ArticlePDF Available

Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation Ecosystems, Technological Advancements, and Societal Challenges

May 2019
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 142:1-14

DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.018

Authors:

Francesco Appio

Paris School of Business

Marcos Lima

SKEMA Business School

Sotirios Paroutis

Warwick Business School

Smart Cities initiatives are spreading all around the globe at a phenomenal pace. Their bold ambition is to increase the competitiveness of local communities through innovation while increasing the quality of life for its citizens through better public services and a cleaner environment. Prior research has shown contrasting views and a multitude of dimensions and approaches to look at this phenomenon. In spite of the fact that this can stimulate the debate, it lacks a systematic assessment and an integrative view. The papers in the special issue on “Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation Ecosystems, Technological Advancements, and Societal Challenges” take stock of the past work and provide new insights through the lenses of a hybrid framework. Moving from these premises, we offer an overview of the topic by featuring possible linkages and thematic clusters. Then, we sketch a novel research agenda for scholars, practitioners, and policy makers who wish to engage in – and build – a critical, constructive, and conducive discourse on Smart Cities.

. Descriptive statistics of accepted contributions

…

Figures - uploaded by Sotirios Paroutis

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Sotirios Paroutis

Content may be subject to copyright.

Understanding Smart Cities:

Innovation Ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges

Francesco Paolo Appioa, Marcos Limab, Sotirios Paroutisc

aLéonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Research Center, 92916 Paris La Défense, France

francesco.appio@devinci.fr

bSkema Business School/Université Côte d'Azur, France

marcos.lima@skema.edu

cWarwick Business School, Warwick University, United Kingdom

sotirios.paroutis@wbs.ac.uk

Appio, F.C., Lima, M., Paroutis, S. (2018). Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation

Ecosystems, Technological Advancements, and Societal Challenges. In press at

Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Editorial for the special issue

Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation Ecosystems, Technological Advancements,

and Societal Challenges. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.018

Abstract

Smart Cities initiatives are spreading all around the globe at a phenomenal pace. Their bold ambition

is to increase the competitiveness of local communities through innovation while increasing the

quality of life for its citizens through better public services and a cleaner environment. Prior research

has shown contrasting views and a multitude of dimensions and approaches to look at this

phenomenon. In spite of the fact that this can stimulate the debate, it lacks a systematic assessment and

an integrative view. The papers in the special issue on “Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation

Ecosystems, Technological Advancements, and Societal Challenges” take stock of past work and

provide new insights through the lenses of a hybrid framework. Moving from these premises, we offer

an overview of the topic by featuring possible linkages and thematic clusters. Then, we sketch a novel

research agenda for scholars, practitioners, and policy makers who wish to engage in – and build – a

critical, constructive, and conducive discourse on Smart Cities.

Keywords: Smart Cities, hybrid framework, phyisical infrastructure, quality of life, innovation, review

1. Introduction and motivation

There are hundreds of smart city projects currently being developed around the world (Lee et al.,

2014). Smart Cities initiatives aim to “provide more efficient services to citizens, to monitor and

optimize existing infrastructure, to increase collaboration amongst different economic actors and to

encourage innovative business models in both private and public sectors” (Marsal-Llacuna et al., 2015,

p. 618). Ultimately, smart cities strive to increase the competitiveness of local communities through

innovation while increasing the quality of life for its citizens through better public services and a

cleaner environment. In order to achieve these goals, smart cities rely on state-of-the-art information

technology (e.g., fiber optic networks, sensors and connected devices, open data analytics, internet of

things, ICT-enabled participatory planning frameworks) on the one hand (Albino et al., 2015; Stratigea

et al., 2015), and on human capital (e.g., research universities, knowledge-intensive companies and

public institutions) on the other hand (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017; Neirotti et al., 2014). Angelidou

(2014) calls the former “hard” smart cities strategies (smart buildings, smart energy grids, smart water

management, smart mobility) and the latter “soft” strategies (developing human and social capital

through education, culture, social inclusion, social innovation). It is widely assumed that the digital

infrastructure of modern cities offers a unique opportunity to facilitate entrepreneurship, creativity,

and innovation in order to drive local economic growth (Kraus et al., 2015; Grimaldi and Fernandez,

2015). The city of London, for instance, has based its smart city initiative on four dimensions: a)

technology innovation; b) open data and transparency; c) collaboration and engagement; d) efficiency

and resource management (Angelidou, 2015). These dimensions echo Lee and co-authors' (2014) six

enablers of smart city development: urban openness, service innovation, partnership formation, urban

proactiveness, infrastructure integration, and smart city governance. Chourabi et al. (2012) propose an

“integrative framework” involving the dimensions of organization, policy, and technology as the

pillars of smart city initiatives, surrounded by secondary factors such as governance,

people/communities, economy, infrastructure, and natural environment. Alternative frameworks

highlight the “transboundary” nature of smart city projects. Thus Angelidou (2014) suggests the

necessity to go beyond the “hard versus soft” infrastructure dichotomy and to also consider the

national versus local implications for smart city projects; the new (green field) versus the existing

(brownfields) approaches to urban development; and the economic versus geographic approaches.

Similarly, Ramaswami and co-authors (2016) suggest thinking about the local infrastructure provision

(the smart management of energy, buildings, public spaces, waste and sanitation, food supply, water

supply and transportation) as subject to a larger flow of national and global actors and institutions. The

performance of these initiatives must be measured in terms of their environmental, economic, and

social benefits (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017). These initiatives can also be studied from a strategic

perspective, as they can spark the emergence of new value chains in the firms and stakeholders

involved in designing and executing smart city projects (Paroutis et al., 2014). According to the neo-

evolutionary perspective of the Triple Helix framework, smart city projects represent a unique

innovation platform for companies, government agencies, and researchers (Leydesdorff and Deakin,

2011). In this perspective, smart cities are perceived above all as “Intelligent Communities”,

collaborative ecosystems that facilitate innovation, by creating linkages among citizens, government,

businesses, and educational institutions. These innovative clusters foster the development of high

added value activities of the “knowledge economy.” To capture most of these elements, Bill Hutchison

(Hutchison et al., 2011) created a 5-level pyramid framework called “Intelligent Community Open

Architecture – i-COA®.” The first two levels correspond to the “hard” smart city strategies (places

and infrastructure). The top three levels (collaboration ecosystems, applications, and life) correspond

to “soft” strategies. This framework has the merits of being synthetic, easy to visualize, and suggests

that the ultimate goal of smart cities is not merely to connect hardware and infrastructure, but to create

collaborative environments where innovation and quality of life can thrive. All of these models are

indebted to Giffinger et al.'s (2007) seminal classification of smart city characteristics around six key

dimensions: quality of life (Smart Living), competitiveness (Smart Economy), social and human

capital (Smart People), public and social services and citizen participation (Smart Governance),

transport and communication infrastructure (Smart Mobility), and natural resources (Smart

Environment). For the purposes of this discussion, therefore, we propose to merge Hutchison's and

Giffinger's frameworks as a background to understand how smart cities may foster collaboration

ecosystems that may improve both the standards of living and the competitiveness of urban spaces

(Fig. 1). Urban strategist Boyd Cohen (2013) developed a “Smart City Wheel” that suggests how to

measure the six dimensions of Giffinger's model. At the risk of oversimplifying the problem, this

model has the merit of reducing the metrics of each dimension to three indicators only. It is a good

synthesis of an introductory discussion about smart cities limits and possibilities. However, it lacks the

structural perspective of Hutchinson's i-COA® framework to create a hierarchy of smart city elements.

Indeed, according to Hutchinson's model, every smart city project must start with the physical

infrastructure (Smart Environment and Smart Mobility). This is the basis for creating innovation

ecosystems based on human and social capital (Smart People and Smart Economy). Such de-

centralized initiatives require articulation and coordination by public entities or public-private

partnerships (Smart Governance). The raison d'être for these governance structures is to provide better

quality of life solutions to smart city citizens (Smart Living). Thus, by combining Giffinger's classic

categories and organizing them according to Hutchinson's pyramid, we suggest a visual diagram of

how to design, implement and measure smart city programs (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. An adaptation of Hutchison’s i-COA® framework highlighting Giffinger’s smart city elements

According to Dustdar et al. (2017), most definitions of smart cities are infrastructure-centric, focusing

on installation and subsequent management of connected devices and analytics of data. Table 1

corroborates this perception. As seen above, few definitions emphasize the three dimensions

simultaneously.

Table 1. We summarize a number of smart cities definitions from the literature, classifying its primary focus in

terms of the three components described above: physical infrastructure (PI), Quality of Life (QL), and

Innovation Ecosystems (IE)

Definition of Smart City

Authors

Focus

A city that monitors and integrates conditions of all of its critical infrastructure

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

Hall et al. (2000)

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

Giffinger et al.

