Knowledge Economy in the Anthropocene: A Blueprint for

Urban Cities

Kemi Esther Ayanda

PHD Candidate, UNICAF University, Plot 20842, Longacres, Lusaka, Zambia

Keywords: Anthropocene Epoch, Knowledge Economy, Knowledge Management, Information System,

Innovation Strategies, Sustainable Knowledge, Knowledge Economics, Green and Brownfield Developments.

Abstract: This paper unfolds transformative paradigms, combining profound insights from the knowledge economy and

groundbreaking technology to frame sustainable urban futures in the Anthropocene, an era characterized by

significant human-driven ecological transformations. It emphasizes the revolutionary potential of innovations

such as Geospatial Technology, internet of things (IoT), and integrated renewables in redefining green and

brownfield developments, crucial for forging resilient and ecologically balanced urban habitats. The

exploration incorporates diverse strategies like universal digital access, communal participation, and ethical

technology deployment, ensuring equitable knowledge dissemination and fostering ethical advancements.

These strategies are seamlessly interlaced to create inclusive, sustainable, and resilient urban landscapes,

showcasing a profound respect for our planet’s boundaries. The paper, therefore, crafts a visionary blueprint

where knowledge, technology, and ethics amalgamate, providing urban spaces the resilience and foresight

needed to navigate the multifaceted challenges of the Anthropocene, thereby paving the way for a sustainable

and equitable future.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the Anthropocene, marked by unprecedented

human-driven ecological disruptions and climatic

alterations, the relevance of knowledge management

(KM) and information systems (IS) have gained

pronounced significance. The advent of the

Anthropocene epoch, necessitates a re-evaluation of

urban development strategies to align with the

evolving ecological, societal, and technological

landscapes (Crutzen, 2002; Steffen et al., 2011).

This transformative epoch requires the

amalgamation of the knowledge economy with

sustainable developmental approaches to construct

resilient, equitable, and environmentally harmonious

urban landscapes. The knowledge economy, integral

to addressing the ensuing challenges, is a tapestry

woven with threads of innovation, information, and

knowledge-centric strategies, driving sustainable

urban development and policy-making.

In this transformative context, innovations such as

Geographic information systems (Obermeyer &

Pinto, 2017), IoTs (Rahmani et al., 2015), and

renewable energy integration (IEA, 2020), serve as

pivotal components in reimagining green and

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8013-082X

brownfield developments. These innovations are

instrumental in navigating the complex

environmental alterations characteristic of the

Anthropocene, facilitating the creation of urban

ecosystems that are both resilient to ecological

disruptions and in symbiosis with the environment.

However, achieving sustainability in the

Anthropocene is not solely contingent upon

technological advancements; it necessitates the

ethical and equitable distribution of knowledge and

technology (Suber, 2015); strategies aimed at

promoting universal digital access (Qiang, 2012),

incorporating community engagement (Reed et al.,

2009), and fostering sustainable technologies

(Kirchherr et al., 2017) as well as to democratize the

benefits of the knowledge economy and ensure

equitable developmental progress.

Harmonizing technological innovation with

ethical considerations and the pursuit of knowledge

requires a comprehensive, transdisciplinary

approach, integrating diverse fields of knowledge and

ensuring responsible innovation (Stilgoe et al., 2013).

By embracing a holistic approach to knowledge,

technology, and ethics, it is possible to shape urban

developments that are regenerative, inclusive, and

Ayanda, K.

Knowledge Economy in the Anthropocene: A Blueprint for Urban Cities.

DOI: 10.5220/0012256200003598

In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2023) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 311-324

ISBN: 978-989-758-671-2; ISSN: 2184-3228

311

reflective of environmental and societal values

(Brandt et al., 2013; Gardiner, 2011).

Thus, this paper endeavors to elucidate the role of

the knowledge economy in crafting sustainable,

resilient, and ethical urban blueprints, with a focus on

innovative technologies, equitable knowledge

distribution, and ethical considerations. By providing

a nuanced understanding and a practical blueprint for

urban development in the Anthropocene, this paper

contributes to shaping a future where urban cities are

sustainable, equitable, and resilient to the

multifaceted challenges posed by human-induced

environmental changes.

Table 1: Key Concepts and Definitions.

Greenfield Development:

Initiatives undertaken on

undeveloped land with no

need for demolition or

remediation.

Brownfield Development:

Development on previously

used land, often necessitating

remediation or

decontamination.

Knowledge management:

The structured approach to

create, share, and utilize

knowledge assets (Alavi &

Leidner, 2001).

Information systems:

Technology-driven tools

aiding the collection,

processing, and dissemination

of knowledge (Laudon &

Laudon, 2016).

Knowledge economy: An economy where knowledge is

the primary product and driving force (Drucker, 1993).

2 RELEVANCE OF KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT AND

INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN

THE ANTHROPOCENE

In the Anthropocene, human-induced impacts,

notably climate change and biodiversity loss,

necessitate sustainable approaches, responsible

resource management, and global cooperation

(Rockström et al., 2009). KM and IS are pivotal in

shaping development strategies in this epoch,

providing data-driven insights, fostering innovation,

and addressing environmental challenges by enabling

efficient knowledge transfer, decision-making, and

resource optimization (Alavi & Leidner, 2001;

Drucker, 1993).

The relevance of knowledge management and

information systems cannot be overstated in this

epoch. KM is the systematic structuring and

leveraging of information to understand and mitigate

human-induced alterations to the environment,

serving as the backbone for shaping and

implementing developmental strategies (Alavi &

Leidner, 2001). Information System, the

technological conduits for knowledge, empower

organizations with the capability to collect, process,

and disseminate intricate data pertaining to the

anthropogenic impacts on our planet, enabling an

enhanced and coherent understanding of

environmental alterations.

This synergy between KM and IS is foundational

in shaping developmental strategies, providing a

roadmap for the synthesis and application of

knowledge to foster innovation and sustainable

solutions in urban development. They facilitate an

informed and responsive approach to the multifaceted

challenges presented by human-induced

environmental changes, allowing urban centers to

navigate the intricate landscape of sustainability and

resilience in the Anthropocene. By consolidating and

analyzing information on environmental changes and

human impacts, KM and IS inform and fortify

sustainable development policies, acting as catalysts

for transformative action in addressing the exigencies

of this epoch.

Furthermore, the integration of KM and IS in

urban developmental frameworks is vital for

propelling eco-conscious innovations and enabling

data-driven decisions related to environmental

conservation and urban growth, thus making them

essential instruments in addressing the unprecedented

demands of the Anthropocene. The efficiency in

knowledge utilization and transfer afforded by KM

and IS is pivotal in spurring innovation and economic

growth, thereby reinforcing the global pursuit of

sustainability goals in urban development strategies.

