Redefining the Smart City: Culture, Metabolism and Governance

Abstract

The Smart City concept is still evolving and can be viewed as a branding exercise by big corporations, which is why the concept is not being used by the United Nations (U.N.). Smart Cities tend to represent the information, communication, and technological (ICT) industry alone without considering the values and cultural and historical profiles that some cities hold as legacies. However, the technology inherent in Smart Cities promises efficiencies and options that could allow cities to be more “inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” as required by the U.N. agenda including cultural heritage. There is a notable lack of Smart City application to cultural and historical urban fabrics. Instead, the modernist new town approach has emerged under this new rubric leading to many problems such as urban decay and unsustainable car dependence. This study therefore presents a review of the literature on the nature, challenges, and opportunities of Smart Cities. A new Smart Cities framework is proposed based on the dimensions of culture, metabolism, and governance. These findings seek to inform policy makers of an alternative viewpoint on the Smart City paradigm, which focuses on urban outcomes rather than technology in isolation.

Full text

smart cities
Article
Redefining the Smart City: Culture, Metabolism
and Governance
Zaheer Allam * and Peter Newman
Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute (CUSP), Perth, WA 6845, Australia; p.newman@curtin.edu.au
*Correspondence: zaheerallam@gmail.com
Received: 26 June 2018; Accepted: 10 July 2018; Published: 20 July 2018


Abstract:
The Smart City concept is still evolving and can be viewed as a branding exercise
by big corporations, which is why the concept is not being used by the United Nations (U.N.).
Smart Cities tend to represent the information, communication, and technological (ICT) industry
alone without considering the values and cultural and historical profiles that some cities hold as
legacies. However, the technology inherent in Smart Cities promises efficiencies and options that
could allow cities to be more “inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” as required by the U.N.
agenda including cultural heritage. There is a notable lack of Smart City application to cultural and
historical urban fabrics. Instead, the modernist new town approach has emerged under this new
rubric leading to many problems such as urban decay and unsustainable car dependence. This study
therefore presents a review of the literature on the nature, challenges, and opportunities of Smart
Cities. A new Smart Cities framework is proposed based on the dimensions of culture, metabolism,
and governance. These findings seek to inform policy makers of an alternative viewpoint on the
Smart City paradigm, which focuses on urban outcomes rather than technology in isolation.
Keywords: smart cities; culture; metabolism; governance
1. Introduction
A multitude of contrasting views on Smart Cities have emerged since their proposal.
Some researchers visualise the Smart City approach as a potential solution to the issues pertaining
to enhanced urbanisation and the need for sustainability [
1
–
3
]. Other studies claim that Smart
Cities may lead to a dystopian world regulated by technocratic governments that propel citizens
to subaltern roles [
4
,
5
]. Some authors highlight the unsustainability of this novel urban concept [
6
].
However, despite the differing viewpoints, the concept of Smart Cities is gaining momentum around
the world as shown in Figures 1and 2, though Figure 1suggests this may have peaked in 2015.
Smart Cities 2018,1, 4–25; doi:10.3390/smartcities1010002 www.mdpi.com/journal/smartcities

Smart Cities 2018,15
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23
Figure 1. Relative number of hits for Smart Cities searches in Google between 2004 and 2018 [7].
Figure 2. Countries with most searches for Smart Cities between 2004 and 2018 (Source: Google
Trends Explore).
The popularity of Smart Cities projects and programs has increased across the globe, such as in
India, China, U.A.E., South Korea, and even in Small Island Developing States like Mauritius [8-12].
Data from 2004 to 2018 were sourced from Google Trends [7] and the y-axes on both Figures 1 and 2
highlight the popularity (ranging from 0 to 100). A study of the term “Smart Cities” highlights that
Smart Cities were most popular in Mauritius (Figure 2) and a case study on these smart cities is
presented below.
The Smart City paradigm is associated with the Internet of Things, sensors, and big data, leading
to informed and data-led governance [13,14]. Despite the rather permanent association of Smart
Cities with big data computation [15,16], the notion of this paradigm is not new. Shelton et al. [17]
argued that, from a historical perspective, the idea of Smart Cities, in the form of a scientific approach
to study and manage the cities, is a century-old concept sought after by planners and engineers. From
a big data computational perspective, Light (2005) highlighted the role of computer models in solving
urbanization-related issues dating back to the post-World War 2 era, but LeGates, et al. [18]
demonstrated the relative unpopularity and debatable success, if any, of such approaches.
Smart Cities are often painted as the “magic bullet” to all urbanisation issues by proponents
[17,19,20]. Notably, most of the proponents of the Smart City paradigm in this digital era refer to
newly built Smart Cities such as Masdar City in Abu Dhabi, Songdo and Hwaseong Dongtan in South
Korea, and PlanIT Valley in Portugal [21,22]. However, these initiatives were designed in isolation
and tend to operate in silos, having a negative effect on other surrounding cities in the form of
business loss and cultural erosion [22,23]. Moreover, the viability of erecting new Smart Cities is being
questioned due to their restricted affordability and inability to attract inhabitants.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2004-01
2004-07
2005-01
2005-07
2006-01
2006-07
2007-01
2007-07
2008-01
2008-07
2009-01
2009-07
2010-01
2010-07
2011-01
2011-07
2012-01
2012-07
2013-01
2013-07
2014-01
2014-07
2015-01
2015-07
2016-01
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 1. Relative number of hits for Smart Cities searches in Google between 2004 and 2018 [7].
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23
Figure 1. Relative number of hits for Smart Cities searches in Google between 2004 and 2018 [7].
Figure 2. Countries with most searches for Smart Cities between 2004 and 2018 (Source: Google
Trends Explore).
The popularity of Smart Cities projects and programs has increased across the globe, such as in
India, China, U.A.E., South Korea, and even in Small Island Developing States like Mauritius [8-12].
Data from 2004 to 2018 were sourced from Google Trends [7] and the y-axes on both Figures 1 and 2
highlight the popularity (ranging from 0 to 100). A study of the term “Smart Cities” highlights that
Smart Cities were most popular in Mauritius (Figure 2) and a case study on these smart cities is
presented below.
The Smart City paradigm is associated with the Internet of Things, sensors, and big data, leading
to informed and data-led governance [13,14]. Despite the rather permanent association of Smart
Cities with big data computation [15,16], the notion of this paradigm is not new. Shelton et al. [17]
argued that, from a historical perspective, the idea of Smart Cities, in the form of a scientific approach
to study and manage the cities, is a century-old concept sought after by planners and engineers. From
a big data computational perspective, Light (2005) highlighted the role of computer models in solving
urbanization-related issues dating back to the post-World War 2 era, but LeGates, et al. [18]
demonstrated the relative unpopularity and debatable success, if any, of such approaches.
Smart Cities are often painted as the “magic bullet” to all urbanisation issues by proponents
[17,19,20]. Notably, most of the proponents of the Smart City paradigm in this digital era refer to
newly built Smart Cities such as Masdar City in Abu Dhabi, Songdo and Hwaseong Dongtan in South
Korea, and PlanIT Valley in Portugal [21,22]. However, these initiatives were designed in isolation
and tend to operate in silos, having a negative effect on other surrounding cities in the form of
business loss and cultural erosion [22,23]. Moreover, the viability of erecting new Smart Cities is being
questioned due to their restricted affordability and inability to attract inhabitants.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2004-01
2004-07
2005-01
2005-07
2006-01
2006-07
2007-01
2007-07
2008-01
2008-07
2009-01
2009-07
2010-01
2010-07
2011-01
2011-07
2012-01
2012-07
2013-01
2013-07
2014-01
2014-07
2015-01
2015-07
2016-01
2016-07
2017-01
2017-07
2018-01
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 2.
Countries with most searches for Smart Cities between 2004 and 2018 (Source: Google
Trends Explore).
The popularity of Smart Cities projects and programs has increased across the globe, such as in
India, China, U.A.E., South Korea, and even in Small Island Developing States like Mauritius [
8
–
12
].
Data from 2004 to 2018 were sourced from Google Trends [
7
] and the y-axes on both Figures 1and 2
highlight the popularity (ranging from 0 to 100). A study of the term “Smart Cities” highlights that
Smart Cities were most popular in Mauritius (Figure 2) and a case study on these smart cities is
presented below.
The Smart City paradigm is associated with the Internet of Things, sensors, and big data, leading
to informed and data-led governance [
10
,
13
]. Despite the rather permanent association of Smart
Cities with big data computation [
14
,
15
], the notion of this paradigm is not new. Shelton et al. [
16
]
argued that, from a historical perspective, the idea of Smart Cities, in the form of a scientific approach
to study and manage the cities, is a century-old concept sought after by planners and engineers.
From a big data computational perspective, Light (2005) highlighted the role of computer models in
solving urbanization-related issues dating back to the post-World War 2 era, but LeGates, et al. [
17
]
demonstrated the relative unpopularity and debatable success, if any, of such approaches.
Smart Cities are often painted as the “magic bullet” to all urbanisation issues by proponents
[16,18,19]
.
Notably, most of the proponents of the Smart City paradigm in this digital era refer to newly built Smart
Cities such as Masdar City in Abu Dhabi, Songdo and Hwaseong Dongtan in South Korea, and PlanIT
Valley in Portugal [
20
,
21
]. However, these initiatives were designed in isolation and tend to operate