(2007)

PI / IE / QL

The use of smart computing technologies to make the critical infrastructure

components and service of a city—which include city administration, education,

health care, public safety, real estate, transportation, and utilities—more

intelligent, interconnected, and efficient

Washburn et al.

(2010)

Instrumented, interconnected and intelligent. Instrumented refers to sources of

near-real-time real-world data from both physical and virtual sensors.

Interconnected means the integration of those data into an enterprise computing

platform and the communication of such information among the various city

services. Intelligent refers to the inclusion of complex analytics, modeling,

optimization, and visualization in the operational business processes to make

better operational decisions.

Harrison et al.

(2010)

Smart cities are those that are combining ICT and Web 2.0 technology with other

organizational, design and planning efforts to de-materialize and speed up

bureaucratic processes and help to identify new, innovative solutions to city

management complexity, in order to improve sustainability and “liveability”.

Toppeta (2010)

IE / QL

Systems of people interacting with and using flows of energy, materials, services

and financing to catalyse sustainable economic development, resilience, and high

quality of life

European

Commission

(2013)

PI / IE / QL

A coherent urban development strategy developed and managed by city

governments seeking to plan and align in the long term the management of the

various city’s infrastructural assets and municipal services with the sole objective

of proving the quality of life for the citizens.

Dustdar et al.

(2017)

PI / QL

Provide better services for citizens; provide a better life environment where smart

policies, practices and technology are put to the service of citizens; achieve their

sustainability and environmental goals in a more innovative way; Identify the need

for smart infrastructure; facilitate innovation and growth; and build a dynamic

and innovative economy ready for the challenges of tomorrow.

ISO (2018)

PI / IE / QL

The hybrid framework proposed here attempts to avoid this bias by emphasizing the role of

infrastructure in smart city projects simply as a means to achieving more collaborative innovation

ecosystems and ultimately leading to a higher quality of citizens' life. In the following session, we

conduct a literature review based on these three elements of the proposed hybrid model.

2. The physical infrastructure of smart cities

According to certain estimates (Suzuki, 2017), 180,000 people migrate to cities across the globe every

single day, which represents over 65 million new urban dwellers a year. The challenges created by this

massive urban migration in terms of housing, electricity, heating, and schooling (not to mention job

creation) are overwhelming. In order to develop intelligent solutions, a combination of smart networks

(Internet of Data, Internet of Things, Internet of Services and Internet of People) can be used to

minimize environmental impact while maximizing social well-being and promoting collaborative eco-

systems (Ijaz et al., 2016). The Internet of Data has been among us since the inception of the Arpanet

project in the 1960s. However, the advent of widespread broadband communication infrastructure in

offices and homes in the 21st century dramatically increased the velocity, volume, variety, veracity

and value of data transfers (commonly called Big Data networks). These massive data streams are

derived not just from humancreated content (blogs, social networks, video conferencing, etc.), but also

from machines exchanging data among themselves (Internet of Things). Coupled with sophisticated

statistical algorithms to gather, visualize and analyze this flow, Big Data has created opportunities to

learn in real-time about how to improve traffic, save energy, regulate public transit, reduce waste and

pollution and improve safety in large urban centers across the world (Kitchin, 2014; Lim et al., 2018).

This Internet of Data in smart cities is increasingly dominated by the growing Internet of Things

ecosystem. In the last two decades, there has been a dramatic acceleration of hardware performance at

lower costs (based on Moore's Law) coupled with drastic miniaturization of components, leading to

the ubiquity of smart objects. In 2003, there were an estimated 500 million connected devices

worldwide or 0.08 object per person. This proportion increased to 1.84 in 2010 (12.5 billion connected

devices to 6.8 billion humans) and reached 3.47 in 2015 (25 billion Internet of Things components to

7.2 billion humans). This ratio is expected to reach 6.58 by 2020 (Suzuki, 2017). The convergence of

Big Data, Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence promises to create better places (parks,

buildings, homes) by providing smarter infrastructure (transportation, energy, waste management).

These correspond to Giffinger's Smart Environment and Smart Mobility elements (Fig. 1). The

following paragraphs discuss each of these domains.

2.1. Smart Environment

Smart Environment initiatives involve the use of technology to improve crucial aspects of city living

such as waste disposal, food growth, pollution control, smart electric grids, housing quality, and

facility management. This session presents a few state-of-the-art examples of how the Internet of Data

and the Internet of Things can help reduce the ecological footprint of smart cities. According to Perera

et al. (2014), the widespread use of IoT sensors (such as Radio Frequency Identification chips,

proximity detectors, pressure sensors, optical sensors) can drastically change the way we manage the

smart city environment. City councils may optimize garbage collection, sorting and recycling by

deploying low-cost smart sensors in garbage cans, trucks and recycling plants that share real-time data

about the quantity and the quality of urban waste in each neighborhood. This intelligence may not only

facilitate decision making in terms of logistics and urban strategy but can also inform educational

campaigns to improve recycling behavior. In agriculture, sensors can monitor plant growth under

different conditions, pest control and soil conditions, allowing bio-scientists and microbiologists to

develop customized treatments to minimize the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers. Pollution control

is another major field of IoT application. Sensors can help detect and prevent wildfires, automatically

alert against the level of microparticles and other air pollutants, improve prediction, visualization and

simulation of city pollution. Wireless Sensor Networks can be deployed in buses, bus stations, metro

wagons and private vehicles to monitor emissions while also learning about how to make them more

energy efficient (Jamil et al., 2015). Concerning energy distribution opportunities, the so-called “smart

grid” architecture allows the deployment of systems that optimize the use of renewable energy sources

based on real-time statistics about usage. These grids are capable of self-healing (or at least self-

diagnosis) in severe weather conditions, reducing outages and improving the quality of service.

Thanks to connected solar panels, connected meters, virtual power plants and microgrids, consumers

can become net-positive energy providers to the grid (“prosumers”). This can be done by storing extra

capacity in connected battery packs that can redistribute energy in peak hours (Koutitas, 2018).

Finally, better infrastructure can be created through the development of smart homes, smart buildings,

and connected facility management initiatives (Al-Hader and Rodzi, 2009). In the consumer space,

Artificial Intelligence algorithms can learn about the habits of home dwellers and optimize heating

through connected thermostats; security can be increased through connected cameras, the ubiquity of

intelligent fridges can help individuals, supermarkets and food producers to better regulate their

stocks, possibly reducing food waste. Concerning business environments, advanced facility

management applications are being developed to monitor and improve electricity, communication,

water, sewer, gas, and air conditioning systems. These may rely on internal, private data monitoring

systems coupled with open data Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provided by government

agencies to create better facility management and production processes, increasing productivity and

reducing costs.

2.2. Smart Mobility

One of the key motivations of smart city projects is to improve the current state of congestion in most

urban areas. Solutions range from autonomous vehicles that reduce the need for car ownership to

deploying sensors in critical urban infrastructure such as roads, rails, subways, bridges, tunnels,

seaports and airports. These sensors can provide valuable data on how to fluidify traffic, reduce

accidents, improve public transport and make parking faster and easier. Out of 42 smart city projects

studied by Dameri and Ricciardi (2017), almost half (18) were focused on these types of solutions.

Long before self-driving cars become the norm, Vehicular Social Networks (VSNs) are emerging as

one of the main short-term smart mobility trends (Ning et al., 2017). VSNs (such as the community

around Google's Waze app) can integrate GPS data from thousands of real-time drivers and their

smartphones with anomaly detection mechanisms (both human and algorithmic). In a near future,

vehicle-tovehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication frameworks will complete this

ecosystem to enable not only more accurate traffic information but also better cooperative navigation

solutions, car sharing, theft control, safety warnings and cruise control. Mobility should not only

concern vehicles and infrastructure but above all quality of life of citizens. One of the less

technological yet essential ingredients of mobility in smart cities is “walkability” (Kumar and Dahiya,

2017). Cities like Paris and Nice are decreasing the number of car lanes in key transit corridors to

make way for pedestrians and bicycles. This effort to disincentivize motorized vehicles cannot be done

without the careful study of traffic data and how to compensate with alternative routes as well as

increased public transportation quality and availability. Barcelona, for instance, offers an augmented

reality service to facilitate commuter's decisions such as finding the closest bus stops, metro stations,

trams, and trains. The city is integrating data generated by different smart services into a unified urban

mobility platform in partnership with Cisco (Zygiaris, 2013). Furthermore, walkability initiatives can

be complemented by other ecological short-range mobility solutions such as electric bikes, scooters

and mini-scooters shared through a free-floating, pay-per-use business model.

3. Innovation ecosystems in smart cities

As previously mentioned, the infrastructure of smart cities can create a unique collaborative ecosystem

in which citizens, prosumers, industries, universities and research centers may develop innovative

products, services, and solutions. Contrary to traditional double-sided marketplaces in which only two

types of stakeholders participate (supply and demand), a smart city ecosystem involves a multitude of

actors engaged in public and private consumption, production, education, research, entertainment and

professional activities. This collaboration demands high levels of both human and social capital, as the

innovation process is based on knowledge and learning (Smart People). In places where these Triple

Helix dynamics is found (knowledge creation and knowledge application articulated by local

government), creativity and innovation lead to more competitive and attractive local environments

(Smart Economy). Both dimensions are discussed below.