They facilitate an in-depth understanding and

response mechanism to environmental degradation,

providing the necessary tools for urban cities to

optimize resource utilization, minimize

environmental impacts, and advance sustainability

goals, showcasing the transformative power of

knowledge in urban developmental paradigms.

The integration of KM and IS is also

consequential in the socio-political realm within

urban development strategies, potentially

transforming governance structures, fostering

community participation, and ensuring equity in

access to opportunities, with the overarching aim of

integrating the principles of the knowledge economy

with sustainable urban development strategies.

Illustrative examples like Copenhagen's sustainable

urban planning and Singapore's Smart Nation

initiative demonstrate how knowledge-driven

approaches can lead to the realization of inclusive,

sustainable, and environmentally conscious urban

environments, highlighting the extensive potential of

knowledge and information systems in shaping the

future trajectory of urban cities in the Anthropocene.

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

312

2.1 The Intersection of Knowledge

Economy and Urban Development

It is within the Anthropocene that humanity’s

predominant influence has necessitated urgent global

action and sustainable stewardship (Lewis & Maslin,

2015), emphasizing the critical role of KM and IS in

addressing the ensuing challenges and fostering

innovation and sustainable solutions in urban

development.

The connection between KM and IS is pivotal,

with IS facilitating the capture and sharing of tacit and

explicit knowledge, thus enhancing decision-making

and innovation in this significant era (Dalkir, 2005).

Within the Knowledge Economy, KM and IS are

integral components, driving innovation and

competitiveness by enabling the creation, sharing,

and utilization of knowledge assets in the

Anthropocene. They facilitate the efficient utilization

and transfer of knowledge, essential for spurring

economic growth and innovation, thereby playing a

critical role in achieving sustainable development by

empowering organizations to gather, apply, and

disseminate knowledge for environmentally

conscious decision-making and resource

management.

In the realm of urban development, KM and IS

empower both greenfield and brownfield

development strategies in the Anthropocene. For

instance, Masdar City, a paradigm of greenfield

development, leverages KM and IS to create

sustainable cities from scratch on previously

undeveloped lands. In contrast, the transformation of

The High Line in New York City, a brownfield

development, demonstrates the regeneration and

ecological restoration possibilities inherent in

leveraging KM and IS for sustainable urban renewal

(Drucker, 1993).

This interconnectedness of the Knowledge

Economy with Urban Development Strategies is

accentuated, impacting infrastructure, employment,

and sustainability. The integration of knowledge

economy principles with sustainable urban

development is crucial, necessitating the harnessing

of knowledge assets for innovation and eco-conscious

planning. It also entails socio-political ramifications

influencing governance structures, community

participation, and equity in access to opportunities,

exemplified by initiatives like Singapore's Smart

Nation.

Moreover, the knowledge economy significantly

influences policy-making, urban planning, social

equity, and environmental justice in the

Anthropocene. Cases such as Copenhagen's

sustainable urban planning and Canada's Indigenous

knowledge integration depict how knowledge-driven

approaches promote inclusive and environmentally

conscious policies and equitable development.

Adapting these principles to different urban

contexts and ecosystems requires tailoring strategies

to local conditions, integrating indigenous

knowledge, and utilizing adaptable technologies, as

evidenced by Medellín's inclusive urban development

(Drucker, 1993).

The Knowledge Economy closely intertwines

with urban development strategies, driving growth,

impacting infrastructure, and molding sustainability

endeavors in cities. Urban regions, as crucibles of

innovation and knowledge, are at the forefront of

experiencing and addressing the repercussions of the

Anthropocene, rendering the integration of

knowledge economy principles with sustainable

urban development strategies crucial for resilient

urban futures. This synthesis necessitates the fusion

of knowledge-based industries, innovations, and eco-

conscious planning, underpinned by equitable and

inclusive principles.

2.2 Synchronizing Knowledge

Management, Information Systems

and Knowledge Economy

The integration of knowledge management,

information systems and knowledge economy

principles into sustainable urban development

strategies in the Anthropocene epoch yields

significant, tangible impacts.

In such a context, sustainable urban development

strategies must be informed and shaped by advanced

knowledge management and information systems,

enabling innovation, optimal resource utilization,

enhanced environmental sustainability, and improved

quality of life. Barcelona’s smart city initiatives serve

as compelling examples of effectively combining

KM, IS, and KE principles for optimizing urban

living. Herein, it is crucial to elucidate diverse,

adaptable, and comprehensive strategies, such as

promoting interdisciplinary cooperation, engaging

communities in decision-making processes, and

implementing agile governance structures.

KM and IS play a critical role in shaping and

informing developmental strategies, fostering

innovation and sustainable solutions in urban

development within the Anthropocene. They act as

conduits for efficient utilization and transfer of

knowledge, driving economic growth and innovation

in the knowledge economy, and helping to align

developmental policies with the evolving needs of

Knowledge Economy in the Anthropocene: A Blueprint for Urban Cities

313

urban areas in this epoch. Singapore's Smart Nation

and Amsterdam's circular economy initiatives

exemplify diverse, adaptable solutions by integrating

KM, KE with sustainable urban planning.

The need for extensive strategies and actionable

policies is underscored by practical implementations

in diverse urban contexts, such as Medellín’s

inclusive urban transformation and Copenhagen’s

sustainable planning initiatives. These serve as

illustrative case studies showcasing the translation of

insights and findings from practical KM, IS, and KE

into actionable policies, aligning with the evolving

needs of urban development in the Anthropocene.

To foster innovation and sustainability in the

Anthropocene, forward-thinking strategies must

emphasize promoting circular economy practices,

enhancing data ethics, adopting modular

infrastructure, and integrating indigenous knowledge

(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Berkes et al.,

2000). Distinguishing between greenfield and

brownfield development contexts, the strategies can

be tailor-fitted to the unique requirements of both,

with greater emphasis on community engagement,

data ethics, and historical knowledge integration in

brownfield developments.

The interconnectedness of KM, IS, KE, and

sustainable urban development is a cornerstone in

addressing the Anthropocene's challenges. For

example, the initiatives in cities like Masdar City and

Barcelona have illustrated successful amalgamation,

facing and overcoming challenges such as data

privacy and equitable access (Drucker, 1993). These

initiatives show the adaptability and effectiveness of

knowledge economy principles in varied urban

environments, leading to the creation of resilient and

eco-conscious cities (Wheeler, 2017).

The principles of the knowledge economy can be

integrated with sustainable urban development

strategies by focusing on interdisciplinary

collaborations, emphasizing agile urban planning,

and engaging communities. Such multidimensional

approaches can unearth novel solutions and provide

well-informed recommendations for policy-makers,

urban planners, and researchers (Caragliu et al.,

2011).

