Bishkek (25.00) is an outlier in the housing ranking; except for the low cost of construction permits, other indicators are quite pricy in the city.

Waste Management Ashgabat (100) has the most affordable waste management system, and its tariffs for waste collection are the lowest in the region. Due to its high salaries, Astana (80.00) also has an affordable waste management system for its residents. Almaty (50.00) and Bishkek (50.00) are peers, accumulating the same scores in the ranking. Dushanbe (20.00) and Tashkent (10.00) have the most expensive waste management systems in Central Asia. Expensive waste collection tariffs encourage industrial enterprises and households to search for loopholes to minimize the tariff burden on their budgets, which, in turn, fuels the growing informal sector.

Aggregate Affordability Score Astana (77.86) has the highest affordability score in the region (see Figure 5). Astana’s affordability score corresponds with high potential for smart city de- velopment. The maximum score received for innovation affordability may sig- nificantly facilitate the process. Almaty (70.48) ranked second. The city scored high on environment, inno- vation, and housing and construction affordability. The level of affordability of infrastructure corresponds to high potential for smart city development.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

16 Irnazarov and Kayumova

Aggregate Affordability Score

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 Almaty Astana Ashgabat Bishkek Dushanbe Tashkent Aggregate Affordability Score 70.48 77.86 61.19 36.67 37.50 37.38

Figure 5 Aggregate affordability score by city Source: Authors’ own calculations

Ashgabat (61.19) ranked first in three of the seven categories in the affordability ranking, whereas Astana and Almaty were able to claim two first places each. Moreover, Ashgabat accumulated the maximum score (100) on electricity and waste management affordability. Nevertheless, Ashgabat could not make it to the top two spots due to the very low scores on other categories, particularly on innovation and ICT affordability. Thus, the city occupied the third spot over- all, and it exhibits average potential for smart city development in terms of affordability. Dushanbe (37.50) ranked fourth; however, the aggregate score as well as in- dividual scores for each category are very low. Innovation affordability of Du- shanbe represents average potential for smart city development, and it is the best score achieved by the Tajik capital. For all other categories, the scores indicate either low or very low potential for smart city development. The primary areas of concern are transport and waste management affordability. The city exhibits low potential for smart city development as infrastructural solutions remain rather expensive, and they serve as a roadblock for further infrastructural development. Tashkent (37.38) scored high in ICT affordability, however, it scored very low on electricity and waste management. These low scores on electricity and waste management affordability explain Tashkent’s position in the ranking. The remaining indicators and their respective scores indicate low potential for smart city development.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 17

Bishkek (36.67) rounds out the affordability ranking. In terms of electricity and waste management affordability, the city exhibits average potential for smart city development. However, the very low scores for environment and housing and construction affordability sunk Bishkek in the rankings.

Legal and Regulatory Framework The legal and regulatory framework is the backbone of a well-developed urban structure and a strong foundation of any smart city. The institutional framework defines the rules of the game within a specified geographic area. Therefore, it is essential to have a strong, functioning regulatory system to pave the way for de- velopment processes in the city. It is equally important to observe enforcement of these regulations as quite often very good legislative acts remain “ink on paper” initiatives. Thus, the legal and regulatory framework is vitally important for smart city development as physical infrastructure, human capital, and affordability cannot function without proper back-up, framework, and set of rules. The allocation of scores and the aggregate standing of the cities are depicted and described below (see Figure 6). It is important to note, that the scores for Almaty and Astana are the same across the legal and regulatory framework, as in Kazakhstan laws do not differentiate between cities and regions.

Transport Almaty (66.67) and Astana (66.67) lead the ranking as the required legislation for effective functioning of the transport system is in place in Kazakhstan. The use of leaded petrol is not banned in the country, which affected the scores.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Aggregate Transport Aggregate Human Aggregate ICT Aggregate Electricity Aggregate Aggregate Housing Aggregate Waste Legal & Regulatory Capital & Innovation Legal & Regulatory Legal & Regulatory Environment & Construction Management Framework Score Legal & Regulatory Framework Score Framework Score Legal & Regulatory Legal & Regulatory Legal & Regulatory Framework Score Framework Score Framework Score Framework Score

Almaty Astana Ashgabat Bishkek Dushanbe Tashkent

Figure 6 Legal and regulatory framework Source: Authors’ own calculations

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

18 Irnazarov and Kayumova

As for carpooling schemes, the idea is entirely absent in all Central Asian coun- tries; this is also an element that should be considered to lessen the negative impact on the environment. Ashgabat (33.33) and Tashkent (33.33) share the next spots, as in addition to banning the use of leaded petrol, Ashgabat has not fully introduced the GPS monitoring of public transport, and Tashkent has not restricted the import or use of outdated vehicles. Bishkek (16.67) and Dushanbe (16.67) are the legislative outliers in terms of transport.