3.1. Smart People

Smart cities can foster both human capital and social capital development (Toppeta, 2010). Human

capital can be defined as the skills and competencies embedded in an individual or a group, whereas

social capital is the quality and the number of links connecting social institutions. The interdependent

nature of these two concepts is essential for understanding how smart cities increase productivity and

innovation in local ecosystems. According to Goldin (2016), the concept of human capital can be

traced back to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The pioneering work of Robert Solow in the 1950s

demonstrated that the majority of productivity growth in society derived not as much from technology

(capital) as from human knowledge and creativity, which are the two essential components of

innovation. In smart cities, the presence of universities and other higher education institutions are

essential to developing human capital, with clear impacts on economic growth as a result. Indeed,

according to Shapiro (2006), growth in a metropolitan area's concentration of college-educated

residents is directly correlated with employment growth. The same is not true of high school educated

citizens, however; this result emphasizes the knowledge intensity required to increase employability.

As Florida (2014) warns, though, it is not sufficient to develop human capital, cities must retain and

attract talent by making living there fun and engaging. Pittsburgh, for instance, has excellent

universities but fails to create an innovative environment as dynamic as Boston's or San Francisco's,

partly because it has a less exciting city life for young, talented graduates. Open minded, tolerant

communities attract a diverse pool of creative workers, which are the basis for developing social

capital in innovation ecosystems. Social capital must be reinforced by carefully targeted public

policies. By attracting talent and investments and providing high standards of living in terms of

security, health and leisure infrastructure, cities become a natural environment for creative minds to

gather, share and learn. Indeed, individual talent would not have as much economic impact without the

institutional relations surrounding and binding them. Thus, according to Coleman (1988), whereas

physical capital is embedded in material resources and human capital is embodied in the skills and

knowledge acquired by an individual, social capital exists in the relationships of trust among persons

and institutions. He argues that social capital is necessary to create human capital and vice versa. They

are mutually reinforcing, as is exemplified in the case of “knowledge economy” initiatives discussed

below.

3.2. Smart Economy

Thanks to the hardware infrastructure, on the one hand, and the social and human capital abundancy,

on the other, smart cities can develop more competitive business environments. Thus, Smart

Environment, Mobility and People are the basis for the innovative business models of the Smart

Economy. Smart cities often create technology hubs to facilitate the sharing of knowledge in the forms

of research centers, start-up incubators, and accelerators, as well as innovation parks. According to the

Triple Helix perspective (Leydesdorff and Deakin, 2011), the physical proximity of talented

individuals, innovative companies and government agencies can lead to a knowledge economy

environment based on social networks of trust, sharing and learning. A notorious example of the

virtues of such a knowledge economy hub is The Research Triangle Park (RTP), implemented near the

city of Raleigh in the 1960s. The RTP is credited as having been the main source of territorial

economic growth in North Carolina in the last 60 years. According to Weddle (2009), before the RTP

this region was one of the poorest in the Southeast, mostly a backwater tobacco farmland. Today,

thanks largely to the successful attraction of companies like IBM, Cisco, Glaxo Smith Kline, and

BASF and the resulting virtuous relationships (hiring, cooperative research) with the Universities of

Duke, UNC and NCS, the region is one of the wealthiest, most creative hotspots for technology in the

US. Such a success has inspired several Smart Cities to create knowledge economy initiatives to

increase territorial attractiveness and thus create better quality jobs with all the positive externalities

that entail (Luger and Goldstein, 1991). Innovative cities and technology parks are natural magnets for

open innovation projects. Schaffers et al. (2011) argue that when advanced IT infrastructures are

developed locally by public-private partnerships, communities of lead users emerge both in companies

and university labs. They cite the example of Nice in France, where a “living lab” was created around

a green mobility project. This initiative involved the regional institution for air measurement quality,

the local research institute dealing with the Internet of Things solutions (INRIA), the Internet

Foundation for the New Generation, which facilitated workshops among local users, as well as a small

company which provided access to electric cars, environmental data, and sensors. Citizens could

participate in the project through the internet, developing Arduino-assembled kits to conduct

experiments and by building their own sensors. In this co-creation process, users become “prosumers”

and contribute directly to the development of the project. Such an initiative would not have been

possible without the social and human capital surrounding the Technopole of Sophia Antipolis near

Nice, where several of the participants were physically located. This kind of open innovation is

facilitated by the synergy and creativity that emerge from open collaboration in the knowledge

economy. The ICT infrastructure of smart cities can also facilitate the emergence of innovative, cloud-

based business models. Perera et al. (2014), for instance, mention the innovation possibilities created

by Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)

business models. These new services (often called XaaS for “Anything as a Service”) can use the

flexibility of cloud computing to create turn-key solutions to businesses and start-ups, reducing the

entry barriers to develop new ideas and test new solutions for citizen well-being. Sensing-as-a-Service

business models can, for example, use Open Data protocols from shared sensors infrastructure to

gather real-time information about traffic, weather conditions, pollution, and logistics, making them

available to companies or government agencies wishing to create smart services solutions. These

business solutions can be provided by regional, national or multinational partnerships, which

emphasizes the transboundary, hard plus soft nature of smart cities as previously discussed

(Angelidou, 2014).

4. Quality of life in smart cities

As seen in the cases of Sophia Antipolis (France) and the Research Triangle Park (USA) briefly

described above, the collaboration among knowledge workers (Smart People) to create an innovation

ecosystem (Smart Economy) requires a great deal of local articulation among stakeholders (Smart

Governance), often led by government agents or Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). The decentralized

nature of smart cities imposes effective coordination among hundreds of actors using an information

and communication system that allows stakeholders to be aware of each other's movements and to

facilitate active involvement and mutual support. In order to improve quality of life of a community

through better services in the domains of health, public entertainment, and social bonding, real or

virtual communities must be created and managed using state-of-the-art technology.

4.1. Smart Governance

According to the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities (EIP, 2013, p.

101), the role of Governance Entities is to “manage information flows among stakeholders,

collecting/aggregating/processing data related to value-added processes in smart cities”. GEs also may

certify data quality and integrity, enable financial mechanisms, coordinate stakeholders (including

citizens) throughout the value chains and generate both internal and external awareness about smart

city initiatives. Typical roles in such Governance Entities include promoting, executing, financing,

warrantying and certifying projects. Chourabi et al. (2012) also emphasize the role of these bodies in

assuring transparency, accountability, communication, and participation among all organizations

involved. “Smart” Governance presupposes the innovative use of ICT infrastructure to achieve those

goals, providing all stakeholders with a simplified, one-stop experience based on service application

integration (Tokoro, 2015). Dustdar et al. (2017) argue that such a solution should involve the

following tools: a) Data analytics and real-time process diagnosis: b) Activity coordination and social

orchestration of smart city initiatives; c) Citizen communication; d) Infrastructure management and e)

Services management; f) Incentives management. Far from a trivial integration effort, this

convergence could be essential to create a central dashboard for governance and intelligence.

Incentives management is, to these authors, an essential ingredient of smart city governance. Indeed,

based on evidence from the longstanding tradition of Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci,

2000), they argue that government bodies should build both intrinsic (valuedriven) motivation

schemes as well as extrinsic ones (external rewards to compensate for the lack of intrinsic motivation)

into their projects. Whereas intrinsic motivation (such as curiosity, altruism, competitiveness) is

stronger and longer-lasting, it is harder to manage. It is more adapted to the left side of our hybrid

model (live/play). Extrinsic motivation mechanisms (financial incentives, public sanctions) are more

controllable, but also more volatile. They are more adapted to the right side of our model (work,

learn).

4.2. Smart Living

The culmination of all the preceding layers is the well-being of citizens. The OECD (2017) defines

well-being as a result of local material conditions, quality of life, and sustainability. This final section

analyzes how Smart Environment, Mobility, People, Economy, and Governance may lead to Smart

Living in modern cities. According to the OECD Better-Life Initiative framework (2017), smart living

must include initiatives to improve health, education and social services and empower citizen

participation (e-Government projects). It must have positive environmental impacts, reduce

vulnerability and improve safety. Quality of life also should rely on better jobs, housing, and

infrastructure (material conditions) as much on the preservation and development of natural,

economic, human and social capitals. All of these elements can be positively influenced by the use of

information and communication technologies in smart cities. Indeed, we've seen how real-time

information coupled with sophisticated algorithms can improve the energy infrastructure, monitor

environmental threats and fluidify public transit (Smart Environment and Mobility); how it can help

create value through better collaboration and innovation tools for learning and working (Smart People

and Economy) and how all of these efforts can be coordinated through centralized Smart Governance

tools. Dameri and Ricciardi (2017) cite two examples of Smart Living solutions (out of 24 projects

identified in this category in their survey). In Spain, several cities have adopted a centralized digital

solution to deliver real-time information about beach quality, mobility, touristic infrastructures, and

public services. In the case of Rome, a platform was created to facilitate the relationship between

citizens and government agencies, supporting entrepreneurship, events management, city security, and

tourism. The other examples cited in this text complete the picture of how infrastructure and

innovation through better information systems can lead to a better quality of life in smart cities.