Research must continue to explore indigenous

knowledge integration, ethical data use, adaptable

urban governance models, resilience and climate

adaptation, circular economy practices, inclusive and

equitable urbanism, and urban biodiversity

conservation to uncover new knowledge and

solutions in sustainable urban development within the

Anthropocene epoch (Kitchin, 2014; Parnell et al.,

2015; Berkes et al., 2000).

2.2.1 Greenfield and Brownfield

Development Case Studies

Both greenfield and brownfield developments, as

contrasting paradigms in urban development,

epitomize the application of knowledge management

and information systems in creating sustainable urban

environments in the Anthropocene epoch.

Table 2: Greenfield and Brownfield Case Studies.

Greenfield Development Brownfield Development

Masdar City in Abu Dhabi,

a quintessential example of

greenfield development,

represents an endeavor to

create a sustainable city

from scratch on previously

undeveloped land. In this

project, KM and IS play

pivotal roles in facilitating

the transfer of innovative

and sustainable knowledge,

driving informed decision-

making, and ensuring the

realization of environmental

conservation goals. Masdar

City’s conception relies

heavily on the optimal

utilization of advanced

technologies and renewable

energy sources, integrated

through effective knowledge

management practices,

showcasing the potential of

knowledge-driven greenfield

projects in forging paths to

sustainability in the

Anthropocene epoch.

In contrast, the transformation

of The High Line in New

York City exemplifies

innovative brownfield

development. Originally an

elevated railway, The High

Line was repurposed into an

urban park through

meticulous planning and

sustainable practices. KM and

IS in this project were

instrumental in the collation

and analysis of data relating

to ecological restoration and

resource optimization. The

redevelopment of The High

Line illustrates the

transformational possibilities

inherent in brownfield

developments, utilizing

knowledge and information

systems to revitalize

previously developed land,

mitigate environmental

impacts, and contribute to

urban sustainability.

In the case of Masdar City, knowledge

management and information systems empower

innovation from the project’s inception, fostering

sustainability in a previously undeveloped

environment. Conversely, The High Line highlights

the remediation and revitalization potential in

brownfield developments, leveraging knowledge and

technology to turn a disused infrastructure into a

sustainable urban space, contributing to ecological

balance and urban biodiversity in the Anthropocene

epoch.

2.2.2 Comparative Insights

The comparative insights from Masdar City and The

High Line underscore the versatility and adaptability

of KM and IS in diverse developmental contexts.

While greenfield developments like Masdar City

allow for the integration of cutting-edge innovations

and sustainability practices from the outset,

brownfield projects such as The High Line

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

314

demonstrate the transformative potential of

knowledge and technology in the rejuvenation of

existing structures. In both instances, the effective

integration of knowledge management and

information systems is instrumental in addressing the

multifaceted challenges and opportunities of urban

development in the Anthropocene, emphasizing the

crucial role of knowledge-driven approaches in

shaping sustainable urban futures.

2.2.3 Innovative Strategies and Synergies in

Development

Implementing forward-thinking strategies

necessitates a nuanced understanding of greenfield

and brownfield developments. In greenfield

development, the integration of circular economy

practices, modular infrastructure, and agile

governance are paramount (Ellen MacArthur

Foundation, 2013; Paskaleva-Shapira et al., 2010;

Caragliu et al., 2011). Conversely, brownfield

developments demand a focus on community

engagement, the advancement of data ethics, and the

integration of historical and indigenous knowledge

(Feser, 2016; Kitchin, 2014; Berkes et al., 2000). This

bifocal approach ensures maximized sustainability

and innovation, addressing each development type's

unique requisites and challenges.

3 SUCCESSES AND FAILURES

Analyzing historical projects, such as Masdar City

and New York’s High Line, provides insights into the

transformative power of innovative, sustainable

urban development (Büdenbender et al., 2016; Nash,

2016). Conversely, failures like Ciudad Real Airport

and Pruitt-Igoe illustrate the crucial need for holistic,

community-driven planning (Gudmundsson et al.,

2018; Sorkin, 2002). These examples underscore the

imperative for sustainable, adaptable, and

community-centric urban development practices in

the Anthropocene.

3.1 Economic Impacts and Sustainable

Considerations

Brownfield projects, due to their resource efficiency

and environmental remediation, align well with

Anthropocene's sustainable goals (Echeverri, 2015).

In contrast, while greenfield projects can propel

economic growth, they require meticulous

sustainable considerations to mitigate resource

depletion and environmental degradation (Guo et al.,

2015; Nyberg & Olofsson, 2017). Balancing

economic aspirations with sustainability is critical for

enduring prosperity in both local and national

contexts in the Anthropocene era.

3.2 Return on Investment in the

Anthropocene

Brownfield developments usually yield favorable

ROI and exemplify responsible resource use due to

their alignment with principles of resource efficiency

(EEA, 2016; Echeverri, 2015). However, greenfield

developments, with their varying ROI, necessitate the

embedding of sustainable practices for long-term

economic and environmental sustainability (Guo et

al., 2015; Nyberg & Olofsson, 2017).

3.3 Knowledge Economy and

Traditional Economies

In the Anthropocene, the convergence between the

knowledge economy and traditional economies is

catalyzing industrial evolution through digitalization

and innovation (Castells, 2000; UNDP, 2019). This

synergy enhances economic growth, productivity,

and addresses sustainability challenges but demands

adaptability and skills acquisition (Daghfous, 2004;

Foray, 2004). The knowledge economy is reshaping

economic dynamics, emphasizing environmentally

conscious practices (Yang, 2018), and is essential for

sustainable urban development.

3.4 Socio-Political Ramifications

The amalgamation of the knowledge economy with

sustainable urban development strategies brings forth

myriad socio-political ramifications, including

altering governance structures and influencing

community participation and equity. Singapore’s

Smart Nation initiative is illustrative of these

dynamics, emphasizing the synergy between

technology, knowledge, and sustainable urban

governance.

3.4.1 Policy-Making and Environmental

Justice

The knowledge economy influences policy-making,

social equity, and environmental justice in the

Anthropocene, as seen in Copenhagen’s sustainable

urban planning and Canada’s incorporation of

Indigenous knowledge. Such knowledge-driven

strategies are pivotal for fostering inclusivity and

Knowledge Economy in the Anthropocene: A Blueprint for Urban Cities

315

environmental consciousness in urban development

policies.