Human Capital and Innovation Almaty (97.14) and Astana (97.14) clearly prevail over other Central Asian cities when it comes to the human capital and innovation legal and regulatory framework. Both cities scored high across all indicators. Tashkent (57.14) lost to the leaders on the online component. While Almaty and Astana offer numerous services to their residents to deal with intellectual property matters online, Tashkent lags behind in this aspect. Taking into account the rapid development of the ICT industry and the Uzbek government’s focus on it, the issue should be leveled in the near future. Bishkek (54.29) and Dushanbe (40.00) also must improve their online components. In addition, government grant schemes for financing applied research and innovation projects are missing in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which dropped Bishkek and Dushanbe in the ranking. Ashgabat’s (14.29) legal and regulatory basis does not encourage much in- novation development in comparative terms.

ICT Almaty (83.33) and Astana (83.33) are ranked first for their ICT legal and regu- latory frameworks. In fact, the legislative base of Kazakhstan is very advanced, lacking only a separate regulatory authority for ICT. While the Kyrgyz legisla- tion in the sphere of ICT is not as comprehensive as the Kazakh legislation, nevertheless, Kyrgyzstan can boast of its separate regulatory authority for ICT. This explains Bishkek’s (66.67) score, though Kyrgyzstan has to pay attention to the operationalization of its online services and also introduce a mobile number portability option for mobile subscribers. Tashkent (50.00) lacks a national broadband policy, and it does not offer the mobile number portability option. Ashgabat (33.33) and Dushanbe (33.33) have no national broadband policy, functioning internet portal for online public services, or mobile number portability option.

Electricity Almaty (66.67) and Astana (66.67) top the rankings. However, the cities are missing a fully operational energy conservation fund along with an independent

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 19 energy sector regulator. In addition to the institutional drawbacks of the Kazakh cities, Dushanbe (50.00) lacks electric power meters with differentiated time-of- day metering for households. As well as the above-mentioned issues, Bishkek (33.33) and Tashkent (33.33) have not banned the use of incandescent light bulbs. Ashgabat’s (0) electricity legal and regulatory framework is absent. The city scored the maximum (100) on affordability of electricity and scored nothing on electricity institutions, which is another conundrum offered by the Turkmen capital.

Environment Almaty (66.67) and Astana (66.67) keep dominating the ranking on the en- vironment framework. Although their top positions are unquestionable, the cities have not been measuring and regulating their major air pollutants (PM2.5 and PM10). Tashkent (50.00) also has not measured and regulated its major air pollutants. In addition, Uzbekistan lacks automated air quality monitoring stations and has not been a party to the Convention on Long Range Trans- boundary Air Pollution. Bishkek (16.67) and Dushanbe (16.67) have a poor environment legal and regulatory framework, according to which the only positive aspects are that Kyrgyzstan is the party to the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution and Tajikistan has introduced vehicle emission limits. All other indicators are virtually non-existent in the Kyrgyz and Tajik legal system. Once again Ashgabat (0) scores nothing in the ranking, meaning that the environment institutional framework is currently not in place in the country.

Housing and Construction Almaty (100) and Astana (100) showcase the maximum result on the housing and construction legal and regulatory framework. Bishkek (50.00) and Dushanbe (50.00) acquired the same score due to the similarity in their legislations. The only difference is that in Bishkek the state ecological expertise is not required, whereas Dushanbe lacks risk-based approvals. Ashgabat (33.33) and Tashkent (33.33) have the least-developed housing and construction regulations. The cities have only established regulations setting standards on construction and state ecological expertise. All other elements are not yet in place in the Turkmen and Uzbek capitals.

Waste Management The waste management legal and regulatory framework is the only category in which the Kazakh cities do not dominate the rankings. Bishkek (66.67) and Tashkent (66.67) top the list due to the presence of a national waste

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

20 Irnazarov and Kayumova management strategy. As Almaty (33.33), Astana (33.33), and Ashgabat (33.33) do not have the waste management strategy in place, and the system of separate collection of recyclable waste is not in place across Central Asia, these cities ranked lower. Dushanbe (0) is a sole outlier in this aspect, as the only city with no waste management regulations in place.