Smart Cities 2018,16
in silos, having a negative effect on other surrounding cities in the form of business loss and cultural
erosion [
21
,
22
]. Moreover, the viability of erecting new Smart Cities is being questioned due to their
restricted affordability and inability to attract inhabitants.
Before continuing this analysis on the future of the Smart Cities concept in response to these
criticisms, the United Nations (U.N.) has been very guarded. The global debate about future cities
has many dimensions and contributors and much has been written about the importance of the U.N.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) for 2015–2030, which now includes an urban goal: “inclusive,
safe, resilient, and sustainable cities”. The urban SDG has 10 targets and 14 indicators, but throughout
all these instructions for cities, none say that we should have Smart Cities, despite the increasing use
of the term. The reason for this omission is apparently that Smart Cities are seen to be essentially
a branding war between different multinational corporations in the information, communication,
and technological (ICT) space. The solution, as set out in this paper, is for cities to adopt the SDG
goal, targets, and indicators and determine how to integrate the technological opportunities that are
emerging as the Smart City. Perhaps the Smart City can be revised into being more than a corporate
branding war.
Some literature is pushing in this direction. Studies have highlighted the potential application
of smart technologies to existing cities rather than building new cities just for an ICT branding
opportunity [
16
]. Others have called for the use of smart infrastructures and policies with better
public-private partnerships and citizen participation aiming at a more sustainable and livable
city
[16,23–26]
. Thus, the literature is suggesting that the Smart City concept requires further
investigation and values directing the outcomes of smart technologies. This is the basis of our paper;
we attempt to provide some substance and direction to the concept of Smart Cities, so they are less
focused on smart technologies for its own sake and more about solving the core problems in cities
and their regions. Our research suggests that there are three primary issues that need attention in
cities with which smart technologies should be able to assist in solving: (1) culture, in terms of how
cities can build on their urban history and create the meanings behind why people and place are
associated in the city; (2) metabolism, which is how the excessive resource consumption and waste
production of cities can be significantly reduced; and (3) governance, which involves how can cities
create new partnerships between local and regional governments, business, and community to enable
urban solutions to be delivered.
As such, this study seeks to review the literature about the Smart City paradigm in terms of
culture, metabolism, and governance. These findings are then used to propose a theoretical framework
for the Smart City paradigm. The proposed paradigm includes a citizen-centered outcome-oriented
approach rather than a technology-based, corporate-centered solution. The findings of this study add
to existing knowledge about the Smart City paradigm. We further expect that this study may act as a
guide for policy makers from emerging cities who aspire to leapfrog into the 21st century without the
need to invest heavily in ICT, but want to work more on human capital and governance building for
ICT where necessary, but not viewing ICT as a necessary and over-riding project for development.
2. Smart Cities as a Brand
It is interesting to study the perceived popularity of Smart Cities in contrast to its less popular
counterparts like Sustainable Cities, and Resilient Cities. The term “Sustainable Cities” emerged with
the need for cities to address sustainable development [
27
], whereas “Resilient Cities” emerged by
planners and designers questioning how to quickly and efficiently recover from urban perturbations,
often linked with climate change [
28
]. A comparative analysis (Figure 3) of the terms Smart Cities,
Sustainable Cities, and Resilient Cities [
29
], shows that Sustainable Cities was more popular until
late 2010. Following this, the term Smart Cities emerged as most popular though it peaked in 2015.
In August 2015, the term Resilient Cities was factored at 3% and Sustainable Cities at 5% in comparison
to the popularity of Smart Cities, which was at its highest point. This trend inspired questions as to
how and why Smart Cities increased in popularity compared to its counterparts.

Smart Cities 2018,17
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23
Figure 3. Number of searches for three types of cities worldwide [30].
The Smart City approach to solving urbanisation issues is not a standalone concept, being
backed and supported by corporations with substantial financial resources [31,32]. A highly
competitive market exists where companies compete to tap into this profitable market. In a previous
analysis [33], the two main leaders are Cisco and Siemens, which were closely followed by a set of
contenders including IBM, Hitachi, Microsoft, GE, Schneider Electric, and Bosch, among others
(Figure 4) [33]. Sadowski [34] warned about the potential agenda of Smart City corporations in
supporting a stand-alone profit-making agenda through the implementation of Smart City solutions.
These commentators suggest that if cities invest in these corporations as part of their branding
exercise rather than investing based on the values and visions derived from participatory approaches
to governance, as outlined by Nam and Pardo [10], then smart technology may simply be a wasted
investment.
Figure 4. Corporate leaders in Smart City solution suppliers [33].
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2004-01
2004-06
2004-11
2005-04
2005-09
2006-02
2006-07
2006-12
2007-05
2007-10
2008-03
2008-08
2009-01
2009-06
2009-11
2010-04
2010-09
2011-02
2011-07
2011-12
2012-05
2012-10
2013-03
2013-08
2014-01
2014-06
2014-11
2015-04
2015-09
2016-02
2016-07
2016-12
2017-05
2017-10
2018-03
Smart Cities Sustainable Cities Resilient Cities
Figure 3. Number of searches for three types of cities worldwide [29].
The Smart City approach to solving urbanisation issues is not a standalone concept, being
backed and supported by corporations with substantial financial resources [
30
,
31
]. A highly
competitive market exists where companies compete to tap into this profitable market. In a previous
analysis [
32
], the two main leaders are Cisco and Siemens, which were closely followed by a set
of contenders including IBM, Hitachi, Microsoft, GE, Schneider Electric, and Bosch, among others
(Figure 4) [
32
]. Sadowski [
33
] warned about the potential agenda of Smart City corporations in
supporting a stand-alone profit-making agenda through the implementation of Smart City solutions.
These commentators suggest that if cities invest in these corporations as part of their branding
exercise rather than investing based on the values and visions derived from participatory approaches
to governance, as outlined by Nam and Pardo [
10
], then smart technology may simply be a
wasted investment.
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
Figure 3. Number of searches for three types of cities worldwide [29].
The Smart City approach to solving urbanisation issues is not a standalone concept, being
backed and supported by corporations with substantial financial resources [30,31]. A highly
competitive market exists where companies compete to tap into this profitable market. In a previous
analysis [32], the two main leaders are Cisco and Siemens, which were closely followed by a set of
contenders including IBM, Hitachi, Microsoft, GE, Schneider Electric, and Bosch, among others
(Figure 4) [32]. Sadowski [33] warned about the potential agenda of Smart City corporations in
supporting a stand-alone profit-making agenda through the implementation of Smart City solutions.
These commentators suggest that if cities invest in these corporations as part of their branding
exercise rather than investing based on the values and visions derived from participatory approaches
to governance, as outlined by Nam and Pardo [10], then smart technology may simply be a wasted
investment.
Figure 4. Corporate leaders in Smart City solution suppliers [32].
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2004-01
2004-06
2004-11
2005-04
2005-09
2006-02
2006-07
2006-12
2007-05
2007-10
2008-03
2008-08
2009-01
2009-06
2009-11
2010-04
2010-09
2011-02
2011-07
2011-12
2012-05
2012-10
2013-03
2013-08
2014-01
2014-06
2014-11
2015-04
2015-09
2016-02
2016-07
2016-12
2017-05
2017-10
2018-03
Smart Cities Sustainable Cities Resilient Cities
Figure 4. Corporate leaders in Smart City solution suppliers [32].

Smart Cities 2018,18
Hollands [
34
] reflected on the relative popularity of the term Smart City and questioned the
labelling process. The author pointed out that although the application of ICT tools are a prominent
facet of a Smart City, a hidden agenda appears to be intricately linked to e-governance and a promotion
of “informational business interests”. Later, the same author warned about the growing popularity of
corporate-led Smart Cities where the prime focus is on profit alone, with little room for ordinary people
to participate in the smart development and governance of the city [
35
]. This view has been shared by
Kitchin [
12
] who highlighted the lack of collaboration and engagement from various stakeholders in
contributing to the city in a Smart City approach. These authors are identifying how the Smart City
paradigm is being viewed and proposed by corporates as a one size fits all approach, which has been
the basis of a long tradition of technology policy and critique [
36
,
37
]. Such technology is feared because
it begins to control us rather than us controlling it. With Smart Cities, there is legitimate fear that such
a paradigm may devolve into mass biometric surveillance and a form of data-led manipulation [
30
].
This is easily linked to the concept of “big brother” as prophesied by Orwell [
38
]. It is therefore
suggested there is a need for more participatory and citizen-centered revamping of cities through the
Smart City paradigm [35]. So, what is a Smart City and what could it become?
3. Defining Smart Cities
Smart Cities as a term is well used in popular and academic literature, but a proper definition
is still lacking [
39
,
40
]. Table 1sets out six definitions based mostly on the reviews completed by
Chourabi et al. [
40
] and Cocchia [
41
]. Often, the definitions only explain the characteristics of a “good”
city, whereas others emphasize technology.
Table 1. Proposed definitions of smart city adapted from Chourabi et al. [40] and Cocchia [41].
Author(s) Definition
Giffinger, et al. [42]
“A city well performing in a forward-looking way in economy, people,
governance, mobility, environment, and living, built on the smart
combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent
and aware citizens.”
Hollands [34]
“A city that monitors and integrates conditions of all of its critical
infrastructures, including roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, subways,
airports, seaports, communications, water, power, even major buildings,
can better optimize its resources, plan its preventive maintenance
activities, and monitor security aspects while maximizing services to
its citizens.”
Harrison, Eckman, Hamilton,
Hartswick, Kalagnanam,
Paraszczak and Williams [13]
A city “connecting the physical infrastructure, the IT infrastructure,
the social infrastructure, and the business infrastructure to leverage the
collective intelligence of the city”
Natural Resources Defense
Council [43]“A city striving to make itself “smarter” (more efficient, sustainable,
equitable, and livable)”
Toppeta [14]
A city “combining ICT and Web 2.0 technology with other
organizational, design and planning efforts to dematerialize and speed
up bureaucratic processes and help to identify new, innovative solutions
to city management complexity, in order to improve sustainability
and livability.”
Washburn, Sindhu, Balaouras,
Dines, Hayes and Nelson [21]
“The use of Smart Computing technologies to make the critical
infrastructure components and services of a city—which include city
administration, education, healthcare, public safety, real estate,
transportation, and utilities—more intelligent, interconnected,
and efficient”