3.4.2 Impact on Local Communities

Development projects, whether greenfield or

brownfield, have substantial impacts on local

communities, necessitating mechanisms to ensure

community input and benefits. Implementing

mechanisms like community engagement and social

impact assessments facilitate community input,

allowing the concerns and needs of local communities

to be addressed and mitigating negative impacts

(Cernea & Mathur, 2008). Additionally, developers

can employ strategies to ensure projects are culturally

sensitive, utilizing approaches like cultural impact

assessments and inclusivity in decision-making to

preserve local cultures and promote inclusivity and

mutual benefit (International Finance Corporation,

2019; UN-Habitat, 2004).

3.5 Environmental Sustainability and

Biodiversity

Greenfield and brownfield developments show stark

contrasts in environmental sustainability. Greenfield

projects, which often require significant land

clearing, contribute to habitat destruction, urban

sprawl, and increased resource consumption (Seto et

al., 2012). On the other hand, brownfield projects

promote resource efficiency and urban consolidation,

reducing environmental disruption and demand for

greenfield land (European Environment Agency,

2016). To address the resulting biodiversity loss and

ecological imbalance, both project types can integrate

sustainable development practices and conservation-

oriented planning to mitigate environmental impacts

(UNEP, 2019).

3.5.1 Carbon and Lifecycle Analysis

Greenfield projects generally exhibit higher embodied

carbon due to extensive construction activities, while

brownfield projects often leverage existing

infrastructure to minimize environmental impacts

(Pomponi et al, 2017; Shen et al., 2020). Through

sustainable practices and minimizing resource

consumption, both project types can further reduce

their environmental footprints, contributing to broader

sustainability goals (European Commission, 2014).

3.6 Legal and Policy Frameworks

Various legal and policy frameworks guide these

development projects, with their primary objectives

being to balance economic development with

environmental conservation and social equity (Selin

& VanDeveer, 2015; UNEP, 2017). Through these

frameworks, developers are compelled to align their

projects with sustainability standards, environmental

regulations, and land use planning norms (Levy &

Salvatore, 2014).

3.6.1 Development Balancing

Considerations

To strike a balance between development,

environmental conservation, and social equity,

integrated, holistic policies focusing on sustainable

urban planning, green infrastructure, and inclusive

decision-making are crucial (Alberti et al., 2003;

Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Leichenko & O'Brien,

2008). Employing adaptive management and

continuous monitoring ensures the effectiveness and

adaptability of these policies over time, addressing

emerging challenges and optimizing positive

outcomes (Folke et al., 2005).

3.6.2 Impact of International Policy

Frameworks

International policy frameworks such as the Paris

Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development shape local development projects,

enforcing alignment with global environmental

conservation, climate action, and social equity goals

(UN, 2015; UNFCCC, 2015). These frameworks

drive local policies to adhere to international

sustainability standards, contributing to global

sustainable development objectives (Biermann et al.,

2017).

3.7 Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in

Development

Developers face myriad ethical dilemmas when

attempting to balance economic growth, societal

needs, and environmental conservation. Utilizing

ethical decision-making frameworks, engaging

stakeholders, adhering to sustainable development

principles, and emphasizing corporate social

responsibility are pivotal in addressing these

dilemmas (Svendsen & Svendsen, 2015; Bansal,

2005; WCED, 1987; Carroll, 1999). By aligning

economic interests with societal and environmental

considerations, developers can foster sustainable and

equitable development outcomes.

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

316

3.7.1 Governance and Regulation

Governance and regulations in KE are impacted by

the shift to knowledge-based resources, necessitating

reformative policies and adaptive models that align

with developmental aspirations of the Anthropocene

(Davoudi et al., 2009; UN, 2015). Regions like

Silicon Valley and South Korea exemplify the

integration of knowledge-based strategies and tech-

driven economies, with dynamic ecosystems

fostering innovation through public-private

collaboration (Saxenian, 2006; Kim, 1997).

3.7.2 Policies and Governance Models in

Tech Hubs

Evolving policies in tech hubs and innovation

districts, like Silicon Valley and Singapore's Jurong

Innovation District, underline the role of governance

in creating conducive environments for innovation

(Saxenian, 2006; EDB, 2021). These case studies

illustrate the significance of stakeholder engagement

and sustainability-oriented strategies in balancing

economic growth with environmental preservation

(Bressers & Kuks, 2004).

3.8 Predictive Modelling Enabled by IS

and KM

In this epoch, the utilization of information systems

and Knowledge management, inclusive of AI and

machine learning, is critical in advancing predictive

modeling in urban developments (Chen et al., 2012;

Marr, 2015). Such technologies are optimizing

resource allocation and enabling real-time decision-

making, evident in AI-driven urban planning and smart

city initiatives (Batty et al., 2018; Caragliu et al., 2011).

3.8.1 Equitable Access to Knowledge

The foresight in ensuring equitable access to

knowledge and digital resources is crucial, where

advancements such as open-access platforms, digital

literacy, indigenous knowledge systems integration,

and global partnerships are pivotal (Gewin, 2016;

Warschauer, 2003; Berkes, 2018; UNESCO, 2020).

Addressing the digital divide and inclusivity in

knowledge accessibility are paramount, necessitating

strategies like advancing eco-digital literacy and

establishing community resilience hubs (Smith et al.,

2020; Steffen et al., 2015).

3.8.2 Interdisciplinary Synergies

The synthesis of disparate knowledge domains is

yielding interdisciplinary innovations in green and

brownfield developments, seen in synergies between

ecological engineering and urban planning,

environmental economics and policy, and climate

science and architecture (Barton & Lindhjem, 2015;

Tietenberg & Lewis, 2019; Pachauri & Reisinger,

2007). These collaborations are indispensable for

creating holistic, sustainable solutions in the

Anthropocene.

3.9 Transformative Social and Ethical

Paradigms

Transformative social and ethical paradigms in the

Anthropocene are redefining the moral fabric of

developmental strategies. Principles of sustainability,

resilience, environmental justice, intergenerational

equity, indigenous rights, and planetary boundaries

are reshaping ethical considerations in technological

innovations and development approaches (Raworth,

2017; Folke et al., 2016; Schlosberg, 2004; Gardiner,

2011; Berkes, 2018; Steffen et al., 2015).

3.9.1 Ethical Considerations in

Technological Innovations

In the Anthropocene, sustainability, social equity,

environmental justice, and responsible resource use

form the backbone of ethical frameworks guiding

technological innovations. Adherence to these

considerations is crucial to mitigate adverse impacts

and ensure responsible stewardship (Folke et al.,

2016). Incorporating ethical considerations fosters

practices that prioritize carbon emissions reduction,

ecosystems protection, resource conservation, and

equitable benefits distribution among communities,

thus safeguarding the planet for future generations.