Aggregate Legal and Regulatory Framework Almaty (73.40) and Astana (73.40) are outright champions of the legal and regulatory framework, topping the rankings in six out of seven categories. It is evident that both urban units are on the right track in terms of their legal and regulatory frameworks. This is confirmed by their high aggregate legal and regulatory framework scores, which imply high potential for smart city development (see Figure 7). Tashkent (46.26) ranks a distant third, far behind the Kazakh cities. Unlike Almaty and Astana, Tashkent has well-functioning waste management regula- tions; however, the city loses out to the Kazakh cities on transport, electricity, and its housing and construction legal framework. Tashkent thus displays low potential for smart city development in terms of this indicator. Bishkek (43.47) is ranked fourth on the legal and regulatory framework. The Kyrgyz capital was ranked first on waste management regulations along with Tashkent and, furthermore, Bishkek scored high on the ICT regulatory frame- work. Nevertheless, the city has an underdeveloped institutional basis when it comes to transport and environment. Bishkek exhibits low potential for smart city development based on its aggregate score as well.

Aggregate Legal & Regulatory Framework Score

80,00

70,00

60,00

50,00

40,00

30,00

20,00

10,00

0,00 Almaty Astana Ashgabat Bishkek Dushanbe Tashkent Aggregate Leg & Reg Score 73,40 73,40 21,09 43,47 29,52 46,26

Figure 7 Aggregate legal and regulatory framework Source: Authors’ own calculations

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 21

Dushanbe (29.52) ranked fifth. The city demonstrated average potential for smart city development only in electricity and housing and construction legal frameworks. However, the aggregate score implies very low potential for smart city development. Ashgabat (21.09) closes the ranking. The Turkmen capital’s highest score out of seven categories is 33.33, which signals a comparatively lower level of the development of regulations. The index depicts a wide gap between the Kazakh and Turkmen institutional settings. Moreover, the city accumulated 0 points on electricity and environment regulations, which inevitably resulted in the low aggregate score. With this score, Ashgabat demonstrates very low potential for smart city development.

Key Challenges for Smart City Development in Central Asia The index reveals the strong and weak points of each Central Asian city in comparative terms (see Table 1). It also shows which city can adopt smart city initiatives faster based on the underlying foundations put forward by the ana- lytical framework presented in this article. Almaty has demonstrated convincing results in all categories. Nevertheless, its waste management system is lagging behind, largely because of a rather weak legal and regulatory framework. Astana has been consistent across all categories. While transport affordability illustrates high potential compared with other Central Asian cities, the in- frastructure and the regulatory framework in Astana have not yet reached their full potential. In particular, transport infrastructure appears to be surprisingly weak, even though the city tops the index in terms of transport infrastructure. The same holds true for human capital and innovation. While the general

Table 1 Smart city development in Central Asia by category

Cities/ Transport Human Capital ICT Electricity Environment Housing & Waste Categories & Innovation Construction Management

Almaty average high high average average high low Astana average high high high average high average Ashgabat average very low low average low low average Bishkek very low low average low very low low average Dushanbe low low low low low low very low Tashkent low average average low low low average

Source: Authors’ own calculations

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

22 Irnazarov and Kayumova assessment highly regarded the human capital and innovation component in Astana, the infrastructural aspect does not meet high standards. The weakness of the waste management legal and regulatory framework shows similar patterns for Astana as for Almaty due to the supra-urban nature of the issue. Ashgabat’s human capital and innovation and ICT elements appear to be weak in comparative terms. Ashgabat’s cumulative human capital and innovation and ICT scores are the lowest in the region. Moreover, the human capital and innovation score indicates very low potential for smart city development. Undoubtedly, both ICT and human capital are very important factors that might prevent future smart city development in Ashgabat. As for other important categories, the lack of appropriate regulations for electricity and the environment significantly complicates the code of conduct, transparency, and accountability issues in Ashgabat. Bishkek’s set of challenges includes transport, human capital and innovation, environmental protection, and housing and construction. The city’s trans- port system is in comparatively poor condition. The aggregate transport score indicates low or close to very low potential for smart city development. It is particularly evident in the case of transport regulations, which are currently among the worst in the region alongside Dushanbe. The same applies to the environment, as Bishkek’s aggregate score for this category is the lowest in the region. Affordable housing and innovation are at very low levels as well, and they do not bode well for smart city development in the Kyrgyz capital. Out of these four issues, transport and environment appear to be the most pressing ones. Dushanbe currently struggles most with transport, the environment, and waste management. The transport, environment, and waste management sectors have to be rolled out with a strong legal and regulatory framework, which is currently missing in the capital of Tajikistan. Tashkent also has a number of issues related to transport, electricity, the environment, and housing and construction. The lack of affordable transpor- tation and the low potential of the transport legal framework overwhelm the otherwise high potential of transport infrastructure in the city. The same holds true for the electricity sector. The level of affordability and regulations does not match the level of electricity infrastructure.