Smart Cities 2018,19
Table 1. Cont.
Author(s) Definition
Setis-Eu (Cited in Cocchia [41])
“Smart City is a city in which it can combine technologies as diverse as
water recycling, advanced energy grids, and mobile communications in
order to reduce environmental impact and to offer its citizens
better lives”
Dameri [44]
“A Smart City is a well-defined geographical area, in which high
technologies such as ICT, logistic, energy production, and so on,
cooperate to create benefits for citizens in terms of well-being, inclusion
and participation, environmental quality, intelligent development; it is
governed by a well-defined pool of subjects, able to state the rules and
policy for the city government and development”
Northstream [15]
“Concept of a Smart City where citizens, objects, utilities, etc., connect in
a seamless manner using ubiquitous technologies, so as to significantly
enhance the living experience in 21st century urban environments”
Hall, et al. [45]
“A city that monitors and integrates conditions of all of its critical
infrastructures, including roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, subways,
airports, seaports, communications, water, power, even major buildings,
can better optimize its resources, plan its preventive maintenance
activities, and monitor security aspects while maximizing services to
its citizens”
Su, et al. [46]“Smart City is the product of Digital City combined with the Internet
of Things”
IBM [47]“Smart City is defined by IBM as the use of information and
communication technology to sense, analyze and integrate the key
information of core systems in running cities”
California institute (2001 cited in
Cocchia, (2014 #287))
“A smart community is a community that has made a conscious effort to
use information technology to transform life and work within its region
in significant and fundamental rather than incremental ways”
4. Review of Smart City Frameworks
Despite an absence of consensus for a universal Smart City definition, several authors highlight
key dimensions for establishing a Smart City framework (Table 2). However, just as with the definition,
desired key dimensions for a Smart City vary considerably. Key indicators, such as smart governance,
smart people, and smart infrastructure, are popular in the proposed frameworks but pillars of smart
education and public safety seem to be less present (Washburn, Sindhu, Balaouras, Dines, Hayes
and Nelson [
21
] and Neirotti, et al. [
48
]). Notably, the concept of smart living can be interpreted as
a coupling with livability, where the key dimensions of livability include public safety, education,
and access to proper healthcare [
49
]. Hence, despite not being apparent in some of the frameworks
as standalone pillars, these dimensions have been integrated into technological approaches by a
few commentators. Nonetheless, despite the fact that UNESCO acknowledges the central role that
culture plays in city regeneration [
50
], only the study of Neirotti, De Marco, Cagliano, Mangano and
Scorrano [
48
] assigns the concept of culture a prominent place in the Smart City framework. As can
been seen from Table 2, the Smart City frameworks include several overlapping and non-overlapping
themes, which underlines the lack of a universal framework or consensus as to the required dimensions
for Smart Cities.

Smart Cities 2018,110
Table 2. Key dimensions in Smart City frameworks.
Indicator Petrolo, et al. [51]Nam and
Pardo [10]
Chourabi, Nam, Walker,
Gil-Garcia, Mellouli, Nahon,
Pardo and Scholl [40]
Washburn, Sindhu,
Balaouras, Dines,
Hayes and Nelson [21]
Dameri [44]
Neirotti, De Marco,
Cagliano, Mangano
and Scorrano [48]
Balakrishna [52]Mosannenzadeh
and Vettorato [53]
Smart Governance X X X X X X X X
Smart People X X X X X X X
Smart Economy X X X X X
Smart Living/Livability X X X X X
Smart Environment X X X X X X
Smart Mobility X X X X X
Smart Infrastructure X X X X X X X
Smart Education X X
Smart Healthcare X X
Public safety X X
Culture X

Smart Cities 2018,111
The most common terms used in the frameworks are Smart Governance, Smart People, and Smart
Infrastructure, with most assuming that these concepts lead to better economic outcomes. These terms
will be outlined to explain some of the key ideas that help frame Smart Cities.
No common consensus exists as to how Smart Governance should be defined in Smart Cities
despite many countries having Smart Cities ProgramsMeijer and Bolívar [
54
]. Rather than just
allowing as much ICT investment as possible, commentators have suggested ICT can be directed into
creating a much more inclusive governance system. Paskaleva [
24
] highlighted the salient feature
of Smart Governance as be the ability to promote a collaborative digital milieu based on promoting
business competitiveness in a conducive environment of partnership and collaboration through
digitally established knowledge networks. Others have shown how Smart Governance could be the
key to enabling citizen engagement in a Smart City to ensure decision-making and implementation
activities are transparent and explained clearly [
10
,
24
]. Moreover, Kitchin [
12
] highlighted how Smart
Governance could become the central role of policy development based on rigorous data analysis,
which forms the core of technocratic decision-making, designed to empower its citizens within a
transparent framework.
Smart People is also a popular concept with commentators who suggest that smart technologies
can help integrate the social and human capital within a city. Such aspects cater to a pronounced
drive for life-long education and a collaborative role in social life within a creative and adaptable
setup [
55
]. The Smart People concept merges with governance through the participative role of citizens
in the urban milieu within a smart but transparent decision-making process [
12
]. Neirotti, De Marco,
Cagliano, Mangano and Scorrano [
48
] further demonstrated the need to address the human capital in
the Smart City not only as end-users but as actual contributors to the process of change.
Smart Infrastructure goes beyond ICT for its own sake, suggesting that infrastructure is needed
to solve the problems faced by urbanisation, which must now use ICT to become more efficient
and sustainable [
56
]. Balakrishna [
52
] analysed the potential of smart mobile devices in terms of
built-in sensors and proposed three key indicators of Smart Infrastructure: (1) real world awareness
through real-time big data capture and analysis, (2) knowledge engineering that translates big data into
exploitable knowledge, and (3) interconnectivity that proposes a network of data-driven knowledge
sharing across all domains of the city. This could join with the concept of urban metabolism that
proposes a rigorous control of inputs within cities to achieve more rapid sustainability outcomes [
49
,
57
].
The literature in these three main dimensions invariably fails to bridge the gap between existing
and new cities. The whole impetus of the Smart City is toward establishing new cities rather than
existing ones with existing infrastructure and often rich and different urban fabric. This process is in
the tradition of modernist town planning since the 1930’s, which aimed to create a singular, modern
urban fabric either replacing old cities or creating new towns and suburbs [
16
]. This geographical
tension between building new smart cities or regenerating existing cities through application of smart
solutions requires further analysis [16].
5. Dichotomy between Bringing Smart Technology to Old Cities or Building New Cities: A Case
Study from Mauritius Smart Cities
Smart Cities are usually created in new locations on the outskirts of present cities in the modernist
tradition of New Towns. The emergence of new cities in close locality to existing cities poses the
risk of encouraging urban sprawl and the resulting automobile dependence, fossil fuel consumption,
and unhealthy lifestyle [
57
–
59
]. Literature is scarce about how to apply smart technology to existing
cities and the literature seems to uniquely favor the emergence of new cities through a series of
off-the-shelf plug and play solutions offered by specialised information technology (IT) companies as
elaborated above.
Mauritius, for example, has established several Smart Cities on the outer edge of its historic
capital city, Port Louis. Figure 5showcases the planned Smart Cities in a 10 km radius from the Central

Smart Cities 2018,112
Business District of Port Louis. Out of the nine planned Smart Cities, five have gained approval from
government and are being built, while four are under evaluation.
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Central Business District of Port Louis. Out of the nine planned Smart Cities, five have gained
approval from government and are being built, while four are under evaluation.
Figure 5. Planned Smart Cities in a 10 km radius from the Central Business District (CBD) of Port
Louis, Mauritius.
Figures 6–9 show the modernist architectural language adopted by Smart Cities to support a
heavy branding by competing companies.
Figure 6. Cote d’Or Smart City, Highlands, Mauritius [60].
Figure 5.
Planned Smart Cities in a 10 km radius from the Central Business District (CBD) of Port
Louis, Mauritius.
Figures 6–9show the modernist architectural language adopted by Smart Cities to support a
heavy branding by competing companies.
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Central Business District of Port Louis. Out of the nine planned Smart Cities, five have gained
approval from government and are being built, while four are under evaluation.
Figure 5. Planned Smart Cities in a 10 km radius from the Central Business District (CBD) of Port
Louis, Mauritius.
Figures 6–9 show the modernist architectural language adopted by Smart Cities to support a
heavy branding by competing companies.
Figure 6. Cote d’Or Smart City, Highlands, Mauritius [60].
Figure 6. Cote d’Or Smart City, Highlands, Mauritius [60].