4 REDEFINING

DEVELOPMENTAL

PARADIGMS

Advancements in KM and IS are instrumental in

reshaping developmental strategies, enabling data-

driven decision-making and enhancing resilience

(Kitchin, 2014). These advancements facilitate the

adoption of sustainable practices, support renewable

energy transitions, and aid conservation efforts,

leading to more adaptive, sustainable, and resilient

developmental strategies that respect planetary

boundaries (IEA, 2020; Börner et al., 2019).

Knowledge Economy in the Anthropocene: A Blueprint for Urban Cities

317

4.1 Ethical and Societal Challenges in

Convergence

The synergy of knowledge economy, technology, and

developmental strategies poses ethical and societal

challenges, including environmental impact, digital

divide, privacy, social equity, resource consumption,

cultural preservation, community engagement, and

ethical use of AI and automation. Addressing these

challenges is pivotal for sustainable, equitable, and

value-aligned development in green and brownfield

projects.

4.2 Equitable Distribution and

Accessibility Strategies

To ensure equitable distribution and accessibility of

knowledge and technological resources, future

developmental projects must emphasize universal

digital access, education and training, community

engagement, open access initiatives, sustainable

technologies, and public-private partnerships (Qiang,

2012; Warschauer, 2003). Implementing these

strategies promotes equity, resilience, and

sustainability, contributing to holistic well-being in

the Anthropocene.

The Anthropocene epoch's developmental

approaches, whether greenfield or brownfield, have

profound implications for human health and

wellbeing. Ensuring access to green spaces and

safeguarding air and water quality are pivotal in

fostering public health (Nowak et al., 2014; Barton &

Tsourou, 2000). Sustainable developmental strategies

mitigate the adverse effects of pollution and other

environmental factors on human health (Haines et al.,

2017).

Greenfield and brownfield development

strategies inherently differ in their approaches to risks

associated with climate change and economic

downturns. While greenfield projects can be

resource-intensive and can escalate urban sprawl,

leading to increased carbon emissions (Seto et al.,

2012), brownfield developments offer sustainable

alternatives by utilizing existing infrastructures and

reducing overall resource consumption (European

Environment Agency, 2016). Brownfield

developments may inherently hold more resilience

against economic downturns due to lower initial costs

and adaptable reuse potential (Smith, 2006). Strategic

flexibility and incorporation of sustainable practices

are integral for risk mitigation in both developmental

approaches.

Resilience analysis demonstrates that brownfield

developments, owing to their adaptive reuse and

resource efficiency, exhibit higher resilience to

diverse challenges, including economic and

environmental risks (Smith, 2006). However, the

resource-intensive nature of greenfields renders them

vulnerable (Seto et al., 2012), necessitating the

incorporation of resilience strategies (Folke et al.,

2005).

Anticipated future trends in developmental

projects are influenced by advancements in

technology, economic transitions, and societal needs.

Emerging trends focus on integrating smart

technologies, embracing circular economy principles,

and endorsing sustainable design practices

(Makaremi et al., 2020; EMF, 2019) to promote

sustainable and resilient urban development in the

Anthropocene epoch.

Globalization and international collaborations

enhance knowledge sharing and facilitate the

alignment of sustainability goals (Biermann et al.,

2017), enabling the development of globally

informed, integrated approaches to urban

development. This, in turn, fosters inclusive decision-

making processes and the implementation of

innovative solutions (Leichenko & O'Brien, 2008).

Speculative scenarios reveal the potential futures

of urban development within the Anthropocene,

focusing on themes such as resilient cities (Revi et al.,

2014), integration of eco-friendly technology

(Makaremi et al., 2020), adoption of circular

economy models (EMF, 2019), and sustainable

mobility solutions (Litman, 2019). Such speculative

scenarios inform adaptive planning strategies,

advocating for sustainability in urban developments.

To leverage the benefits of both greenfield and

brownfield developments, it is imperative to optimize

synergies between the two by prioritizing adaptive

planning, community-driven initiatives, mixed land-

use strategies, and by implementing effective

regulatory frameworks (Smith et al., 2020;

Anguelovski et al., 2018; Buettner et al., 2019; Su et

al., 2018; Ren et al., 2020; Diao et al., 2019).

Incorporation of the outlined development

strategies into broader frameworks entails alignment

with sustainability goals (Biermann et al., 2017),

climate resilience considerations (Revi et al., 2014),

and inclusive decision-making (Leichenko &

O'Brien, 2008). Adaptive management (Folke et al.,

2005), stakeholder engagement (Bansal, 2005), and

resilient design strategies (Revi et al., 2014) are

essential mechanisms to ensure continuous

improvement and adaptation of development projects

to emerging challenges and opportunities in the

Anthropocene.

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

318

For equitable and inclusive growth,

developmental strategies must integrate perspectives

and needs of marginalized and underrepresented

groups through inclusive decision-making

(Leichenko & O'Brien, 2008), participatory planning

(Horelli, 2015), and social equity considerations

(Carroll, 1999).

Transformative innovations and paradigm shifts,

including sustainable urban planning (Alberti et al.,

2003), circular economy adoption (EMF, 2019),

smart city technologies (Makaremi et al., 2020), and

resilient design (Revi et al., 2014), are redefining

greenfield and brownfield developments in the

Anthropocene, aligning them with environmental and

societal sustainability.

Information systems underpin developmental

projects by enabling data-driven decision-making

(Kumar & Hillegersberg, 2000), enhancing

transparency (Heeks, 2006), and supporting

sustainable development objectives (UN, 2015).

Examples of successful IS integration include

Singapore's "Virtual Singapore" project and London's

Crossrail project, utilizing GIS and BIM technologies

for enhanced planning and management (Lechner et

al., 2019; Dawood & Sikka, 2015).

The intersection between Knowledge

management and Sustainable Development is

centered around the effective capture, dissemination,

and application of knowledge to address

sustainability challenges (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995). KM enhances organizational learning (Argyris

& Schön, 1978) and supports the integration of

environmental, social, and economic dimensions of

sustainability (UN, 2015).

Knowledge management strategies synthesize,

analyze, and utilize knowledge resources effectively,

aligning development projects with the goals of urban

development in the Anthropocene epoch (Nonaka &

Takeuchi, 1995; Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport &

Prusak, 1998). Institutional knowledge, such as that

leveraged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change and UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites, guides

informed decision-making, policy formulation, and

adaptive strategies in shaping sustainable

development in the Anthropocene.

The Knowledge Economy fuels innovation and

sustainable practices in the Anthropocene, acting as

the crucible for developing solutions to

environmental challenges (Drucker, 1993; Marr et al.,

2003; Caragliu et al., 2011; UN-Habitat, 2021).