5. Overview of the special issue contributions

5.1. Descriptive statistics

Following an extensive blind peer-review process a total of thirtyone papers were accepted for

inclusion to the special issue, on the basis of established selection criteria: novelty and originality of

the discussed topics, methods, and/or approaches; overall consistency with the aims of the call for

papers; relevance both for the academic and practitioner debates. As editors of the special issue, we

would like to take this opportunity to thank all the reviewers involved in the process for their

constructive feedback during the multiple review rounds. Table 2 provides an overview of the

universities/research centers/companies, departments, countries, and number of co-authors for each

special issue paper.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of accepted contributions

Title

Universities,

Companies

Departments

Countries

#Co-

authors

#Universities/

Companies

#Dep

artme

nts

Business models for

developing smart cities. A

fuzzy set qualitative

comparative analysis of an

IoT platform

University of

Messina

Department of

Economics;

Department of

Mathematical

Sciences, Physical

Sciences, and Earth

Science

Centralized simulated

annealing for alleviating

vehicular congestion in

smart cities

University of

Sheffield

Department of

Automatic Control and

Systems Engineering

Southern

Technical

University

Technical Institute

Qurna

UAE

University

College of Information

Technology

University of

Leeds

Electronic and

Electrical Engineering

School

Reframing technologically

enhanced urban scenarios:

A design research model

towards human centered

smart cities

Harvard

University

Harvard Graduate

School of Design

USA

University of

Bergamo

Department of

Management,

Information and

Production

Engineering

The role of universities in

the knowledge

management of smart city

projects

Politecnico

di Bari

Department of

Mechanics,

Mathematics and

Management

Campus

“Bio-

Medico”

University of

Rome

Departmental Faculty

of Engineering

University of

Turin

Department of

Management

Ural Federal

University

Graduate School of

Economics and

Management

Link Campus

University

Management,

Economics and Local

Development Research

Center

PSB Paris

School of

Business

Department of

Management and

Strategy

Light the way for smart

cities: Lessons from Philips

Lighting

Eindhoven

University of

Technology

Innovation Technology

Entrepreneurship &

Marketing

Alliance for Internet of Things

Innovation & InnoAdds

Tilburg

University

Jheronimus Academy

of Data Science

Driving elements to make

cities smarter: Evidences

from European projects

Federal

University of

Rio Grande

do Sul

NITEC — Innovation

Research Center

Smart innovative cities:

The impact of Smart City

policies on urban

innovation

Politecnico

di Milano

Department of

Architecture,

Construction

Engineering and Built

Environment

Università

degli Studi di

Milano

Department of

Economics,

Management and

Quantitative Methods

Economic and policy

uncertainty in climate

change mitigation: The

London Smart City case

scenario

Radboud

University

Institute for

Management Research

Léonard de

Vinci Pôle

Universitaire

Research Center,

Finance Group

Participatory energy:

Research, imaginaries and

practices on people'

contribute to energy

systems in the smart city

Scuola

Superiore

Sant'Anna

Institute of

Management

Ghent

University

Center for Sustainable

Development – CDO

University of

Waikato

Faculty of Science and

Engineering

Understanding smart cities

as a glocal strategy: A

comparison between Italy

and China

University of

Genoa

Department of

Economics and

Business Studies

University of

Uninettuno

Department of

Economics

Jiangsu

University

School of Finance and

Economics

Understanding user

representations, a new

development path for

supporting Smart City

Université de

Lorraine

Laboratoire ERPI

policy: Evaluation of the

electric car use in Lorraine

Region

Excluding citizens from the

European smart city: The

discourse practices of

pursuing and granting

smartness

Erasmus

University

Rotterdam

Erasmus School of

History, Culture and

Communication;

Centre for BOLD

Cities and the

Department of Public

Administration and

Sociology; Rotterdam

Knowledge Lab of

Urban Big Data and

Erasmus Graduate

School of Social

Sciences and the

Humanities

A Multiple-Attribute

Decision Making-based

approach for smart city

rankings design

University of

Castilla-La

Mancha

School of Computing

Science; The Energy

Research and

Industrial Applications

Institute (INEI)

Heuristic for the

localization of new shops

based on business and

social criteria

La Salle -

Ramon Llull

University

Department of

Management

Universitat

Politècnica

de Catalunya

BarcelonaTe

ch,

ETSEIAT

Department of

Management

IESE

Business

School

Department of

Management

The relationship between

regional compactness and

regional innovation

capacity (RIC): Empirical

evidence from a national

study

University of

Texas at

Arlington

College of

Architecture, Planning

and Public Affairs

USA

Investigating ‘anywhere

working’ as a mechanism

for alleviating traffic

congestion in smart cities

Swinburne

University of

Technology

Department of

Business Technology

and Entrepreneurship

A cross-disciplinary path to

healthy and energy

efficient buildings

University of

Copenhagen

Department of

Anthropology

Danish

Technologica

l University

DTU Compute

Municipality

of Høje

Taastrup

Center of Technique

and Environment

Intermediaries for

knowledge transfer in

integrated energy planning

of urban districts

Norwegian

University of

Science and

Technology

Department of

Architecture and

Planning

Austrian

Institute of

Technology

Sustainable Buildings

and Cities

Combining co-citation

clustering and text-based

analysis to reveal the main

development paths of smart

cities

Edinburgh

Napier

University

The Business School;

School of Engineering

and the Built

Environment

Strategic principles for

smart city development: A

multiple case study

analysis of European best

practices

Edinburgh

Napier

University

The Business School;

School of Engineering

and the Built

Environment

Εnhancing social

networking in smart cities:

Privacy and security

borderlines

Aristotle

University of

Thessaloniki

Centre for Research &

Technology Hellas

(CERTH), Information

Technology Institute;

Department of

Informatics

SignalGeneri

X Ltd

TEI of

Thessaly

To the smart city and

beyond? Developing a

typology of smart urban

innovation

Nord

University

Faculty of Social

Sciences

Implementing citizen

centric technology in

developing smart cities: A

model for predicting the

acceptance of urban

technologies

UNSW

Sydney

Smart Cities Research

Cluster UNSW

Isfahan

University of

Art

Faculty of Architecture

and Urban Planning

Tarbiat

Modares

University

Faculty of Architecture

and Art

Towards the smart city 2.0:

Empirical evidence of

using smartness as a tool

for tackling social

challenges

Tohoku

University

Graduate School of

Environmental Studies

An exploration of smart

city approaches by

international ICT firms

Amsterdam

University of

Applied

Sciences

University of

Amsterdam Business

School

Navigating platform

urbanism

Vrije

Universiteit

Brussel

imec-SMIT

Measuring the extent to

which Londoners are

willing to pay for public art

in their city

MTArt

Agency

Sotheby’s

The Bartlett,

University

College

London

Centre for Advanced

Spatial Analysis

Business Model Innovation

for Urban Smartization

Parthenope

University

Department of

Management and

Quantitative Sciences

(DISAQ)

Department of

Business and

Economic Studies

(DISAE)

PSB Paris

School of

Business

Luiss

University

Department of

Business and

Management

Municipalities’

understanding of the Smart

City concept: an

exploratory analysis in

Belgium

HEC Liége

Smart City Institute;

Management School of

the University of Liége

Technical

University of

Wien

Department of Spatial

Planning

Identifying and supporting

exploratory and

exploitative models of

innovation in municipal

urban planning; Key

challenges from seven

Norwegian energy

ambitious neighborhood

pilots

Norwegian

University of

Science and

Technology

Department of

Architecture and

Planning

SINTEF

Building and

infrastructure

Towards a service-

dominant platform for

public value co-creation in

a smart city: Evidence from

two metropolitan cities in

China

University of

Chinese

Academy of

Sciences

Institutes of Science

and Development,

Chinese Academy of

Sciences;

We received contributions from twenty-one countries; approximately 45% of the researchers work in

institutions located in Italy, United Kingdom, and The Netherlands. A total number of twenty-nine

among scholars and practitioners wrote for this special issue, with an average of 3.4 authors per paper;

60% of the contributions have been co-authored by no more than three co-authors, whereas 7% by a

single author, and 14% by six authors. In terms of institutions and departments, two

universities/companies and two departments on average worked together to build up the study, with a

maximum of six. It is worthy of notice the level of interdisciplinarity in undertaking such an endeavor:

among the many disciplines, we highlight management, economics, mathematics, computer science,

art, engineering, innovation, architecture, design, sustainability, history, energy, and anthropology.