Smart Cities 2018,113
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
Figure 7. Jin Fei Smart City, Baie du Tombeau, Mauritius [61].
Figure 8. Yihai Smart City, Pailles, Mauritius [62].
Figure 9. Moka Smart City, Moka, Mauritius [63].
Figure 7. Jin Fei Smart City, Baie du Tombeau, Mauritius [61].
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
Figure 7. Jin Fei Smart City, Baie du Tombeau, Mauritius [61].
Figure 8. Yihai Smart City, Pailles, Mauritius [62].
Figure 9. Moka Smart City, Moka, Mauritius [63].
Figure 8. Yihai Smart City, Pailles, Mauritius [62].
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
Figure 7. Jin Fei Smart City, Baie du Tombeau, Mauritius [61].
Figure 8. Yihai Smart City, Pailles, Mauritius [62].
Figure 9. Moka Smart City, Moka, Mauritius [63].
Figure 9. Moka Smart City, Moka, Mauritius [63].

Smart Cities 2018,114
These new Smart City towns are part of the long history of New Towns created as part of the
modernist tradition [
64
]. This tradition, with its roots in Le Corbusier’s Congrès Internationaux
d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) movement, aimed to start from a clean slate and use modern high
rise and freeway architecture to create a new kind of urban experience. The problems that developed
from this included automobile dependence and urban decay in the old cities where development
declined [
16
,
65
,
66
]. Many cities have been moving away from the modernist urban paradigm, but the
Smart City movement is at least in part trying to revive it. This may also be because the emphasis on
ICT alone provides a vacuum in planning and policy values, enabling any agenda to be set, as long as
it is “smart”. This paper suggests that Smart Cities will fail to deliver better cities unless clearly driven
by an agenda that can explain the definition of a “better” city.
Portions of the Smart City paradigm are realising that new technology needs to not only set an
agenda as outlined here, but must be able to recognise, respect, and regenerate the various parts of
the urban fabric. India, for instance, has pledged to build 100 Smart Cities based on four different
strategies: (1) retrofitting existing facilities to achieve Smart City objectives, (2) redevelopment of
existing areas by replacing amenities better aligned within a Smart City framework, (3) greenfield
development aiming at building new smart areas in vacant areas, and (4) pan-city development that
proposes technology applications to existing city networks [
67
]. However, according to Bosch [
68
],
the 100 Smart Cities mission is flawed as it focuses on business opportunities by international Smart
City developers, such as IBM, that want to create a market estimated to be worth $1.56 trillion by
2020 [
68
]. Bosch warns against this trend in Indian urban realities and instead suggests a focus on
cultural awareness of the urban fabric that exists and the potential mushrooming of “smart enclaves”
within cities [68].
This same approach was proposed by Shelton et al. [
18
] who postulated that focusing on the
application of a Smart City paradigm in more mature cities rather than building new cities will be
more productive. These authors discussed the nature of big data-driven governance that should be
analyzed within the historical and spatial boundaries of the actual city. This approach caters to people
rather than forcing the people to cater to the Smart City vision. However, this focus would still require
new kinds of governance [69].
Although building from a fresh start is perhaps easier, though usually t around three times more
expensive than regenerating old areas [
57
,
59
], Smart City technology can be adapted to existing cities.
This will need to be tailored to address contextual and governance challenges, but all issues in urban
regeneration lend themselves to being more easily solved by using Smart City technology [
15
,
70
].
To create more appreciation and accountability in the Smart City paradigm, a simpler framework is
proposed that can be applied to new and more mature cities and indeed all forms of urban fabric to
show how a Smart City can achieve more of the broader goal specified in the U.N. SDG of creating
“inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” cities.
6. Creating a Smart City Framework
The most conspicuous aspect of the proposed Smart City framework set out in Figure 10 is the
absence of smart ICT-based infrastructure as its own dimension. This has been shown throughout
the paper as a major problem and its lack of a values base has undermined the economy of many
cities, as this has led to isolated Smart City modernist New Towns. The model being proposed in
Figure 10 has the values base firmly set in the three driving forces: culture, metabolism, and governance.
These values provide a focus for the Smart City to address the issues of urbanization [
16
,
18
,
19
] and to
welcome urbanization as an essential condition for growth [
71
]. These values also allow policy-makers
to distinguish between different types of cities and different urban fabrics and to highlight the need for
different developmental agendas [
57
,
64
]. This approach is far from the “one-size fits all, modernist
model presented by Smart City suppliers, suggesting that smart infrastructure, as an isolated item,
places an additional financial burden on the city’s governing bodies despite most cities struggling to
find finance for their multiple socio-economic problems [
65
]. Instead, this approach applies smart

Smart Cities 2018,115
infrastructure to each of the three fundamental values of a city in order to show how smart culture,
smart metabolism, and smart governance can be created.
Smart Cities 2018, 1, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23
analyzed within the historical and spatial boundaries of the actual city. This approach caters to people
rather than forcing the people to cater to the Smart City vision. However, this focus would still require
new kinds of governance [73].
Although building from a fresh start is perhaps easier, though usually t around three times more
expensive than regenerating old areas [59,62], Smart City technology can be adapted to existing cities.
This will need to be tailored to address contextual and governance challenges, but all issues in urban
regeneration lend themselves to being more easily solved by using Smart City technology [16,74]. To
create more appreciation and accountability in the Smart City paradigm, a simpler framework is
proposed that can be applied to new and more mature cities and indeed all forms of urban fabric to
show how a Smart City can achieve more of the broader goal specified in the U.N. SDG of creating
“inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” cities.
6. Creating a Smart City Framework
The most conspicuous aspect of the proposed Smart City framework set out in Figure 10 is the
absence of smart ICT-based infrastructure as its own dimension. This has been shown throughout
the paper as a major problem and its lack of a values base has undermined the economy of many
cities, as this has led to isolated Smart City modernist New Towns. The model being proposed in
Figure 10 has the values base firmly set in the three driving forces: culture, metabolism, and
governance. These values provide a focus for the Smart City to address the issues of urbanization
[17,19,20] and to welcome urbanization as an essential condition for growth [67]. These values also
allow policy-makers to distinguish between different types of cities and different urban fabrics and
to highlight the need for different developmental agendas [59,68]. This approach is far from the “one-
size fits all: modernist model presented by Smart City suppliers, suggesting that smart infrastructure,
as an isolated item, places an additional financial burden on the city’s governing bodies despite most
cities struggling to find finance for their multiple socio-economic problems [69]. Instead, this
approach applies smart infrastructure to each of the three fundamental values of a city in order to
show how smart culture, smart metabolism, and smart governance can be created.
Figure 10. The proposed Smart City framework supporting dimensions of Culture, Metabolism
and Governance
This model places the human values dimension at the core of urban Smart City policy. It is able
to replace the kind of trickle down approach that Smart City policies have been using based on a
belief that ICT will somehow automatically lead to the right outcomes and avoid the wrong ones.
This is likely to lead to the fulfilment of the U.N.’s SDG agenda rather than viewing the agenda as
secondary to new smart technology. Each of these three factors overlap in their ability to create a
better notion of a Smart City.
Figure 10.
The proposed Smart City framework supporting dimensions of Culture, Metabolism
and Governance.
This model places the human values dimension at the core of urban Smart City policy. It is able to
replace the kind of trickle down approach that Smart City policies have been using based on a belief
that ICT will somehow automatically lead to the right outcomes and avoid the wrong ones. This is
likely to lead to the fulfilment of the U.N.’s SDG agenda rather than viewing the agenda as secondary
to new smart technology. Each of these three factors overlap in their ability to create a better notion of
a Smart City.
6.1. Culture
In urban terms, culture can include urban cultural heritage [66] or urban creative industries [67]
or can also simply mean a focus on the needs of the citizen by promoting livability within cities.
All three elements are considered part of culture in this framework and all three can benefit from ICT
if constructed to do so. This would therefore create something that could be called smart culture.
All three dimensions shown in Figure 10 provide possible viewpoints for urban policy.
Urban policy can be viewed through a cultural dimension [
50
,
68
,
69
] and this approach is recognized
by UNESCO [
70
], which views cities as cultural microcosms that cater to innovation, creativity,
and economic development while ensuring access to the highest standards of healthcare, education,
and social facilities [48,72].
Cultural heritage is an industry that can contribute significantly to the economic growth of a
city as millions of visitors are drawn to cultural events, art galleries, monuments, and even historical
centers and museums [
66
]. The potential that cultural heritage represents must be revamped by
adopting pervasive solutions that lead to smart cultural heritage [
66
]. The application of smart
technology to cultural heritage in cities can optimize the economic potential of these unique resources.
For instance, implementation of innovative museum visitor guides within a novel ICT-based approach
may enhance the user experience when visiting museums, any gallery, or even walking around
historic cities. The same role of culture as a driver for sustainable development has been proposed
by Rutten [
67
], who dissected the role of culture as a pillar of urban regeneration and highlighted the
key role of creative industries in successfully revamping urban areas. This author defined creative
industries as a medium of communication that conveys specific messages. These messages could be
oral, auditory, or visual, originating from both individual creativity or as a result of group dynamics.
Moreover, citizens are keen to acquire these creative goods or services for their meanings, experiences,
or emotions they inspire in their users [
67
,
73
]. Creative industries have three main pillars: (1) arts, crafts,