Intellectual capital serves as a catalyst, promoting

innovation, knowledge creation, and sustainability

efforts in green and brownfield projects (Bontis,

1998; Roos et al., 1997; Porter & van der Linde,

1995).

In an era marked by the Anthropocene, where

human activities leave an indelible mark on the

planet, the importance of innovative and

transformative knowledge management and

technology can't be overstated. These advancements

play a pivotal role in reshaping the landscape of green

and brownfield developments, setting the stage for a

sustainable and equitable future.

At the forefront of infrastructure development,

IoT sensors combined with data analytics promise a

more efficient real-time monitoring system (Rahmani

et al., 2015). As our world leans into sustainability,

software tools tracking and optimizing circular

economy practices emerge as invaluable assets

(Bocken et al., 2016). In parallel, the integration of

renewable energy sources into urban infrastructures

represents a significant stride towards a cleaner and

more sustainable energy matrix (IEA, 2020).

Moreover, the application of Virtual Reality and

Augmented Reality tools paves the way for

immersive urban planning, fostering participative

stakeholder engagement and visualization (Cecchini

& Maffei, 2021). Lastly, the confluence of Big Data

and AI has the potential to revolutionize predictive

analytics, offering advanced infrastructure

maintenance and risk assessment capabilities (Bessa

et al., 2019).

It's worth noting that these advancements resonate

profoundly with the unique demands of the

Anthropocene epoch. For instance, as resource

depletion and environmental shifts become more

prominent, geospatial technology and circular

economy software emerge as critical tools for

sustainable development. Renewable energy

integration and smart infrastructure take on added

urgency in light of climate change imperatives, and

VR/AR, combined with Big Data and AI, allow for

nuanced, data-informed decisions in this complex era.

5 HARMONIZING

KNOWLEDGE, INNOVATION,

AND ETHICS FOR THE

ANTHROPOCENE'S

DEVELOPMENTAL

STRATEGIES

For a sustainable and equitable Anthropocene, the

seamless integration of knowledge, technological

innovation, and ethical considerations is non-

Knowledge Economy in the Anthropocene: A Blueprint for Urban Cities

319

negotiable. Transdisciplinary collaboration paves the

way for comprehensive solutions, addressing the

multifaceted challenges of the Anthropocene (Brandt

et al., 2013). Ethical frameworks, focusing on

sustainability, intergenerational equity, and

environmental justice, are essential guideposts for

developmental initiatives (Gardiner, 2011;

Schlosberg, 2004). Responsible innovation and open

science principles further ensure that technological

advancements are considerate of environmental and

societal impacts, while also being transparent and

accessible (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Mauthner et al.,

2015).

Moreover, the importance of community

engagement cannot be emphasized enough.

Respecting and integrating traditional ecological

knowledge and local insights make for more inclusive

and resilient developmental strategies (Berkes, 2018;

Reed et al., 2009). The principles of regenerative

development, focusing on ecosystem restoration and

community well-being, align perfectly with

Anthropocene imperatives (Cole & Bailey, 2015).

Furthermore, technology, when leveraged with a

focus on resilience, can be a potent tool in responding

to the dynamic environmental challenges

characteristic of the Anthropocene (Folke et al.,

2016). Lastly, education and digital literacy remain at

the heart of empowering individuals, equipping them

with the skills and awareness needed to navigate and

shape this era responsibly (Warschauer, 2003).

6 CONCLUSION: CHARTING A

KNOWLEDGE-INFORMED

PATH IN THE

ANTHROPOCENE

As we traverse deeper into the Anthropocene, a

period marked by unprecedented human influence on

the Earth’s ecosystems, it becomes imperative to re-

envision and reshape the foundations of urban

development. The intersection of knowledge and

technology holds transformative power, acting as the

catalyst to create urban landscapes that are

harmonious with nature, resilient to environmental

perturbations, and reflective of societal and ethical

values.

The innovations explored in this paper, including

Geographic information systems (GIS), Smart

Infrastructure, and renewable energy integration,

delineate the pathway for the sustainable evolution of

green and brownfield developments (Obermeyer &

Pinto, 2017; Rahmani et al., 2015; IEA, 2020). These

technological advancements are not mere tools but

critical enablers for constructing urban spaces

capable of adapting to and mitigating the multifaceted

challenges of the Anthropocene.

However, the journey to sustainable urban

development is intertwined with the equitable and

ethical distribution of knowledge and technological

advancements. It is essential to foster universal digital

access, promote community engagement, and

emphasize sustainable technologies to democratize

the fruits of innovation and ensure that no community

is left behind in this transformative journey (Qiang,

2012; Reed et al., 2009; Kirchherr et al., 2017).

Embedding ethical considerations and equitable

practices within the core of developmental strategies

is pivotal for cultivating a sense of shared

responsibility and intergenerational equity, ensuring

that the Anthropocene is shaped by principles of

justice and sustainability (Gardiner, 2011).

The impacts of development projects on local

communities, environmental sustainability, and

biodiversity are multifaceted and significant. By

employing proactive and inclusive approaches,

implementing sustainable practices, and adhering to

international, national, and local frameworks and

ethical principles, developers can navigate the

complex landscape of development projects to

achieve balanced, equitable, and sustainable

outcomes for all stakeholders. The continuous

evolution of policies and strategies in response to

emerging knowledge and challenges is crucial for

ensuring the long-term success and sustainability of

development projects in a rapidly changing world.

Moving forward, the harmonious integration of

diverse knowledge realms, ethical frameworks, and

innovative technologies will serve as the cornerstone

for the evolution of urban cities. It demands a

collaborative, transdisciplinary approach, where

diverse stakeholders, including academia,

policymakers, communities, and industries,

collaborate to sculpt urban landscapes that are

sustainable, inclusive, and resilient (Brandt et al.,

2013).

The discourse presented in this paper provides a

foundational blueprint for navigating the uncharted

territories of the Anthropocene. It is a compelling

vision for a future where knowledge, technology, and

ethics coalesce to craft urban environments that are in

synergy with the Earth’s ecosystems, ensuring the

resilience and sustainability of both human and

natural systems. However, this vision is not a

predetermined fate but a possibility, contingent upon

our collective actions, decisions, and the paths we

choose to tread in shaping the Anthropocene.

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

320

As the Anthropocene epoch unfolds, the

intertwining of knowledge, technology, and ethical

considerations becomes increasingly crucial. By

harnessing the potential of innovative technologies,

embracing ethical frameworks, and promoting

community engagement and knowledge sharing, we

can sculpt a future that stands as a testament to

sustainable and equitable development. Such a

harmonized approach not only addresses the

immediate challenges of green and brownfield

developments but also paves the way for a resilient,

inclusive, and thriving Anthropocene.