Under these respects, the spirit of the call for papers was successfully accomplished since its aim was

to stimulate interdisciplinary collaboration and build up a community to enact a constructive discourse

around Smart Cities.

5.2. Reviewing the content

The thirty-one papers comprising this special issue advance our understanding of the underlying

technological and societal challenges smart cities initiatives pose to academics, practitioners, and

policy makers. It is worth noting that this collection of papers is heterogeneous in terms of theoretical

approaches, empirical methodologies, and focus of the investigation, spanning a wide range of

conceptual approaches and research designs. In so doing, it exposes the reader to diverse ideas and

methods, thus having the potential to stimulate creative scholarly conversations on the topic (Table 3).

Table 3. Overview of the contributions in the light of our hybrid framework (Fig. 1)

Title

Focus

Business models for developing smart cities. A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of an IoT

platform

PI / IE / QL

Centralized simulated annealing for alleviating vehicular congestion in smart cities

Reframing technologically enhanced urban scenarios: A design research model towards human centered

smart cities

PI / IE / QL

The role of universities in the knowledge management of smart city projects

IE / QL

Light the way for smart cities: Lessons from Philips Lighting

IE / QL

Driving elements to make cities smarter: Evidences from European projects

PI / IE / QL

Smart innovative cities: The impact of Smart City policies on urban innovation

PI / IE / QL

Economic and policy uncertainty in climate change mitigation: The London Smart City case scenario

PI / QL

Participatory energy: Research, imaginaries and practices on people' contribute to energy systems in the

smart city

PI / IE

Understanding smart cities as a glocal strategy: A comparison between Italy and China

PI / IE / QL

Understanding user representations, a new development path for supporting Smart City policy: Evaluation

of the electric car use in Lorraine Region

PI / QL

Excluding citizens from the European smart city: The discourse practices of pursuing and granting

smartness

IE / QL

A Multiple-Attribute Decision Making-based approach for smart city rankings design

PI / IE / QL

Heuristic for the localization of new shops based on business and social criteria

IE / QL

The relationship between regional compactness and regional innovation capacity (RIC): Empirical

evidence from a national study

Investigating ‘anywhere working’ as a mechanism for alleviating traffic congestion in smart cities

PI / QL

A cross-disciplinary path to healthy and energy efficient buildings

PI / QL

Intermediaries for knowledge transfer in integrated energy planning of urban districts

PI / QL

Combining co-citation clustering and text-based analysis to reveal the main development paths of smart

cities

PI / IE / QL

Strategic principles for smart city development: A multiple case study analysis of European best practices

PI / IE / QL

Εnhancing social networking in smart cities: Privacy and security borderlines

IE / QL

To the smart city and beyond? Developing a typology of smart urban innovation

PI / IE / QL

Implementing citizen centric technology in developing smart cities: A model for predicting the acceptance

of urban technologies

PI / IE / QL

Towards the smart city 2.0: Empirical evidence of using smartness as a tool for tackling social challenges

PI / IE / QL

An exploration of smart city approaches by international ICT firms

IE / QL

Navigating platform urbanism

PI / QL

Measuring the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public art in their city

IE / QL

Business Model Innovation for Urban Smartization

Municipalities’ understanding of the Smart City concept: an exploratory analysis in Belgium

PI / IE / QL

Identifying and supporting exploratory and exploitative models of innovation in municipal urban planning;

Key challenges from seven Norwegian energy ambitious neighborhood pilots

PI / IE / QL

Towards a service-dominant platform for public value co-creation in a smart city: Evidence from two

metropolitan cities in China

PI / IE / QL

In detail, more than one-third of the sample (i.e. twelve papers) provides the reader with some

conceptualizations, approaches, and typologies to read and interpret the smart cities phenomenon

through more critical lenses. Andreani et al. (2018) argue about how to move the locus of inquiry from

a technocentric and universalist approach on smart cities – mainly predictable, overplanned, top-down,

efficient, and quantitative – towards a design-driven and human-centric approach – which is more

unintentional, temporary, democratic, creative, and qualitative. Drawing from research pursued within

the ‘Real Cities/ Bergamo 2035’ joint initiative between the University of Bergamo and the Graduate

School of Design at Harvard University, authors focused on mid-sized European cities; three scenarios

were investigated: the adaptive street environments, the responsive urban safety, and the dynamic

retail spaces. The proposed model is articulated into three interwoven components: a grounded vision,

addressing the ideation of alternative futures that stem from specific needs or local opportunities; an

embraced technology, elaborating on the role played by urban technologies in augmenting the inner

intelligence of places; and an urban co-evolution, fostering a mutually-constructive interaction

between the urban players (i.e. citizens, researchers and designers, and stakeholders) for collaborative

innovation. Dameri et al. (2018) conceptualize smart cities as a glocal strategy. A smart city is global

since it is a phenomenon spreading all over the world, with some shared features and

interdependencies: they attract investments, talents, and innovative firms; however, it is a local

phenomenon as each city shows unique characteristics and problems policy makers can only deal with

by means of specific solutions: it suffices to think about the geographical and territorial specificities,

the cultural milieu, the needs and traditions of the communities. By comparing Italian (Bologna,

Milan, Turin, Florence, and Genoa) and Chinese (Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Guangzhou, and

Chengdu) cities, authors develop a theoretical framework based on four dimensions: people (smart

citizens; smart city actors such as firms, universities, private bodies; people involvement), government

(political institutions; powers distribution; smart city governance processes; priorities), infrastructure

(better use of energy; renewal energy source; buildings efficiency; efficient services like transport),

and land (environmental and geographical aspects; cultural history and heritage; logistics). It results

that the Italian and Chinese smart city implementation path differ since the former exhibits a bottom-

up approach as a result of the following local drivers (existing infrastructures, lack of a national smart

city strategy, decentralized governance, lack of funding to support smart cities initiatives), whereas the

latter follow a top-down approach deriving from a national smart city strategy. Escolar et al. (2018)

review the existing ranking for smart cities highlighting their major weaknesses in the overlook of

technological criteria. To fill this gap, they advance a methodological approach for developing smart

cities rankings based on technological and smartness criteria; they do it by applying a multi-attribute

decision making-based approach (MADM). The smartness dimension authors propose considers

thirtyeight ICT indicators related to the main enabling technologies for smart cities realization: sensors

and actuators, networking, platforms and services deployed, applications, standardization level, and

metrics to determine their impact on the city. By testing their method on three case studies (Seoul,

Santander, and New York), authors highlight its strengths (i.e. coherence with the most commonly

accepted vision of the IoT and smart cities, set of new ICT and smartness indicators, and easy

extension with new indicators) and weaknesses (i.e. subjectivity of the MADM method, limited

number of cities involved in the ranking). Mora et al. (2018a) rely on two hybrid techniques to unveil

the main development paths of smart cities; precisely, they combine co-citation clustering and text-

based analysis to perform their bibliometric study (Appio et al., 2014, 2016; Glanzel and Thijs, 2011).

They show that research on smart cities is diverging into five development paths: experimental,

ubiquitous, corporate, European, and holistic. Importantly, four main dichotomies emerge which are

mainly rooted into the cognitive-epistemological structure of the smart city research and challenge the

scientific community: techno-led or holistic, top-down or bottom-up, double or triple/quadruple helix,

mono-dimensional or integrated. The ambiguity generated by these dichotomies challenges policy

makers in setting a proper smart cities development agenda. Moving from the need deal with these

dichotomies, Mora et al. (2018b) investigate the validity of the strategic principles for smart city

development by comparing four cities considered to be leading examples of European smart cities:

Amsterdam, Barcelona, Helsinki, Vienna. Through a best practice analysis, the authors identify six

strategic principles to support the decision-making process and speed up the effective deployment of

smart technologies in European urban environments: look beyond technology; move towards a

quadruple-helix collaborative model; combine top-down (government-led) and bottomup (community-

driven); build a strategic framework; boost the digital transformation by establishing a smart city

accelerator; adopt an integrated intervention logic. In reviewing what constitutes the smart in smart

cities, Nilssen (2018) concluded that the concept of smartness should be understood as a collection of

developmental features; smart cities initiatives have to be able to effectively connect the wide range of

existing activities, adopting a holistic approach. The latter should be based on a typology of smart

urban innovations based on new technological practices, products, and services; organizational

project-based levers internal to the municipal organization; public-private networks and triple helix

collaborative models; and a rhetoric dimension inspiring the vision of an innovative urbanism. She

discusses her typology in the light of the smart cities initiatives in the city of BodØ (Norway).