Smart Cities 2018,116
and cultural heritage; (2) media and entertainment industries; and (3) creative business-to-business
services [
67
]. Cultural and creative industries form the pillars of the cultural economy, which, in some
countries, contribute significantly to economic development and jobs creation [
73
]. Such activity can
be assisted by the use of ICT to increase its significant in any city’s economy.
Culture-led urban rejuvenation is a prominent facet of cities in China [
74
], Europe [
75
,
76
],
South Korea [
77
–
79
], Japan [
80
], South Africa [
81
], Taiwan [
82
], and Latin America [
83
]. Wang [
74
]
highlighted that culture can play an important role in the rejuvenation of decayed urban areas.
One example is the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao which, despite attracting negative publicity due
to the relatively hefty initial investment, exceeded expected return on investment and is successfully
contributing to the rejuvenation of a previously decaying urban area [
84
]. However, the author warned
that using the Guggenheim Museum as a culture-led policy can be highly risky. The success of
the museum was not entirely based on its signature architecture but was also due to the continuous
attempts of the Museum Director to make the project appealing to visitors [
84
]. ICT is part of this vision.
Broader urban regeneration, through cultural industries with ICT assistance, requires partnership with
local government [
85
]. Much remains to be completed to fully access the potential of culture-led urban
regeneration and to determine how the Smart City technologies can contribute to how it shapes the
future of old urban fabric [
86
]. Demonstrations are needed to create smart cultural heritage that is
respectful of urban culture.
The overlap between smart culture and the other major parts of the Smart City framework are
quite obvious. Metabolism changes driven entirely by technology will not work unless they are also
part of an urban culture that must occur in both the old and new parts of cities [
57
]. This approach
to cities is also coupled with resilience [
87
], Allam and Jones [
88
] showed that resilience must be
integrated with local challenges and the impacts of climate change, which are part of an urban culture.
These situations also highlight the essential role of governance in the pathway to the implementation
of culture as an urban policy in a Smart City.
6.2. Metabolism
Metabolism is essentially a biological term that traces how materials and energy flow through a
living system to create all the activities of life and then convert the materials into waste and the energy
into waste heat [89]. Metabolic reactions ensure life is maintained and optimized. Urban metabolism
builds on this analogy by showing how the resource consumption inevitably converts into waste [
90
],
but an Extended Metabolism Model by Newman [
49
] showed how livability had to be integrated with
the flow of resources and that the goal of cities should be to simultaneously reduce their metabolism
and increase their livability. Achieving this goal can be considerably helped by ICT providing smart
systems for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and waste management [
57
]. Data on the decoupling
of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth and the decline in the use of fossil fuels provides evidence
that these technological systems are beginning to work [91].
However, some suggest that cities are becoming a bigger part of the problem rather than
part of the solution. Kennedy, et al. [
92
] stated that many cities are showing an increasing trend
in their consumption of water, energy, and materials, leading to changes in ground water levels,
depletion of resources, building up of noxious substances, and urban heat islands effects [
92
]. A better
understanding of energy and materials flow is thus needed. To this end and to cater to the lack of
high resolution data at the household level and in real-time, the introduction of sensors was suggested
by Shahrokni, et al. [
93
]. These authors proposed an approach called Smart Urban Metabolism [
94
].
This model for assessing metabolism within cities has three key approaches: (1) the use of sensors at all
levels, such as smart meters; (2) real-time data flow streams toward information management system
(IMS) for analysis; and (3) informing different stakeholders about the actual status of metabolism
through the use of pervasive technology, such as smartphones and computer terminals. Smart Urban
Metabolism also provides mitigating measures to control the flow of energy, materials, and wastes.

Smart Cities 2018,117
In fact, ICT integration within cities can increase the efficiency of data analysis [
95
]. The informed
solutions that are proposed often have a mitigating effect on sustainability issues [96].
This kind of temporal and spatial resolution can only be made possible within an ICT-infused
infrastructure provided by Smart City paradigms [
93
]. This approach aligns with the proposal of
Zaman and Lehmann [97] for promoting a Zero-Waste city concept on the pathway to sustainability.
Newman et al. [
98
] developed an urban fabrics theory that highlights the need to consider urban
policies for three different fabrics: the old walking city, the transit city (from the late 19th century
to the mid-20th century), and the automobile city (from the mid-20th century). Each have different
metabolism and livability characteristics and hence need different ICT approaches to provide assistance
during the transition to the next decarbonized economy, while maintaining economic productivity and
human livability [99].
Smart metabolism, as mentioned here, overlaps with culture and governance to provide direction
for these resource and waste technologies required for a Smart City, which also includes clear
improvements in livability. Demonstrations of how Smart Cities can use smart metabolism are
needed in all parts of the city, from its old centers, through medium density corridors, to new suburbs
on the fringe.
6.3. Governance
One essential component of the proposed Smart City framework is governance, which is the
institutional factor that transcends data analysis and management to encompass appropriate change
Dixit [
100
]. Governance forms the central core whose responsibility is to connect citizens with
businesses and the living environment to foster a culture of innovation and sustainable economic
development [
10
,
101
]. Parycek and Pereira [
102
] highlighted the essential dimension added by smart
governance to the Smart City paradigm. We outline below the implications of smart governance on
the Smart City paradigm.
Smart governance is not a standalone entity only for ICT applications, but is driven by data
and collaboration among all stakeholders of the city [
102
]. The notion of smart governance needs
to be applied within an appropriate legal framework interlinked with values, protocols, and human
capital showcased within the right ICT infrastructure [
102
]. Shukla [
103
] cautioned against the use of
ICT devices on their own and proposed further probing into a human-centered sociological study to
gain insight into the exact implications of adopting specific smart technologies for specific purposes.
Such an endeavor caters to a more effective smart system of governance [103].
Walravens and Ballon [
104
] pointed out the challenges faced by city governance seeking to
cope with fast-changing digital business platforms. These authors called for the need for good
governance in Smart Cities to promote the shared interests of the city while creating accountability
and trust. This approach promotes the protection of citizens’ rights while adopting new technologies
that can help solve multiple problems. Technology governance adds to the role of governance in
Smart Cities and improves the transparency in data flow and decision-making, while ensuring that
no social gaps occur in the access to shared data [
104
]. The role of governance further includes
protocol regulation to facilitate communication between different stakeholders within the city and
the external world
[10,105,106]
. Moreover, governance measures can encourage policies where
citizens can bring value to cities through their ideas for the future or by responding to urban
development [
106
]. This forms the essence of participatory governance [
105
] or citizen-centric
governance [
10
]. Smart planning systems can enable greater visualisation of the future and create
greater understanding of the implications in different scenarios [107].
The rationale behind the Smart City paradigm is frequently aimed at sustainability
[1,108]
. To
this end, Adger, et al. [
109
] and Newman and Kenworthy [
57
] stressed the need for environmental
governance that revolves around integrating economic, social, and environmental dimensions.
These authors recognized the participatory role of citizens and political representatives in
environmental decisions. They also underlined the complexity of the decision-making processes