Let this exploration serve as a catalyst for

dialogue, reflection, and action, inspiring a collective

pursuit to harmonize knowledge, innovation, and

ethical considerations in sculpting a future that

reveres life, respects planetary boundaries, and

cherishes the intricate tapestry of existence in the

Anthropocene epoch. The journey is fraught with

challenges, but it is also rich with possibilities, and it

is our shared responsibility and privilege to craft a

legacy marked by sustainability, equity, and respect

for all forms of life on our shared planet.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge

management and knowledge management systems:

Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS

quarterly, 107-136.

Alberti, M., Booth, D., Hill, K., Coburn, B., Avolio, C.,

Coe, S., & Spirandelli, D. (2003). The impact of urban

patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis

in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 65(1-2), 1-16.

Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Masip, L., Pearsall, H.,

& Shokry, G. (2018). Assessing green gentrification in

historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: A

longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban

Geography, 39(3), 458-491.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational

learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal

study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic

Management Journal, 26(3), 197-218.

Barton, D. N., & Lindhjem, H. (2015). Ecological

economics and governance in the biodiversity and

ecosystem services management. In Handbook of

Ecological Economics (pp. 113-126). Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Barton, H., & Tsourou, C. (2000). Healthy urban planning.

Spon Press.

Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov,

A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., ... & Portugali, Y.

(2018). Smart cities of the future. The European

Physical Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 481-518.

Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2006). Green

infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities.

Island Press.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of

traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive

management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-

1262.

Bessa, R. J., et al. (2019). Big data and artificial intelligence

for smart grid operation. IET Cyber-Physical Systems:

Theory & Applications, 3(1), 13-27.

Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A., & Pattberg, P. (2017).

Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable

development: Does the promise hold? In International

organizations and global governance (pp. 95-116).

Routledge.

Bocken, N. M. P., et al. (2016). A literature and practice

review to develop sustainable business model

archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.

Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study

that develops measures and models. Management

Decision, 36(2), 63-76.

Börner, K., et al. (2019). Advances in data-based

approaches for conservation decision-making. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution, 34(9), 746-759.

Brandt, P., et al. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary

research in sustainability science. Ecological

Economics, 92, 1-15.

Bressers, H., & Kuks, S. (2004). Effective and efficient

policy instruments for sustainable development. Policy

Sciences, 37(1), 1-16.

Büdenbender, M., Klenert, D., & Matt, C. (2016).

Assessing the smart city: a measurement framework.

Journal of Urban Technology, 23(4), 3-27.

Buettner, T., Glasze, G., & Kazepov, Y. (2019). Towards a

comparative understanding of green and brown

gentrification. Urban Studies, 56(8), 1561-1577.

Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities

in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65-82.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility:

Evolution of a definitional construct. Business &

Society, 38(3), 268-295.

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Wiley.

Cecchini, A., & Maffei, L. (2021). A systematic review of

the use of augmented reality in urban planning. ISPRS

International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(2), 86.

Cernea, M. M., & Mathur, H. M. (2008). Can compensation

prevent impoverishment? Reforming resettlement

through investments and benefit-sharing. Oxford

University Press.

Chen, J., Song, H., Li, X., & Shen, Z. J. (2012). Modeling

the relationship between urbanization and the eco-

environment using remote sensing: A case study in the

Yangtze River Delta. Chinese Geographical Science,

22(1), 107-118.

Cole, R. J., & Bailey, A. (2015). Regenerative development

and design: A framework for evolving sustainability.

Building Research & Information, 43(2), 133-143.

Knowledge Economy in the Anthropocene: A Blueprint for Urban Cities

321

Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature,

415(6867), 23-23.

Daghfous, A. (2004). The impact of knowledge sharing,

organizational capability and partnership quality on IS

outsourcing success. Information & Management,

41(5), 649-661.

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and

practice. MIT Press.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working

knowledge: How organizations manage what they

know. Harvard Business Press.

Davoudi, S., Crawford, J., & Mehmood, A. (2009).

Planning for climate change: Strategies for mitigation

and adaptation for spatial planners. Earthscan.

Dawood, N., & Sikka, V. (2015). Building information

modelling uptake: Clear benefits, understanding its

implementation, risks and challenges. In Urban

Sustainability and Governance: New Challenges in

Nordic-Baltic Housing Policies (pp. 217-232).

Springer.

Diao, M., Ma, L., & Tang, X. (2019). Enhancing the

sustainability of brownfield redevelopment through

circular economy principles: A conceptual framework.

Sustainability, 11(3), 866.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. HarperBusiness.

Echeverri, A. (2015). Sustainability in the Anthropocene:

Challenge, opportunity, and new paths forward. Journal

of Cleaner Production, 104, 1-12.

EDB. (2021). Jurong Innovation District. Singapore

Economic Development Board.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the Circular

Economy: Economic and Business Rationale for an

Accelerated Transition. Retrieved from

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/dow

nloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation-

Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf

EMF. (2019). Completing the picture: How the circular

economy tackles climate change. Ellen MacArthur

Foundation.

European Commission. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment:

Principles and Practice. European Commission, Joint

Research Centre.

European Environment Agency. (2016). Urban

sustainability issues: What is a resource-efficient city?

EEA Report No 2/2016.

Feser, E. J. (2016). Knowledge spillovers and

entrepreneurship in the Anthropocene. Journal of

Economic Geography, 16(1), 3-12.

Folke, C., et al. (2016). Resilience thinking: Integrating

resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology

and Society, 21(2), 41.

Foray, D. (2004). The economics of knowledge. MIT Press.

Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A perfect moral storm: Climate

change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of

moral corruption. Environmental Values, 20(3), 397-

416.

Gewin, V. (2016). Data sharing: An open mind on open

data. Nature, 529(7584), 117-119.

Gudmundsson, S. V., Trippl, M., & Kuncoro, A. (2018).

From knowledge recombination to the emergence of

new technologies—evidence from the Ciudad Real

airport case. Regional Studies, 52(3), 318-329.

Guo, H., Wu, J., & Li, H. (2015). Greenfield or

redevelopment? A spatial–temporal analysis of housing

land supply in a shrinking city. Applied Geography, 62,

56-65.

Haines, A., Kovats, R. S., Campbell-Lendrum, D., &

Corvalán, C. (2017). Climate change and human health:

Impacts, vulnerability, and public health. Public Health,

120(7), 585-596.

Heeks, R. (2006). Understanding e-governance for

development. iGovernment Working Paper Series,

11(2).

Horelli, L. (2015). Designing the city with residents: Three

examples of participatory planning and design from

Helsinki. Town Planning Review, 86(5), 541-560.