Sepasgozar et al. (2018) advance a new Urban Services Technology Acceptance Model (USTAM),

which is aimed at assisting governments and business to develop appropriate ‘urban service’

technologies for local contexts and emerging economies. Major emphasis is posed on the relevance of

local knowledge as a source of innovative potential for smart cities. Their model is able to assess to

what extent the behavior intention to use UST is influenced by factors such as service quality, self-

efficacy, a number of TAM factors (i.e. perceived security, relative advantages, perceived of use,

perceived usefulness, compatibility, reliability), as well as factors stemming from the social cognitive

theory (i.e. work facilitating, cost reduction, energy saving, and time saving). Trencher (2018) argues

about the need to move from a smart city 1.0 approach towards a smart city 2.0. A smart city 1.0

revolves around a centralized approach with exogenous development has at its focus the diffusion of

smart technologies for corporate and economic interests; the role of citizens is rather passive; the

objective of the technology and experimentations is to optimize infrastructures and services, serve the

demand side interests and spur new business opportunities, and address the universal technical

agendas (energy, transport, economy). On the contrary, a smart city 2.0 approach is focused on people,

governance, and policy; citizens have an active role as co-creators of innovations, problem solvers,

and planners; the objective of technology and experimentation is to mitigate or solve social problems,

enhance citizens' wellbeing and public services, and address specific endogenous problems and

citizen's needs. Smart city 2.0 is clearly a decentralized approach in which diverse actors are involved

and the development is endogenous to the system. Then, the author explains how the concept of Smart

City 2.0 works by looking at the case of a Japanese city – Aizuwakamatsu – where explicit attention to

tackle social issues and address citizens' needs is articulated and formalized in project documents.

Desdemoustier et al. (2018) investigate how – and to what extent – 113 Belgian municipalities

understand the concept of Smart Cities. Findings suggested the creation of a typology of

understandings comprising four dimensions: technological (a technology implementation), societal (a

human, sustainable and institutional positioning), comprehensive (an integration of technology,

human-centricity, sustainability, and institutional factors) and non-existent (an absence of

understanding). Interestingly, municipalities engaged in comprehensive understanding find setting up

smart city projects highly difficult; those with non-existent knowledge do not adhere to the

phenomenon. Nielsen et al. (2018) read the smart cities phenomenon through the lenses of the

ambidextrous organizations. Through a multiple cases analysis, they study seven pilot projects in

Norwegian municipalities, developers, and universities. They find that developing an ambidextrous

capability alongside leveraging upon a bottom-up capacity building could be the right way to adapt

recent technological advancements to emerging smart cities programs. Camboim et al. (2018) come up

with an integrated framework to make a city smarter on the basis of extant literature, interviews with

experts, and insights from four smart cities projects (Amsterdam, Barcelona, Lisbon, Vienna). Their

framework identified three steps: smart strategies, where governance takes the lead of the

transformation process from a traditional city into a smart city; smart projects, in which socio-

institutional, techno-economic and environmental and urban factors are the main drivers; and smart

performance inflected in terms of sustainable socioeconomic development. Finally, Yu et al. (2018)

argue about the possibility to adopt the concept of service dominant platform (SDP) to help the city

stakeholders to cocreate smart cities. By combining the foundational elements of the service-dominant

logic (SDL) with platform theory, they propose three dynamic conceptual pillars play a role: value

proposition, value in exchange, and value in use, consisting of ten sub-elements articulated on four

dimensions namely, openness, services innovation, governance, and resources. Findings from a

business-oriented platform in Guangzhou (i.e. WeChat) and a government-oriented platform in

Shanghai (i.e. Citizen Cloud) show that smart city initiatives subsume the multi-parties formulation of

a co-creation sustainable strategy. The remaining papers (i.e. nineteen) can be grouped into four

clusters labeled as follows: business models for smart cities (Abbate et al., 2018; Brock et al., 2018;

Schiavone et al., 2018; Van den Buuse and Kolk, 2018); applications to tackle specific smart cities

challenges (Amer et al., 2018; Grimaldi et al., 2018; Hopkins and McKay, 2018; Lex et al., 2018;

Moustaka et al., 2018; Tanguy and Kumar, 2018); actions and roles of stakeholders of the smart cities

triple/quadruple helix (Ardito et al., 2018; Corsini et al., 2018; Dupont et al., 2018; Engelbert et al.,

2018; Lindkvist et al., 2018; Van der Graaf and Ballon, 2018); policies for smart cities (Caragliu and

Del Bo, 2018; Contreras and Platania, 2018; Hamidi et al., 2018). Concerning the first cluster –

business models for smart cities – Abbate et al. (2018) explore the activities and strategic goals of

twentyone small and medium enterprises (SMEs) operating in eight different European countries that

took part to FrontierCities, one of the nine FIWARE (Future Internet-ware) Accelerators focused on

smart cities. The aim is understanding what type of business models they can adopt when exploiting

the technological potential of an IoT platform. Authors reveal that only key resources can be

considered as the core element in the customized products and service business model, while key

activities and key partners stand as complementary variable; then, when firms aim at developing smart

cities projects have to consider the cooperation with customer capabilities as the main key resources;

customers become an important part of the puzzle in order for firms to deploy proper business models.

By carrying out an in-depth case study at Philips Lighting, Brock et al. (2018) show what type of

business models are relevant for the smart city market. Philips is searching for new ways to create and

capture value within different smart city ecosystems; four of them – Amsterdam, Eindhoven,

Stratumseind, and Veghel – are instrumental to unveil the main business models: marbles business

model, in which there is no integration of value creation or value capture activities between the

different parties, and everything is developed inhouse and sold as a one-off sale; Tetris business

model, where value is created individually, while an extended set of revenue models are introduced

that build on each other and can be shared across the ecosystem; Jenga business model, characterized

by an extended value creation, where different ecosystem actors learn from each other, though with

limited revenue potential for the individual parties; finally, the Jigsaw Puzzle business model, in which

we have an extended value creation and value capture, by leveraging synergies within an ecosystem to

jointly create the most value for customers and the ecosystem. Schiavone et al. (2018) apply the

business model canvas to the smart cities literature. They identify the revenue stream, cost structure,

key resources, key activities, key partners, the value creation, customer relationships, market

segments, and channels identifying the basic building blocks of the smart city business model canvas.

Finally, Van den Buuse and Kolk (2018) investigate the strategic approaches three multinational

enterprises (MNEs) from the ICT industry (IBM, Cisco, Accenture) adopt as suppliers of smart city

technologies. Evidence from firm-specific programs like IBM's Smarter Cities, Cisco's

Smart+Connected Communities, and Accenture's Intelligent Cities, shows that both non-location-

bound firms specific advantages (e.g., building resources and capabilities in management from

heterogeneous urban contexts, building a position as international smart city technology supplier in a

potential growth market, exploring complementarities between existing resources and capabilities in

ICT and urban domains, among others) and location-bound firms specific advantages (e.g., building

relationships with city governments in prime cities for the spread of smart cities technologies, building

expert knowledge of specific urban system and infrastructures in a local context, gaining access to

local knowledge clusters and urban stakeholders in a local context) are relevant components of the

three MNEs' business models. In the second cluster – applications to tackle specific smart cities

challenges – Amer et al. (2018) introduce a new method in order to alleviate vehicular traffic

congestion in smart cities. This method is a centralized dynamic multi-objective optimization

algorithm based on vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs); it integrates a centralized simulated

annealing (CSA) algorithm with the VIKOR method as a cost function. The aim of the CSA-VIKOR

method is to provide the drivers with the optimal paths according to multiple criteria in order to meet

the diverse navigation requirements of the drivers. The optimization algorithms, tested into the city

centers of Turin and Birmingham, results in journeys improvements concerning the minimum travel

time, the minimum travel distance, the minimum fuel consumption, the minimum amount of

emissions, or a combination of the four. Still on traffic congestion, this time in Melbourne, Hopkins

and McKay (2018) explore the role of environmental factors (climate change, global warming,

greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric issues), economic factors (service economy, information-based

work activities, decoupling work task from place, skill, and performance-based work), technological

factors (widespread access to Internet, dematerialization, employee flexibility, bring-your-own-device

practices, distributed teams) on the ‘anywhere working’ practices (worker attitudes towards adoption,

and current commuter behavior). In turn, they also assess the benefits and constraints of the ‘anywhere

working.’ The heuristic proposed by Grimaldi et al. (2018) deals with the desertification of urban

areas due to the massive close of local shops in contexts hit by the financial crisis. Their heuristic

entails business and social criteria and results coming from the computational experiment run in the

Sant Andreu district (Barcelona) show that an effective smart city policy faces urban degeneration by

decreasing the risks of uniformity, monobusiness activity, and gentrification of the neighborhood.

