{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026262626262626262, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.575221238938053, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Island smart eco-cities: Innovation, secessionary enclaves, and the selling of sustainability

Governments and developers around the globe are exploiting the benefits of island 
spatiality to sell urban sustainability. Many new-build smart cities, eco-cities, and sustainable 
cities (‘smart eco-cities’) are constructed on small islands or otherwise bounded from 
surrounding urban space. Island spatiality presents benefits for selling smart eco-cities as 
role models of sustainable innovation: ease of creating value, ease of measuring sustainability, 
and ease of communicating success. These benefits, however, are all largely illusory, 
contributing primarily to the appearance of sustainability for the sake of economic profit. 
The great innovation of island smart-cities is frequently an innovation in the selling of 
sustainability. By monetising the environment through ecosystem services, incentivising 
largely symbolic ‘green’ projects and architecture, drawing attention away from unsustainable 
practices elsewhere, and exacerbating social inequality, island smart eco-cities may be making 
the world less sustainable. They may also be unreproducible by design and lead to a global 
devaluing of genuinely sustainable but non-iconic urban development. Island smart eco-cities 
increasingly serve as secessionary enclaves for a global elite, privileging corporate over public 
interests and spearheading an invidious argument of sustainable development by deregulation.