Will Central Asian Cities Become Smart? The index suggests that Astana (72)14 has the highest potential to become smart more rapidly than its neighbors in Central Asia. Having accumulated

14 This and subsequent figures are the final score achieved in the ranking.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 23

72 points as a final score, Astana was able to outstrip Almaty by one point. Al- though the Kazakh cities are undoubtedly the best performers and they clearly show high potential of smart city development, neither Astana nor Almaty are full- fledged smart cities. The outcome is barely surprising as it was initially assumed that Central Asian cities had plenty of issues to tackle before achieving the status of smart cities. Nevertheless, the Kazakh cities have the highest chances of becoming smart cities in the region. Certainly, Astana’s chances are somewhat higher, as the city is newer than other Central Asian cities, it is purpose-built, more dynamic, and more solid in terms of innovation capacity and adoption (see Figure 8). Astana’s record in all three main pillars—infrastructure, affordability, and legal and regulatory framework—clearly captures its consistently high performance compared with other Central Asian cities (see Figure 9). Astana was ranked first in legal and regulatory framework and affordability, coming third in infrastructure development. Taking into account the large number of infrastructural improvement projects already underway in Astana, one could expect better performance of the Kazakh capital in the near future. Almaty (71) is the only serious rival to Astana to be the first smart city in Central Asia. Almaty’s final score revealed the current superiority of the former Kazakh capital in terms of infrastructural development and the solid legal and regulatory framework over other Central Asian cities. The city came second in affordability, which implies that Almaty’s score is even steadier than Astana’s record. All the interim aggregate scores for infrastructure, affordability, and le- gal and regulatory framework portrayed Almaty as an urban area with high

FINAL SCORE

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Almaty Astana Ashgabat Bishkek Dushanbe Tashkent FINAL SCORE 71 72 42 43 39 50

Figure 8 Final score distribution by city Source: Authors’ own calculations

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

24 Irnazarov and Kayumova

Aggregate Scores by City

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 Almaty Astana Ashgabat Bishkek Dushanbe Tashkent

Aggregate Infrastructure Score Aggregate Affordability Score Aggregate Leg & Reg Score

Figure 9 Aggregate infrastructure, affordability, and legal and regulatory framework scores by city Source: Authors’ own calculations

potential to implement smart city solutions (all of Almaty’s aggregate scores are higher than 70). While Tashkent (50) scored lower, the city’s infrastructure appears to be very solid, even more so than Astana’s. But there is a clear mismatch between infrastructure and affordability in the Uzbek capital. This indicates that either the price base is growing faster than infrastructural solutions due to ageing infrastructure’s maintenance needs or because infrastructural solutions are more expensive than the city can afford. Another alternative is that there could be some subjective informal factor that drives up prices, but that topic is be- yond this research. The legal and regulatory framework is also below the level of infrastructural development. Tashkent’s result (average potential for smart city development) is mainly the product of its well-developed infrastructure. However, smart cities imply simultaneous and evenly distributed development of its key components. Bishkek (43) is ranked fourth in the final standing. Bishkek’s performance across the three pillars has been more consistent than the results of Ashgabat and Dushanbe. Bishkek accumulated aggregate scores within the range of 30–50 points on infrastructure, affordability, and legal and regulatory framework, which indicate low potential for smart city development of the Kyrgyz capital. Ashgabat (42) is number five in the ranking. Unlike Tashkent, prices in the Turkmen capital are quite reasonable, and its affordability score indicates av- erage potential for smart city development. Ashgabat’s infrastructure score