Smart Cities 2018,118
for environmental issues and called for the scrutiny of governance outcomes, eventually leading
to contextualized policies. ICT can help in each of these areas if it serves the processes rather than
being outside.
Smart governance has many overlaps with smart metabolism and smart culture. Governing
bodies are responsible for the overall implementation of metabolism and cultural protocols to ensure
the smooth running of operations while integrating the ICT dimensions proposed in Smart City
paradigms. There is a need to use an appropriate governance foundation, such as the Multi-level
Perspective Theory, which offers multiple entry points and allows governing bodies to choose the
level at which to introduce the socio-technical change to optimize integration [
110
]. A Smart City,
like any city that needs to change, is likely to require systemic transitions that involve a co-evolution
of factors like technology, culture, and governance. As such, a multi-level perspective enables the
analysis of these interactions, which then highlight drivers, potential hindrance, and implementation
pathways [111].
7. Urban Economy and Smart Cities
The proposed framework highlights that the economic dimension does not require its own focus
in the development of Smart Cities, but underlies each of the three dimensions of smart culture, smart
metabolism, and smart governance. If, however, Smart Cities progress through isolated ICT branding
exercises, economic development may be undermined, just as isolated technologies for energy or
transport can undermine cities if not considered as part of the sustainability agenda [112].
The New Urban Agenda that was adopted by the U.N. in 2016 suggests that the urban economy’s
role is the promotion and consolidation of policies and strategies essentially aiming to develop
the economic potential of a city in terms of wealth, job opportunities, and economic resilience.
However, the focus aims at economic growth to create equal opportunities for its citizens while
empowering municipalities to create a conducive environment for increased work opportunities within
an enhanced livability setup [
113
]. Without this kind of “inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable”
economic growth, cities can collapse [57,114,115].
Harrison and Donnelly [
116
] reflected on the rise in popularity of the Smart City paradigm in
the late 2000s. These authors concluded that the actual drive toward adopting smart technology,
such as those proposed by the technology giant corporations, was not entirely focused on economic
outcomes, but rather attempted to achieve a more simplistic approach to economic development.
This may undermine economic development. Such a cognizance occurred in the post-economic crash
of 2008–2009 when administrative councils of cities realized that, due to the digital culture of the
Internet and globalization, they were in direct competition with peers from all over the world [116].
Economic performance is intricately linked to political, institutional, and legal environments.
These three dimensions compose the core governing infrastructure of a country or a city [
117
].
We further postulate that governance infrastructure influences the investment macrocosm, which is
so important in providing better opportunities for economic growth. Moreover, Dixit [
100
]
defined economic governance as the intricate interconnectivity between social and legal institutions
that back economic activities and transactions, principally by providing the right framework to:
(1) protect property rights, (2) enforce contracts, and (3) promote collective action to maintain
organizational infrastructure. The only method to achieve this conducive environment is through
good governance [
100
]. Thus, unless we have a framework for policy making that places ICT
into smart governance, smart metabolism, and smart culture, we are unlikely to obtain the best
economic outcomes.
This approach offers insights on every aspect of economic development. For example, smart
metabolism offers insights into the energy usage, waste generation, and water use transitions within
different parts of the city, while also increasing the livability for urban residents and city users.
Livability also promotes city growth [
118
,
119
]. Giap, et al. [
120
] highlighted the ability of livability and

Smart Cities 2018,119
culture in cities to attract human capital and investors, leading to a positive contribution to a resilient
and robust economy that also enhances socio-cultural innovation and lifestyle.
Several key strategies have been proposed to achieve these inclusive and sustainable economic
development goals for cities, such as those outlined by the U.N. For instance, there is a particular
emphasis on participatory and collaborative governance of local authorities with regional, national,
and even key strategic international partners to promote tailor-made policies that encourage innovative
sustainable economic solutions [
121
,
122
]. Productivity and competitiveness are two major foci of such
strategies. These can be further enhanced if they emanate from capacity building using the city’s own
resources. UN-Habitat [
123
] further emphasized the need for empowering youth in cities and guiding
them toward developing entrepreneurship attitudes based on proven business models adapted to
their needs within the city. Such business opportunities must be provided by strategic partners,
where strategies can be oriented toward increasing productivity and decreasing unemployment.
In every case, a role for smart technologies exists to assist in their achievement.
New smart technologies and systems are being developed for transport with a strong emphasis
on autonomous vehicles; however, applying these technologies to better uses is possible by creating
new transit systems along corridors and in local shared mobility transit that enables much broader
social and environmental goals as well as the productivity gains from the implementation of new
technology [
124
]. A Smart City with considerably improved economic outcomes could emerge with
almost no need for private vehicles and improved accessibility if the values of the city were allowed to
drive these smart technology options.
Siegel and Kariuki [
124
] showcased an example from Kenya where the government, in order to
address sustainable development and access to adequate public services, encouraged partnerships
between distinct economic states, governments, and U.N.-Habitat. The collaborative endeavor depicted
the numerous benefits for cities struggling with economic resilience and sustainable development.
For instance, the U.N.-Habitat/Kenya partnership demonstrated the need to develop an objective
baseline that offered clear guidelines on dimensions that had to be monitored. This approach prevented
biased decision making and ensured the integrity of the sustainability of the projects being proposed.
Moreover, the collaboration promoted sustainable exploitation of the inherent resources of each county.
For Homa County in Kenya, this was in the form of technical expertise and latent financial resources
that could be optimized through a multi-level regulatory procedure. These control mechanisms
provided feedback to governing bodies about how to anticipate and recalibrate business maneuvers to
ensure optimal gains [
124
]. Although only using basic ICT technology, the same kind of approach to
economic development is likely to work in the Smart City framework.
Another example is the Mauritian model of economically incentivizing urban development [
125
],
which underlines how a series of fiscal incentives aimed at the private sector can effectively catalyze
attracting both investment and talent. The Smart Cities Scheme [
126
] proposed by the Government
of Mauritius (outlined in Figures 6–9) successfully attracted new developments in greenfield sites
and ensured that each emerging Smart City hosts their own niche innovative cluster. This secured
Smart City promoters with their own economic model by reducing competition between Smart
Cities [
22
,
125
,
126
]. The economic success of Smart Cities in Mauritius, however, as outlined in this
paper, require stronger emphasis on smart culture in the old city areas, not just in greenfields. Smart
metabolism (as in all cities) and smart governance should outline how ICT can be a part of multiple
economic development strategies, instead of being a stand-alone ICT policy.
The critique of Smart Cities has also focused on the limited methodologies used to report
investment returns from Smart City technologies [
104
]. All urban policies are meant to address
urbanization issues and to improve the livability of cities, but Smart City policies are, for some reason,
often left out of such transparent accountability [
15
]. This may undermine the Smart City concept as
economic accountability will ultimately be needed to shape any policy for the future of cities.

Smart Cities 2018,120
8. Conclusions
The notion of Smart Cities is a major part of how cities across the globe are approaching the future.
In the academic literature and practice, Smart Cities are generally focused on heavy investment in
state-of-the-art ICT, especially ICT-based sensors, to offer big data that will be analyzed in real-time to
lead to informed decision-making. However, some studies have warned about the branding exercise
being laid out by Smart Cities’ suppliers that are essentially promoting a one-size fits all model without
considering broader economic development policies. The history of cities often includes technological
change being allowed to build the future as a stand-alone policy and finding that serious issues
emerged [
36
,
37
]. As such, this study proposed a new framework to optimize the use of ICT as part of
the solution to problems rather than causing additional challenges.
The proposed framework aimed at redefining the Smart City paradigm by focusing on the three
pillars of metabolism, culture, and governance. Metabolism provides a better understanding of
material flows and may be the pathway through which new smart technology can be introduced at the
household level, as well as helping to address the massive issues of climate change, traffic, recycling,
and other environmental issues, while simultaneously improving livability and economic performance.
This would then be known as smart urban metabolism. Cultural and historical attributes of cities create
unique and special urban areas for local communities and visitors. Culture can also be a special driver
for regenerating economic growth; ICT can enable uniqueness and special qualities to be generated as
part of a smart culture approach. Governance shapes economic development in cities and ICT needs to
be part of the general approach to improving inclusivity while providing the city with opportunities to
change; this would be smart governance. These three elements of a good city are interacting and need
to be addressed together.
Thus, the proposed framework provides an alternate vision of a Smart City that goes beyond ICT,
allowing it to be a part of the values that cities need to create their future.
Author Contributions: Writing, Review and Editing: Z.A. and P.N.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments:
The authors are grateful for the contribution of an Australian Government Research Training
Program Scholarship in supporting this research comments from reviewers.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
De Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D.; Zhan, C.; Weijnen, M. Sustainable-smart-resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge
cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod.
2015
,109,
25–38. [CrossRef]
2.
Herrschel, T. Competitiveness and sustainability: Can ‘smart city regionalism’square the circle? Urban Stud.
2013,50, 2332–2348. [CrossRef]
3.
Yigitcanlar, T.; Lee, S.H. Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable urban form or a branding hoax?
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014,89, 100–114. [CrossRef]
4.
McLaren, D.; Agyeman, J. Sharing Cities: A Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable Cities; MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2015.
5.
Vanolo, A. Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures
2016,82, 26–36. [CrossRef]
6.
Viitanen, J.; Kingston, R. Smart cities and green growth: Outsourcing democratic and environmental
resilience to the global technology sector. Environ. Plan. A 2014,46, 803–819. [CrossRef]
7.
Trends, G. Smart Cities Popularity. Available online: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=smart%
20cities (accessed on 25 May 2018).
8.
Datta, A. New urban utopias of postcolonial india: ‘Entrepreneurial urbanization’in dholera smart city,
gujarat. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2015,5, 3–22. [CrossRef]