Another contribution comes from a cross-disciplinary collaboration framed within four sub-themes:

local energy systems, indoor climate in buildings, social and organizational conditions, and political

circumstances (Lex et al., 2018). Authors propose a digital platform to deal with the indoor climate in

public buildings in Copenhagen and argue about the importance to enacting micro-social cross-

boundary collaborations among all the involved stakeholders as a way to create concrete scientific and

practical insights on smart city development initiatives. By analyzing the case of Trikala (Greece),

Moustaka et al. (2018) pay attention to the publicly available data generated by people and shared on

online social networks (OSN), providing measures to improve their privacy and security, smoothening

the risks, and boost community's engagement in smart cities. OSN is conceptualized as sensors of

urban dynamics with unquestionable advantages but not negligible threats and vulnerabilities. The

interactions between smart people/smart living and privacy/security concerns are discussed and a

multi-stage behavioral pattern model is advanced. Participation on OSN, education, and training for

secure behavior, tools and software for privacy and security protection, data privacy legislative

framework lead to better key performance indicators in smart cities. Finally, Tanguy and Kumar

(2018) give to art projects the role extant literature on smart cities neglected. They explore the impact

of public art projects on the life and demand of citizens in London. By collecting data from two public

art initiatives organized by the MTArt Agency they show that Londoners are willing to pay for more

public art in local areas; furthermore, these projects call for a transversal involvement of art experts,

urban planners, economists, sociologists, political scientists, and citizens. The third cluster discusses

the actions and roles of stakeholders of the smart cities triple/quadruple helix. Ardito et al. (2018)

argue that knowledge-based urban development (KBUD) frameworks are increasingly permeating the

smart cities debate. They outline a 2 × 2 matrix on the basis of two dimensions: knowledge

management (KM) issues, where project partners may address KM governance in different ways and

KM processes can change according to the knowledge domain; knowledge management domains, by

considering whether knowledge stems from similar or distant fields. A first quadrant captures KM

governance when knowledge of project partners is used; the second quadrant analyzes KM governance

when external knowledge is used; the third quadrant focuses on KM processes in cases of knowledge

coming from project partners; a final quadrant presents cases of KM processes when external

knowledge is used. By selecting cases of smart cities initiatives from Italian, English, American,

Spanish, and Belgian cities, they investigate the role of universities (i.e. knowledge intermediary,

provider, evaluator, gatekeeper in the triple or quadruple helix configurations). Engelbert et al. (2018)

focus their study on the role of citizens in the smart cities discourse. Moving from a characterization of

a smart city as an assemblage of ‘peripheral’ smart city network practices and ‘central’ smart city

project practices, they critically examine the political-economic ambitions of those cities able to grant

the recognition ‘smart’ (i.e. European Research and Innovation Schemes) and those needing to

‘pursue’ it (i.e. post-crisis municipalities). Through such a differentiation, they figure out why the

majority of the smart cities initiatives tend to exclude the needs and interests of citizens. Still focusing

on the role of citizens, Dupont et al. (2018) investigate the user representations French citizens in the

Lorrain Region have when they confront with specific technologies like electric cars. Four

complementary aspects characterize the social representation: the possibility of action of the subject on

the system, the stimuli caused by the system, how the user will identify with the system, as well as the

overall attraction. Authors were also able to qualify the pragmatic and hedonic attributes of the

relationship between potential users and the image and attractiveness of the electric cars. Corsini et al.

(2018) still focus on the role of citizens in contributing to the energy systems in a smart city initiative.

Through a bibliometric analysis and visual representation (Appio et al., 2017, 2017; Van Eck and

Waltman, 2010) of an overall set of 74,932 academic papers, they show that city dwellers are rarely at

the core of energy transition agendas. Instead, research overemphasizes the role of technological

advancements for energy production and consumption. Authors argue about those socio-technical

imaginaries that put citizens at the core of a participatory smart city revolution. Still concerning energy

planning practices in urban districts, Lindkvist et al. (2018) examine the role of intermediaries for

knowledge transfer in early, progressed, and implemented project stages. Findings from ongoing

projects based in Norway, Spain, France, Sweden, and Austria, show that intermediaries are absent in

the fuzzy front end of the project while showing up later as problem solvers. Authors call for more

integrated planning practices in which intermediaries become part of the helix of stakeholders since

the very early stages of the process. Finally, Van der Graaf and Ballon (2018) investigate the role of a

social traffic and navigation application, Waze, operationalizing the concept of platform urbanism in

which citizens, private and public organizations interact. By exploring the manifestations of dynamics

in mobility practices occurring between commerce and community in the city, they found out a

(complex and new) socio-spatial construct is emerging. Important questions arise concerning the role

of urban and transportation management and planning in the public space of the city. In the fourth

cluster, which emphasizes the policies for smart cities, Contreras and Platania (2018) investigate the

role of policies in climate change in the London Environment Strategy (LES) within the London smart

city initiative. By using a zero mean-reverting model for greenhouse gas emissions, the quantitatively

analyze the consistency of the LSE framework with the 2020 Zero Carbon objectives. Different policy

scenarios are considered by focusing on the domestic, industrial and commercial, and transport

sectors. Their simulation study shows that considering the 2000–2014 greenhouse emission trend, the

industrial and commercial sector and the domestic sector present levels far from the 2050 zero level

objective; only the transport sector improves the historical trend. This is the result of the smart

mobility and smart environment policies proposed within the LSE framework. Caragliu and Del Bo

(2018) assess the impact of smart cities policies on urban innovation. They collect data from 309

European metropolitan areas on the basis of six axes: human capital, social capital, transport

infrastructure, ICT infrastructure, natural resources, and e-government. Results from the propensity

score matching estimates show that smart city policies do have a non-negligible positive impact on

urban innovation measured through patenting activity, especially in high-tech classes. They also show

that these policies stimulate innovation, which in turn increases the city's stock of knowledge. Finally,

Hamidi et al. (2018) explore the link between regional compactness and the regional innovation

capacity (RIC). Compact urban forms are characterized by walkability, higher street connectivity, and

greater accessibility to urban amenities, jobs-housing balance, and mixed land use in addition to

density. They measure regional compactness by borrowing the recently released Metropolitan

Compactness Index (MIC), which includes 21 built environmental features and captures several

dimensions of sprawl. Their study finds that all the three RIC indicators – the average number of

patents, firm innovations, and number of innovative small firms – are positively associated with

regional compactness. Their findings have an impact on the physical and social landscapes of cites,

call for investments in increasing accessibility and improving public transit as factors contributing to

agglomeration economies and innovation production.

6. Towards a research agenda

Despite the value of the thirty-one articles presented, this special issue leaves space for scientists,

practitioners and policy makers to further explore the subject of smart cities. One research avenue

could deal with the risks and benefits of implementing smart cities initiatives. In fact, in this paper we

have discussed mostly the potential benefits of smart cities. However, one must keep in mind the

dangers and threats posed by this explosion in data and algorithms. Among the risks cited in the

literature are ideological manipulation (Morozov and Bria, 2018), the corporatization of city

governance (Paroutis et al., 2014; Söderström et al., 2014), hackable networks vulnerable to cyber-

attacks and a tendency to normalize a surveillance state (Bauman and Lyon, 2013; Ellul, 2012;

Kitchin, 2014). Surveillance come from the need of security and the means to reach it are the new

available techniques and technologies (Bauman and Lyon, 2013); and if we consider that we moved

from an era in which threats came from outside the city to a world in which threats come from within

the city, the risk to build a Panopticon society (Lyon, 2006) is seducing. According to Lehr (2018), a

city cannot be called ‘smart’ unless it has solved the complex issues associated with privacy in a world

of ubiquitous data, social interactions, and artificial intelligence. Perera et al. (2014) list a series of

challenges facing smart cities in the domains of technology (lack of integration across government

systems, interoperability, standardization, availability and compatibility of software, systems and

applications); security and privacy (threats from hackers and intruders, threats from viruses, worms

and trojans; breach of privacy, theft of personal data) and socio-cultural barriers (trust, social

acceptance, resistance to change, usability, digital illiteracy). These barriers cannot be overcome

simply with technological solutions. They must be followed by legal frameworks such as Europe's

General Data Protection Regulation (EU, 2016), active policies for developing human and social

capitals through training programs, civic awareness campaigns and curriculum reforms in schools and

universities. They have to articulate and engage all stakeholders in the public and private sectors,

develop standards and protocols, facilitate bottom-up as well as propose top-down guidelines.