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 25 should, however, be treated with caution due to the lack of data on some key indicators. One should, therefore, give the benefit of the doubt to Ashgabat’s infrastructure score (44.57), which implies low potential for smart city devel- opment, but, in fact, the score is very close to average potential for smart city development. Despite these considerations, Ashgabat’s legal and regulatory framework score (21.09) can be barely justified. This score implies very low potential for smart city development and reveals a wide gap between afford- ability (and perhaps infrastructure) and the regulatory framework. This result significantly affected Turkmen capital’s final score and shifted Ashgabat’s cur- rent status to low potential for smart city development. Within Central Asia, Dushanbe (39) is the furthest away from becoming a smart city. However, the difference between Dushanbe and the fourth- placed Bishkek is not that large—only four points. In addition, Ashgabat, Bishkek, and Dushanbe exhibit low potential for smart city development. This implies that Dushanbe is not that much behind in terms of smart city development from Ashgabat and Bishkek. In fact, Dushanbe’s infrastructure is more developed than that of Ashgabat or Bishkek. In terms of affordability, Dushanbe scored slightly higher that third-placed Tashkent, though both scores indicate low potential for smart city development. But the biggest challenge for Dushanbe is the legal and regulatory framework. As it stands now, it displays very low potential for smart city development that, in turn, negatively affected the final score of the Tajik capital and placed it sixth in the index.

Conclusion

This article attempted to shed light on the complex issue of potential adoption of smart city initiatives in Central Asia. It offers a unique and context-specific framework for analysis, allowing observers to delineate the current status of major Central Asian cities as well as challenges preventing smart city development. The hypothesis of Astana emerging at the top of the index turned out to be true. However, Astana’s lead was not that significant. Almaty came very close to challenge the supremacy of the Kazakh capital and, surprisingly, exceeded Astana on infrastructure development. Of course the identical legal and regulatory framework scores for the two Kazakh cities might have significantly impacted their close standing within the ranking. The cities from the resource-rich countries of Central Asia topped the rankings, as expected. However, Ashgabat’s performance was less than convincing. In fact, there is almost no difference between the final scores of Ashgabat

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

26 Irnazarov and Kayumova and Bishkek, which implies that an abundance of natural resources does not necessarily translate into better performance, possibly due to governance de- cisions. Ashgabat’s legal and regulatory framework score appeared two times lower than those of Bishkek. In general, the scores accumulated for the legal and regulatory framework were fully compatible with the final standing with the exception of Ashgabat. The capital of Turkmenistan provided several un- anticipated twists throughout the article, which can be partially attributed to the limited dataset acquired for Ashgabat. Thus, if Ashgabat were excluded, the final standing would fully match the legal and regulatory framework results. This confirms once again the decisive role of institutions and indicates that regulations provide the foundations for the implementation and development of any urban initiatives. It was also interesting to note that legal and regulatory framework scores varied widely among the cities studied, with the exception of Almaty and As- tana. This finding shows that Central Asian countries pursued somewhat dif- ferent policies after gaining independence when they had to (re)invent their own legal and regulatory frameworks. Statistically significant positive correlation (0.85) was found between aggregate legal and regulatory framework scores and aggregate infrastructure scores. This suggests that more developed legal and regulatory frameworks should enable better infrastructure development. However, infrastructure scores display less variation among the six Central Asian cities and are not always predicted by the respective legal and regulatory framework scores. In the Central Asian context, this situation can be explained by the common Soviet past. Infrastructure development remains at good level across five of the six cities (excluding Astana) mainly due to Soviet- era investment. Another possible explanation is that the Central Asian cities prioritized (physical) infrastructure over supporting regulations. It is particularly apparent in the case of Ashgabat and Dushanbe. The cities with different financial bases decided to opt for similar strategies and, remarkably, less wealthy Dushanbe ended up with better infrastructure based on the aggregate infrastructure score. In terms of affordability it was surprising to see Tashkent gravitating more toward cities lacking natural resources—Bishkek and Dushanbe—than to- ward cities with abundant natural resources—Almaty, Astana, and Ashgabat. This may be attributed to the population factor (within Uzbekistan and Tashkent) and/or governance decisions. The present study also uniquely included electricity supply into the analysis. As expected, resource-rich cities performed better on the aggregate electricity score than resource-poor cities, namely Bishkek and Dushanbe. What was important to conclude is that statistically significant positive correlations