International Finance Corporation. (2019). Good Practice

Handbook: Cultural Heritage.

Kim, L. (1997). Limitation to innovation: Lessons from

Korea's adoption of advanced foreign technology.

Harvard Business Press.

Kirchherr, J., et al. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular

economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources,

Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232.

Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data,

data infrastructures and their consequences. Sage

Publications.

Kumar, S., & Bansal, A. K. (2018). Employment generation

and poverty reduction through local public works

programme: Evidence from India. Habitat

International, 75, 58-65.

Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2016). Management

information systems: Managing the digital firm (14th

ed.). Pearson.

Lechner, A. M., Brown, G., Raymond, C. M., & Weiler, B.

(2019). A framework for mapping and comparing

behavioural theories in models of social-ecological

systems: A practical guide to agent-based modelling.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 342-352.

Leichenko, R., & O'Brien, K. L. (2008). Environmental

change and globalization: Double exposures. Oxford

University Press.

Levy, J. M., & Salvatore, A. L. (2014). Planning

sustainability: The implications of sustainability for

public planning policy. Routledge.

Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Defining the

Anthropocene. Nature, 519(7542), 171-180.

Litman, T. (2019). Evaluating transportation equity.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Makaremi, N., Ho, M., & Sun, X. (2020). Smart city and

sustainable development: A review of the literature.

Sustainability, 12(20), 8322.

Marr, B. (2015). Big data: Using SMART big data,

analytics and metrics to make better decisions and

improve performance. John Wiley & Sons.

Marr, B., Schiuma, G., & Neely, A. (2003). Intellectual

capital—Defining key performance indicators for

organizational knowledge assets. Business Process

Management Journal, 9(4), 539-552.

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

322

Mauthner, N. S., et al. (2015). Open access and open

research data in the European Union: Opportunities and

challenges. Qualitative Research in Organizations and

Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 153-174.

Nash, A. (2016). Interpreting New York's High Line. Urban

Studies, 53(13), 2831-2846.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-

creating company: How Japanese companies create the

dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & Stevens, J. C. (2014). Air

pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the

United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3-

4), 115-123.

Nyberg, C., & Olofsson, A. (2017). The performance of

greenfield and brownfield investments: Insights

Comparing the economic aspects of brownfield and

greenfield projects within the context of the

Anthropocene epoch underscores the need for

sustainable urban development

Obermeyer, N. J., & Pinto, J. K. (2017). An Introduction to

Geospatial Information. Springer.

Pachauri, R. K., & Reisinger, A. (2007). Climate Change

2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working

Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.

Parnell, S., Simon, D., Vogel, C., & Levitt, R. (2015).

Global environmental change: Conceptualizing the

growing challenge for cities in poor countries. Area,

47(2), 190-195.

Paskaleva-Shapira, K., Gugerell, K., & Rizzo, F. (2010).

Networked infrastructures and sustainable urban

development. Journal of Urban Technology, 17(3), 59-

77.

Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A., & Symons, K. (2017).

Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built

environment: What does the evidence suggest?

Sustainable Cities and Society, 35, 189-196.

Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new

conception of the environment-competitiveness

relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,

9(4), 97-118.

Qiang, C. Z. (2012). Universal access: Making

technological innovations work for all. The World

Bank.

Rahmani, A. M., et al. (2015). Smart eHealth Gateway:

Bringing intelligence to Internet of Things based

ubiquitous healthcare systems. Procedia Computer

Science, 52, 897-902.

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to

think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green

Publishing.

Reed, M. S., et al. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology

of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource

management. Journal of Environmental Management,

90(5), 1933-1949.

Ren, Y., Li, Y., Li, X., & He, Y. (2020). Brownfield

redevelopment: A review of drivers, challenges, and

opportunities. Sustainability, 12(3), 1090.

Revi, A., Satterthwaite, D. E., Aragón-Durand, F., Corfee-

Morlot, J., Kiunsi, R. B. R., Pelling, M., ... & Schultz,

S. (2014). Urban areas. In Climate change 2014:

Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global

and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 535-

612).

Rockström, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for

humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.

Roos, G., Roos, J., Dragonetti, N. C., & Edvinsson, L.

(1997). Intellectual capital: Navigating the new

business landscape. Macmillan.

Saxenian, A. (2006). The new argonauts: Regional

advantage in a global economy. Harvard University

Press.

Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental

justice: Global movements and political theories.

Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517-540.

Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2015). Transnational

governance interactions: Analyzing modes of

environmental diplomacy. MIT Press.

Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global

forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts

on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, 109(40), 16083-16088.

Shen, L., Xie, F., Zuo, J., & Zillante, G. (2020). A review

of the life cycle carbon emissions and carbon reduction

technologies for green and traditional buildings.

Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(8),

7815-7836.

Smith, A., Fischlin, A., & Leemans, R. (2020). Biodiversity

and ecosystems in a changing climate: An overview. In

Handbook of Climate Change and Biodiversity (pp. 1-

13). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Smith, A., Raven, R., & Guy, S. (2020). The green and

brown agenda: How green and brown ambitions can

align in city building. Cities, 105, 102831.

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.

Sorkin, M. (2002). Variations on a theme park: The new

American city and the end of public space. Macmillan.

Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J.

(2011). The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical

perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering

Sciences, 369(1938), 842-867.

Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M.,

Folke, C., Liverman, D., ... & Schellnhuber, H. J.

(2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human

development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223),

1259855.

Stilgoe, J., et al. (2013). Developing a framework for

responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-

1580.

Suber, P. (2015). Open access. MIT Press.

Svendsen, A., & Svendsen, G. T. (2015). Ethics and the

built environment: Professional decision making in the

planning, design, and construction process. Routledge.

Tietenberg, T., & Lewis, L. (2019). Environmental and

Natural Resource Economics. Routledge.

UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development. United Nations.

Knowledge Economy in the Anthropocene: A Blueprint for Urban Cities

323

UNDP. (2019). Human Development Report 2019. United

Nations Development Programme.

UNESCO. (2020). Futures of Education: Learning to

become. UNESCO Publishing.

UNFCCC. (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change.

UN-Habitat. (2004). Community Participation in Urban

Projects: A Manual for Practitioners. United Nations

Human Settlements Programme.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion:

Rethinking the digital divide. The MIT Press.

WCED. (1987). Our common future: The World

Commission on Environment and Development.

Oxford University Press.

Wheeler, S. M. (2017). Planning for sustainability in the

Anthropocene. Routledge.

Yang, H. L. (2018). Knowledge economy and sustainable

development. In Handbook of Research on Knowledge

management for Contemporary Business Environments

(pp. 1-15). IGI Global.

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

324