Smart Cities 2018,121
9.
Glasmeier, A.K.; Nebiolo, M. Thinking about smart cities: The travels of a policy idea that promises a great
deal, but so far has delivered modest results. Sustainability 2016,8, 1122. [CrossRef]
10.
Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions.
In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital
Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 282–291.
11.
Allam, Z. Building a conceptual framework for smarting an existing city in mauritius: The case of port louis.
J. Biourbanism 2017,4, 103–121.
12.
Kitchin, R. Making sense of smart cities: Addressing present shortcomings. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc.
2014
,8,
131–136. [CrossRef]
13.
Harrison, C.; Eckman, B.; Hamilton, R.; Hartswick, P.; Kalagnanam, J.; Paraszczak, J.; Williams, P. Foundations
for smarter cities. IBM J. Res. Dev. 2010,54, 1–16. [CrossRef]
14.
Toppeta, D. The smart city vision: How innovation and ict can build smart, “livable”, sustainable cities.
Innov. Knowl. Found. 2010,5, 1–9.
15. Northstream. White Paper on Revenue Opportunities; Northstream: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010.
16.
Shelton, T.; Zook, M.; Wiig, A. The ‘actually existing smart city’. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc.
2014
,8, 13–25.
[CrossRef]
17.
LeGates, R.; Tate, N.J.; Kingston, R. Spatial thinking and scientific urban planning. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.
2009,36, 763–768. [CrossRef]
18. Burte, H. The “smart city” card. Econ. Political Wkly. 2014,49, 22–25.
19.
Paroutis, S.; Bennett, M.; Heracleous, L. A strategic view on smart city technology: The case of ibm smarter
cities during a recession. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014,89, 262–272. [CrossRef]
20.
Carvalho, L. Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc.
2014
,8, 43–60.
[CrossRef]
21.
Washburn, D.; Sindhu, U.; Balaouras, S.; Dines, R.A.; Hayes, N.; Nelson, L.E. Helping cios understand “smart
city” initiatives. Growth 2009,17, 1–17.
22. Allam, Z. Focus group findings for smart urban regeneration. J. Urban Regen. Renew. 2018, in press.
23. Angelidou, M. Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities 2014,41, S3–S11. [CrossRef]
24.
Paskaleva, K.A. Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in europe. Int. J. Innov. Reg. Dev.
2009,1, 405–422. [CrossRef]
25. Sassen, S. Talking Back to Your Intelligent City; McKinsey Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
26.
Townsend, A.; Maguire, R.; Liebhold, M.; Crawford, M. The Future of Cities, Information, and Inclusion: A Planet
of Civit Laboratories; Institute for the Future: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2010.
27.
Satterthwaite, D. Sustainable cities or cities that contribute to sustainable development? Urban Stud.
1997
,
34, 1667–1691. [CrossRef]
28.
Vale, L.J. The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city? Build. Res. Inf.
2014
,42, 191–201.
[CrossRef]
29. Google. Google Trends Compare; Google: Mountain View, CA, USA, 2018.
30.
Sadowski, J.; Pasquale, F.A. The spectrum of control: A social theory of the smart city. First Monday
2015
.
[CrossRef]
31.
Söderström, O.; Paasche, T.; Klauser, F. Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City
2014
,18, 307–320.
[CrossRef]
32.
Navigant. Navigant Research Leaderboard: Smart City Suppliers. Available online: https://www.
navigantresearch.com/research/navigant-research-leaderboard-smart-city-suppliers (accessed on
3 June 2018
).
33.
Sadowski, J. Selling Smartness-Visions and Politics of the Smart City. Ph.D. Thesis, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ, USA, 2016.
34. Hollands, R.G. Will the real smart city please stand up? City 2008,12, 303–320. [CrossRef]
35.
Hollands, R.G. Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc.
2015
,8, 61–77.
[CrossRef]
36. Ellul, J. The Technological Society; Knopf: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
37. Ellul, J. The Meaning of the City; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1970.
38. Orwell, G. Nineteen Eighty-Four; Harvill Secker: London, UK, 1949.
39.
Albino, V.; Berardi, U.; Dangelico, R.M. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives.
J. Urban Technol. 2015,22, 3–21. [CrossRef]

Smart Cities 2018,122
40.
Chourabi, H.; Nam, T.; Walker, S.; Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Mellouli, S.; Nahon, K.; Pardo, T.A.; Scholl, H.J.
Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. In Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International
Conference on System Science (HICSS), Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2012; pp. 2289–2297.
41.
Cocchia, A. Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In Smart City; Springer: Berlin, Germany,
2014; pp. 13–43.
42.
Giffinger, R.; Fertner, C.; Kramar, H.; Kalasek, R.; Pichler-Milanovi´c, N.; Meijers, E. Smart Cities: Ranking of
European Medium-Sized Cities; Center of Regional Science (SRF): Vienna, Austria, 2007.
43.
Natural Resources Defense Council. What Are Smarter Cities? Available online: http://smartercities.nrdc.
org/about (accessed on 13 May 2018).
44.
Dameri, R.P. Searching for smart city definition: A comprehensive proposal. Int. J. Comput. Technol.
2012
,11,
2544–2551. [CrossRef]
45.
Hall, R.E.; Bowerman, B.; Braverman, J.; Taylor, J.; Todosow, H.; Von Wimmersperg, U. The Vision of a
Smart City; Brookhaven National Lab.: Upton, NY, USA, 2000.
46.
Su, K.; Li, J.; Fu, H. Smart city and the applications. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on
Electronics, Communications and Control (ICECC), Ningbo, China, 9–11 September 2011.
47. IBM. Smarter Thinking for a Smarter Planet; IBM: Armonk, NY, USA, 2010.
48.
Neirotti, P.; De Marco, A.; Cagliano, A.C.; Mangano, G.; Scorrano, F. Current trends in smart city initiatives:
Some stylised facts. Cities 2014,38, 25–36. [CrossRef]
49.
Newman, P.W.G. Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model. Landsc. Urban Plan.
1999
,44,
219–226. [CrossRef]
50.
Siew, G.; Allam, Z. Culture as a driver for sustainable urban development. In Proceedings of the UIA 2017
Seoul World Architecs Congress, Seoul, Korea, 3–7 September 2017.
51.
Petrolo, R.; Loscrì, V.; Mitton, N. Towards a smart city based on cloud of things, a survey on the smart city
vision and paradigms. Trans. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol. 2015,28, e2931. [CrossRef]
52.
Balakrishna, C. Enabling technologies for smart city services and applications. In Proceedings of the 2012
Sixth International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies, Paris,
France, 12–14 September 2012.
53.
Mosannenzadeh, F.; Vettorato, D. Defining smart city. A conceptual framework based on keyword analysis.
TEMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2014. [CrossRef]
54.
Meijer, A.; Bolívar, M.P.R. Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance.
Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2015,82, 392–408. [CrossRef]
55.
Colldahl, C.; Frey, S.; Kelemen, J.E. Smart Cities: Strategic Sustainable Development for an Urban World.
Master’s Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2013.
56.
Al-Hader, M.; Rodzi, A. The smart city infrastructure development & monitoring. Theor. Empir. Res.
Urban Manag. 2009,4, 87–94.
57.
Newman, P.; Beatley, T.; Boyer, H. Resilient Cities: Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence, 2nd ed.; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
58.
Newman, P.; Kenworthy, J. The rise and fall of automobile dependence. In The End of Automobile Dependence;
Island Press/Center for Resource Economics: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 1–31.
59.
Newman, P.W.G. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence; Newman, P., Kenworthy, J., Eds.;
Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
60.
Landscope Mauritius. Cote d’or City. Available online: http://landscopemauritius.com/cotedorcity/
(accessed on 25 June 2018).
61.
Emilien, S. Smart City de Jin Fei: Voilà à Quoi Ressemblera L’eden Garden Square. Available online:
https://www.lexpress.mu/article/312583/smart-city-jin-fei-voila-quoi-ressemblera-leden-garden-square
(accessed on 25 June 2018).
62.
TopFM. C’est une Exclusivitétop fm : Le Projet yi hai Smart City de Pailles au Coût de rs. 21 Milliards
Débloqué. Available online: http://topfmradio.com/media-center/news/cest-une-exclusivite-top-fm-le-
projet-yi-hai-smart-city-de-pailles-au-cout-de-rs-21-milliards-debloque (accessed on 25 June 2018).
63. ENL. Moka Smart City; ENL: Moka, Mauritius, 2018.
64.
Slavova, M.; Okwechime, E. African smart cities strategies for agenda 2063. Afr. J. Manag.
2016
,2, 210–229.
[CrossRef]