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

Toward Smart City Development in Central Asia 27 were found between aggregate electricity scores (infrastructure, affordability, legal and regulatory pillars combined) and aggregate ICT scores (correlation of 0.69), electricity and transport scores (correlation of 0.87), as well as electricity and housing and construction scores (correlation of 0.93). It means not only that reliable supplies of electricity better determines the development of ICT, transport, housing and construction, but also that there are strong linkages among the categories introduced and studied in the present article. Finally, the most challenging areas affecting the development of smart cities in Central Asia are the environment and waste management. The environment and waste management are not given proper attention or are even neglected due to the more acute infrastructural needs of Central Asian cities. This trend can be observed in most developing countries. Waste management is particularly underdeveloped across all six cities studied. Modern techniques of waste collection, separation, and recycling are not in place in Central Asia. The reason these sectors lag behind is an interesting topic for follow up research.

central asian affairs 4 (2017) 51-82

28

Appendix 1

Smart Cities Index

LEGAL & INFRASTRUCTUR AFFORDABILITY REGULATORY E ENVIRONMENT

Transport Legal & Regulatory Transport Transport Affordability Environment ► Electronic payments in public transportation1 1 1 ► Number of airports ► One-way ticket (USD) ► Carpooling schemes are in place1 1 1 ► Number of cars per capita ► Monthly pass (USD) ► GPS monitoring of public transport is in place1 1 1 central ► Number of buses per capita ► Taxi (per km) (USD) ► Restrictions on import or use of outdated 1 1 ► Dedicated bus lanes ► Gasoline (USD) vehicles are in place1 1 ► Metro rides per day ► Regulation banning the use of leaded ► Paved roads (km) per capita1 1 asian petrol/gasoline ► Total number of transported passengers ► Mandatory technical inspection for passenger by public transport per annum (mln.) divided cars1

1 Irnazarov affairs by total population ► Percent of firms identifying transportation as a major constraint2

4

and (2017)

K ayumova

51 - 82

central Toward

Human Capital & Innovation Human Capital & Innovation Affordability Human Capital & Innovation Legal & Regulatory Environment

1 1 Patent application filing fee (USD) asian ► Number of universities per capita ► 1 Can intellectual property application be Smart ► Enrollment per annum1 ► Utility model application filing fee (USD) ► 1 filed electronically?1 ► Percent of firms using technology licensed from ► Industrial design application filing fee (USD)

affairs 2 ► Can payment of the filing fees for intellectual foreign companies ► Trademark application filing fee (one class)

1 City ► Percent of firms identifying an inadequately (USD)1 property objects be made electronically? educated workforce as a major constraint2 ► How long does it take for Appeals Council to

treat appeals if intellectual property protection Development 4 ► Gross expenditure on R&D (% of GDP)3 registration was rejected?1 (2017) ► Number of scientific and technical journal 3 ► National registered trademarks database is articles (per billion PPP$ GDP) 1 ► Citable documents H index3 publicly available online for search?

Patent Applications (Resident)1 ► Government grant schemes for financing 51 ► applied research and innovation projects are in ► Patents Registered1

- 1 1 82 place ► Utility Model Applications (Resident) in

1 ► Regulation introducing elements of the Bologna Utility Model Registrations (Resident)

► Central Process1 ► Industrial Design Applications (Resident)1 ► Industrial Design Registrations (Resident)1 ► Stage towards establishing a National Qualification Framework1 ► Trademark Applications (Resident)1

► Trademark Registrations1 Asia

29

30

ICT ICT Affordability ICT Legal & Regulatory Environment Herfindahl-Hirschman Index4 Internet (10 mbps, unlimited data) (USD)1 Mandatory SIM registration1 Number of Internet users1 Mobile prepaid (per minute) (USD)1 Separate Regulatory Authority1 5 6 Internet Speed (Mbps) Landline per month (USD)1 National Broadband Policy 1 4G Commercial Launch Calling Party Pays (CPP) principle enforced1 Percent of firms having their own Web site2 Internet portal for online public services is fully 1 Percent of firms using e-mail to interact with operational 2 clients/suppliers Mobile number portability is in place1 M2M solutions are offered and implemented1 Free wi-fi access in public spaces1

Electricity Electricity Affordability Environment Electricity Legal & Regulatory 2 1 Number of electrical outages in a typical month Electricity Tariff (KWt, Households) Renewable Energy Development Programme is central 2 1 Duration of a typical electrical outage (hours) Electricity Tariffs (KWt, Businesses) in place1 Losses due to electrical outages (% of annual Cost of getting electricity (% of income Regulation banning the use of incandescent 2 sales) per capita)7 1

light bulbs

asian 2 Percent of firms owning or sharing a generator Electric power meters with differentiated time- Proportion of electricity from a generator (%)2 of-day metering for households1 1

If a generator is used, average proportion of Energy Conservation Fund is fully operational Irnazarov affairs 2 electricity from a generator (%) Independent energy sector regulator1 Days to obtain an electrical connection Is country a member to Agreement on 2 (upon application) cooperation of the CIS member-states in the 4

1 Percent of firms identifying electricity as a major field energy efficiency and energy saving? and (2017) constraint2 Reliability of supply and transparency of tariff 7 K

index (0-8) ayum

1 51 Number of electrical substations 1

ova

- Total Capacity (Mega-volt amperes) 82 Number of Street Lighting Sources1

central Toward Environment Environment Affordability Environment Legal & Regulatory Environment 1 ► Index for Air Pollution (IAP) ► Emissions fines base rate (USD) for legal ► PM2.5 and PM10 (major universal air pollutants) asian 1 1 1 ► Share (%) of emissions from mobile sources entities are measured and regulated Smart ► Emissions of air pollutants from mobile sources maximumh allowable ii concentrations f d/ (MAC)di ► Automated air quality monitoring stations are in

(vehicles) (thousand tonnes)1 (USD per tonne)1 place1 affairs

► Emissions to atmosphere from stationary sources ► Charges on emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) ► Is country a party to Convention on Long range City 1 (thousand tonnes)1 exceeding maximum allowable concentrations Transboundary Air Pollution?

1 8 ► Average daily concentrations of major air (MAC) (USD per tonne) ► Vehicle emission limits are enforced Development 4 1 pollutants (micrograms/m3) ► Charges on emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) ► Outdoor, open burning (burning leaves during (2017) 1 ► Dust (TSP) exceeding maximum allowable concentrations fall season) is banned8 1 1 ► Sulphur dioxide (SO2) (MAC) (USD per tonne) ► Incentives for clean production and installation ► Carbon monoxide (CO)1 of pollution prevention technologies for 1 51 ► Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) industrial enterprises are in place8 1

- ► Nitrogen oxide (NO) 82 ► Phenol1 in

► Formaldehyde1 Central

Asia Housing & Construction Housing & Construction Affordability Housing & Construction Legal & Regulatory Environment 1 1 ► Housing (sq. m.) ► Utilities (for 85 sq.m. apt) (USD) ► Construction permits are issued based on energy 1 1 ► Housing per capita (sq. m.) ► Rent per month (city centre) (USD) efficiencycriteria1 2 1 ► Days to obtain a construction-related permit ► Rent per month (outside of city centre) (USD) ► Regulations setting standards on construction 1 ► Dealing with Construction Permits Distance to ► Price per square meter in city centre (USD) are in place1 7 Frontier (% points) ► Price per square meter outside of city centre ► Are building regulations (including the building 7 1 ► Building quality control index (0-15) (USD) code) and regulations dealing with construction ► Number of procedures required to obtain ► Cost of dealing with construction permits permits available online?7 7 7 construction permits (% of warehouse value) ► State Ecological Expertise of the facility is required1 ► Elements of online construction permit system 1 31

are in place ► Risk-based approvals are introduced1

3 2 Waste Management Waste Management Affordability Waste Management Legal & Regulatory Environment Quantity of generated municipal solid waste Waste Collection Tari fs (per person/month, National Waste Management Strategy is in place1 1 (tonnes per annum) per capita1 Households) Law on the movement of hazardous waste is Quantity of collected municipal solid waste Waste Collection Tari fs (Industrial Enterprises)1 adopted1 (year/tonnes) per capita1 System of separate collection of recyclable waste Share of collected municipal solid waste (tonnes is in place1 per annum)1 Landfill site (polygon) distance to the city (km)1 Private sector involved in waste collection1

central

asian

Irnazarov affairs

1 4

Authors’ own compilation

2 and

(2017) Enterprise Survey, The World Bank Group, 2013 3The Global Innovation Index, Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO, 2015 4 GSMA Intelligence, 2015 K 5NetIndex, 2014 ayumova

51 6The Broadband Commission, 2015 7

- Doing Business, The World Bank Group, 2016 82 8UNEP, 2015