Smart Cities 2018,123
65.
Musterd, S.; Marci´nczak, S.; Van Ham, M.; Tammaru, T. Socioeconomic segregation in european capital cities.
Increasing separation between poor and rich. Urban Geogr. 2017,38, 1062–1083. [CrossRef]
66.
Piccialli, F.; Chianese, A. Editorial for FGCS Special Issue: The Internet of Cultural Things: Towards a Smart
Cultural Heritage; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
67.
Rutten, P. Cultural activities & creative industries. A driving force for urban regeneration. In Culture &
Urban Regeneration; Finding & Conclusions on the Economic Perspective; Urbact Culture Network: Helsinki,
Finland, 2006.
68.
García, B. Cultural policy and urban regeneration in western european cities: Lessons from experience,
prospects for the future. Local Econ. 2004,19, 312–326. [CrossRef]
69.
Tweed, C.; Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2007,83, 62–69. [CrossRef]
70.
UNESCO. Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development. Available online: http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0024/002459/245999e.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2018).
71. Annez, P.C.; Buckley, R.M. Urbanization and growth: Setting the context. Urban Growth 2009,1, 1–45.
72.
Thuzar, M. Urbanization in southeast asia: Developing smart cities for the future? Reg. Outlook
2011
,96.
[CrossRef]
73.
Scott, A.J. Cultural-products industries and urban economic development: Prospects for growth and market
contestation in global context. Urban Aff. Rev. 2004,39, 461–490. [CrossRef]
74.
Wang, J. ‘Art in capital’: Shaping distinctiveness in a culture-led urban regeneration project in red town,
shanghai. Cities 2009,26, 318–330. [CrossRef]
75.
Bassett, K. Urban cultural strategies and urban regeneration: A case study and critique. Environ. Plan. A
1993,25, 1773–1788. [CrossRef]
76.
Mooney, G. Cultural policy as urban transformation? Critical reflections on glasgow, european city of culture
1990. Local Econ. 2004,19, 327–340. [CrossRef]
77.
Jung, T.H.; Lee, J.; Yap, M.H.; Ineson, E.M. The role of stakeholder collaboration in culture-led urban
regeneration: A case study of the gwangju project, korea. Cities 2015,44, 29–39. [CrossRef]
78.
Lee, K.S. Questioning a neoliberal urban regeneration policy: The rhetoric of “cities of culture” and the city
of gwangju, korea. Int. J. Cult. Policy 2007,13, 335–347. [CrossRef]
79.
Shin, H.; Stevens, Q. How culture and economy meet in south korea: The politics of cultural economy in
culture-led urban regeneration. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2013,37, 1707–1723. [CrossRef]
80.
Sasaki, M. Urban regeneration through cultural creativity and social inclusion: Rethinking creative city
theory through a japanese case study. Cities 2010,27, S3–S9. [CrossRef]
81.
Rogerson, C.M. Creative industries and urban tourism: South african perspectives. Urban Forum
2006
,17,
149–166. [CrossRef]
82.
Lin, C.-Y.; Hsing, W.-C. Culture-led urban regeneration and community mobilisation: The case of the taipei
bao-an temple area, taiwan. Urban Stud. 2009,46, 1317–1342. [CrossRef]
83. Kanai, M.; Ortega-Alcázar, I. The prospects for progressive culture-led urban regeneration in latin america:
Cases from mexico city and buenos aires. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2009,33, 483–501. [CrossRef]
84.
Plaza, B. The return on investment of the guggenheim museum bilbao. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.
2006
,30,
452–467. [CrossRef]
85.
Ashton, D. Railway arches, entrepreneurs, and culture-led urban regeneration. Cult. Ind. Res.
2017
,17,
244–252.
86.
Della Lucia, M.; Trunfio, M.; Go, F.M. Heritage and urban regeneration: Towards creative tourism. In Tourism
in the City; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 179–191.
87.
Desha, C.; Reeve, A.; Newman, P.; Beately, T. Guest editorial: Urban nature for resilient and liveable cities.
Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2016. [CrossRef]
88.
Allam, Z.; Jones, D. Promoting resilience, liveability and sustainability through landscape architectural
design: A conceptual framework for port louis, mauritius; a small island developing state. In Proceedings of
the International Federation of Landscape Architects World Congress, Singapore, 18–21 July 2018.
89.
DeBerardinis, R.J.; Thompson, C.B. Cellular metabolism and disease: What do metabolic outliers teach us?
Cell 2012,148, 1132–1144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90. Wolman, A. The metabolism of cities. Sci. Am. 1965,213, 178–190. [CrossRef]
91. Newman, P. Decoupling Economic Growth from Fossil Fuels. Sci. Res. 2017,8, 791–805. [CrossRef]

Smart Cities 2018,124
92.
Kennedy, C.; Cuddihy, J.; Engel-Yan, J. The changing metabolism of cities. J. Ind. Ecol.
2007
,11, 43–59.
[CrossRef]
93.
Shahrokni, H.; Årman, L.; Lazarevic, D.; Nilsson, A.; Brandt, N. Implementing smart urban metabolism in
the stockholm royal seaport: Smart city srs. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015,19, 917–929. [CrossRef]
94. Helal, S. It footprinting-groundwork for future smart cities. Computer 2011,44, 30–31. [CrossRef]
95.
Zapico Lamela, J.L. Hacking for Sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden, 2014.
96. Hilty, L.; Lohmann, W.; Huang, E. Sustainability and ict—An overview of the field. Politeia 2011,27, 13–28.
97.
Zaman, A.U.; Lehmann, S. The zero waste index: A performance measurement tool for waste management
systems in a ‘zero waste city’. J. Clean. Prod. 2013,50, 123–132. [CrossRef]
98.
Newman, P.; Kosonen, L.; Kenworthy, J. Theory of urban fabrics: Planning the walking, transit/public
transport and automobile/motor car cities for reduced car dependency. Town Plan. Rev.
2016
,87, 429–458.
[CrossRef]
99.
Thomson, G.; Newman, P. Urban fabrics and urban metabolism—From sustainable to regenerative cities.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018,132, 218–229. [CrossRef]
100. Dixit, A. Governance institutions and economic activity. Am. Econ. Rev. 2009,99, 5–24. [CrossRef]
101.
Lindskog, H. Smart Communities Initiatives. In Proceedings of the 3rd ISOneWorld Conference, Las Vegas,
NV, USA, 14–16 April 2004.
102.
Parycek, P.; Pereira, G.V. Drivers of smart governance: Towards to evidence-based policy-making.
In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Staten Island,
NY, USA, 7–9 June 2017; pp. 564–565.
103.
Shukla, R. Models of smart governance: Community involvement in local governance. In Proceedings of the
Special Collection on eGovernment Innovations, New Delhi, India, 7–9 March 2017; pp. 82–87.
104.
Walravens, N.; Ballon, P. Platform business models for smart cities: From control and value to governance
and public value. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2013,51, 72–79. [CrossRef]
105. Johnston, E. Governance infrastructures in 2020. Public Adm. Rev. 2010,70. [CrossRef]
106.
Anttiroiko, A.-V.; Valkama, P.; Bailey, S.J. Smart cities in the new service economy: Building platforms for
smart services. AI Soc. 2014,29, 323–334. [CrossRef]
107.
Pettit, C.; Bakelmun, A.; Lieske, S.N.; Glackin, S.; Hargroves, K.C.; Thomson, G.; Shearer, H.; Dia, H.;
Newman, P. Planning support systems for smart cities. City Cult. Soc. 2018,12, 13–24. [CrossRef]
108.
Purnomo, F.; Prabowo, H. Smart city indicators: A systematic literature review. J. Telecommun. Electron.
Comput. Eng. 2016,8, 161–164.
109.
Adger, W.N.; Brown, K.; Fairbrass, J.; Jordan, A.; Paavola, J.; Rosendo, S.; Seyfang, G. Governance for
sustainability: Towards a ‘thick’analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environ. Plan. A
2003
,35,
1095–1110. [CrossRef]
110.
Geels, F.W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective
and a case-study. Res. Policy 2002,31, 1257–1274. [CrossRef]
111.
Geels, F.W. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into
transport studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012,24, 471–482. [CrossRef]
112.
Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S.; Walker, B. Resilience and sustainable
development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO
2002
,31, 437–440. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
113. UN Habitat. New Urban Agenda; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
114.
Glaeser, E. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and
Happier; Penguin Publishing Group: London, UK, 2011.
115. Diamond, J.M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed; Viking: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
116.
Harrison, C.; Donnelly, I.A. A theory of smart cities. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the
ISSS-2011, Hull, UK, 17–22 July 2011.
117.
Globerman, S.; Shapiro, D. Global foreign direct investment flows: The role of governance infrastructure.
World Dev. 2002,30, 1899–1919. [CrossRef]
118. Newman, P. The environmental impact of cities. Environ. Urban. 2006,18, 275–295. [CrossRef]
119. Glazebrook, G.; Newman, P. The city of the future. Urban Plan. 2018,3, 20. [CrossRef]

Smart Cities 2018,125
120.
Giap, T.K.; Thye, W.W.; Aw, G. A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities: The global liveable
cities index. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2014,11, 176–196. [CrossRef]
121.
McCann Eugene, J. Collaborative visioning or urban planning as therapy? The politics of public-private
policy making. Prof. Geogr. 2008,53, 207–218. [CrossRef]
122.
Koppenjan Joop, F.M.; Enserink, B. Public-private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling private
sector participation and sustainability. Public Adm. Rev. 2009,69, 284–296. [CrossRef]
123.
UN-Habitat. Urban Economy. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/expertise/3-urban-economy/
(accessed on 31 May 2018).
124.
Siegel, D.Y.; Kariuki, D. Urban Economy and Market Development in Homa Bay County, Kenya; Urban
Economy and Finance Branch. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/urban-economy-and-market-
development-in-homa-bay-county-kenya-discussion-paper-9/ (accessed on 13 July 2018).
125. BOI. Smart Mauritius; Board of Investment: Port Louis, Mauritius, 2017.
126. BOI. Smart Cities Guidelines; Board of Investment: Port Louis, Mauritius, 2015.
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).