Therefore, Smart Governance (e.g., Ruhlandt, 2018) emerges probably as the key factor mediating the

other dimensions of the model in order to assure that projects remain within ethical boundaries, that

stakeholders constantly communicate and learn from each other and that the resulting products and

services ultimately have a positive impact on the well-being of smart city dwellers. International

standards for smart cities (such as ISO 37122) could provide basic guidelines to all stakeholders

involved. Future studies could focus on examining the ways actors, groups, organizations and

stakeholders develop strategies (Paroutis et al., 2014) to deal with the risks and benefits associated

with smart cities. The contradictory but interrelated nature of smart city objectives means that studying

them could benefit from recent advancements found in ambidexterity and paradox studies (Knight and

Paroutis, 2017; Lewis, 2000; Papachroni et al., 2016; Smith, 2014), for example by studying the

rhetorical practices groups and organizations develop over time to deal with the tensions associated

with smart city initiatives (Bednarek et al., 2017). Another area of research could conceptualize and

study smart cities as business ecosystems and platforms (Jacobides et al., 2018; Kretschmer and

Claussen, 2016) where multiple actors and organizations act and interact over time to implement

innovative solutions (Kumaraswamy et al., 2018). For such future studies, the hybrid model we

proposed earlier (see Fig. 1) can assist scholars and policy makers visualize and appreciate the

interdependent nature of physical infrastructure, innovation ecosystems and quality of life in smart

cities. Overall, understanding the processes and practices related with the social challenges and impact

of smart cities represents a fundamental area for future research (Burgelman et al., 2018). Such

research endeavors will be impactful in providing stakeholders, policy makers and social actors with

the means, processes and technological solutions to measure and then improve the social impact of

smart city initiatives. Another risk class to be considered deals with the transformation of the urban

landscape. Contributions and intellectual leaps are necessary to introduce and contrast utopian and

dystopian representations of the intelligent city in the XXII century. Essays like the one written by

Wells in 1897 can be of inspiration to see how – and to what extent – urban transformations which

tend to pose too much emphasis on the technocracy show huge social inequalities, overcrowded

skyscrapers in few megalopolis crossed by congested air traffic, with countryside completely

abandoned, few big corporations managing the world economy, and citizens living and working under

an uncontrollable mental hypnosis. Driving the debate outwards to present the emergence of Orwellian

scenarios can help policy makers to focus their actions on more utopian models of intelligent cities.

Relatedly, and asking how we should live in the city, Sennett (2012, 2018) looks at the city as an

‘open city’ that embeds complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty. By distinguishing between two

aspects of the city, namely the ville, which refers to the built environment, and the cité, which refers to

the modes of life and place attachments to which urbanity leads, Richard Sennett explains why long-

term and large-scale urban planning is difficult. This frustration is rooted into the huge divide between

the ville and the cité, which traces back to the nineteenth century when Baron Hausmann's boulevards,

Ildefons Cerdà's Eixample in Barcelona, and Frederick Olmsted's Central Park were mainly aimed at

refashioning neglecting the way people behave in the city. This divorce went on in the twentieth

century with the Chicago School, Le Corbusier, Jacobs, and Mumford's visions. For Sennett, the core

ethical problem in any city is dealing with others; moving from this ethical issue, and with the aim to

facilitate a city that is porous, incomplete and multiple, he suggests ways to remake the cité by

focusing on urban design, emphasizing the presence of permeable open spaces and variegated type-

forms, creating co-development practices by experts and public. Shape and size of the city matter

(Batty, 2014; West, 2017). Current statistics1 show that by 2030 the world's population is projected to

be 8.5 billion, increasing to 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100; moreover, if 1950 only 30%

of the population lived in cities, in 2050 this percentage is expected to grow to 70% (already nowadays

more than half of the world lives in cities). New cities will necessarily emerge and become centers of

the new civilizations, life, and knowledge for centuries. These trends will challenge cites' services and

infrastructures in terms of scalability, environmental impact, security as they are supposed to adapt in

order to support this population growth. New research can be carried out by conceptualizing cities as

complex adaptive systems (West, 2017); but differently from companies and human beings, they

(almost) never die and are remarkably resilient; their urban metabolism – which is the sum total of the

technical and socio-economic processes that occur in cities, resulting in growth, production of energy

and elimination of waste (Kennedy et al., 2007, 2011) – is what needs to be investigated since it

provides with the basis to develop laws and indicators aimed to disentangle the dynamics of the visible

city (material and tangible components like roads, buildings, etc.) and the invisible city (immaterial

and intangible components like social networks and information). Central to this debate become the

suburbs-city centers' dynamics. If it is true that the majority of people will live in cities, it seems (from

current trends) that many of them populate the suburbs. Smart cities can be the way to rethink the role

of suburbs as a bridge to connect the city with the others and become the center of interconnections

with new communities. This can give a new role to small cities, rural areas and villages in that they

can potentially benefit from the Internet revolution and repopulate: in fact, smart working practices

take place to rethink one's lifestyle and promote factors such as sociability and well-being, which are

increasingly difficult to maintain in large cities (or megalopolises). Jean-Jacques Rousseau had already

thought of this when he stressed the need for people to distance from the cities and return to the

villages.

7. Conclusions

In this introduction to the special issue of the Technological Forecasting and Social Change

“Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation Ecosystems, Technological Advancements, and Societal

Challenges” we discussed the broader theme of Smart Cities and attempted to reframe associated

topics and practices in prior work. Next, we introduced the papers in the special issue and linked them

to the proposed hybrid framework. Finally, we offered a research agenda which points out the urgent

need to develop a science of smart cities, in which criticalities and tensions (Almirall et al., 2016),

contrasting views (Greenfield, 2013), strategic planning and wise urban policies (Sennett, 2018),

through a balanced adoption of qualitative and quantitative approaches, coexist and further stimulate a

constructive and critical debate. Thus, we hope this special issue will inspire future work on the nature

and challenges of current and future smart cities initiatives.

References

Abbate, T., Cesaroni, F., Cinici, M.C., Villari, M., 2018. Business models for developing smart cities.

A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of an IoT platform. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.031 (in press).

Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., Airaksinen, M., 2017. What are the differences between

sustainable and smart cities? Cities 60 (A), 234–245.

Albino, V., Berardi, U., Dangelico, R.M., 2015. Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance,

and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 22 (1), 1–19.

Al-Hader, M., Rodzi, A., 2009. The smart city infrastructure development & monitoring. Theoretical

Empirica. 2(11), 87–94.

Almirall, E., Wareham, J., Ratti, C., Conesa, P., Bria, F., Gaviria, A., Edmondson, A., 2016. Smart

cities at the crossroads: new tensions in city transformation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 59, 141–152.

Amer, H., Al-Kashoash, H., Hawes, M., Chaqfeh, M., Kemp, A., Mihaylova, L., 2018. Centralized

simulated annealing for alleviating vehicular congestion in smart cities. Technol. Forecast. Soc.

Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.013 (in press).

Andreani, S., Kalchschmidt, M., Pinto, R., Sayegh, A., 2018. Reframing technologically enhanced

urban scenarios: a design research model towards human centered smart cities. Technol. Forecast. Soc.

Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.028 (in press).

Angelidou, M., 2014. Smart city policies: a spatial approach. Cities 41 (S1), S3–S11.

Angelidou, M., 2015. Smart cities: a conjuncture of four forces. Cities 47, 95–106.

Appio, F.P., Cesaroni, F., Di Minin, A., 2014. Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual

property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis. Scientometrics 101,

623–661.

Appio, F.P., Martini, A., Massa, S., Testa, S., 2016. Unveiling the intellectual origins of Social Media-

based innovation: insights from a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics 108, 355–388.

Appio, F.P., Martini, A., Massa, S., Testa, S., 2017. Collaborative network of firms: antecedents and

state-of-the-art properties. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55, 211–2134.

Appio, F.P., Martini, A., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Neirotti, P., Van Looy, B., 2017. Search mechanisms

and innovation: an analysis across multiple perspectives. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 120, 103–

116.

Ardito, L., Ferraris, A., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Bresciani, S., Del Giudice, M., 2018. The role of

universities in the knowledge Management of Smart City Projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.030 (in press).

Batty, M., 2014. The New Science of Cities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bauman, Z., Lyon, D., 2013. Liquid surveillance. A conversation. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S., Sillince, J., 2017. Transcendence through rhetorical practices: responding

to paradox in the science sector. Organ. Stud. 38 (1), 77–101.

Brock, K., Den Ouden, E., van der Klauw, K., Podoynitsyna, K., Langerak, F., 2018. Light the way for

smart cities: lessons from Philips Lighting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.021 (in press).

Burgelman, R.A., Floyd, S., Laamanen, T., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., Whittington, R., 2018. Strategy

processes and practices: dialogues and intersections. Strateg. Manag. J. 39 (3), 531–558.

Camboim, G.F., Zawislak, P.A., Pufal, N., 2018. Driving elements to make cities smarter: evidences

from European projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.014

(in press).

Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., 2018. Smart innovative cities: the impact of Smart City policies on urban

innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.022 (in press).

Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J.R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T.A., Scholl, H.J.,

2012. Understanding smart city initiatives: an integrative framework. In: The 45th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, 4–7 January Maui, HI, pp. 2289–2297.

Cohen, B., 2013. The smart city wheel. Available at: https://www.smart-circle.org/

smartcity/blog/boyd-cohen-the-smart-city-wheel/.

Coleman, J.S., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94, S95–S120.

Contreras, G., Platania, F., 2018. Economic and policy uncertainty in climate change mitigation: the

London Smart City case scenario. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.018 (in press).

Corsini, F., Certomà, C., Dyer, M., Frey, M., 2018. Participatory energy: research, imaginaries and

practices on people' contribute to energy systems in the smart city. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.028 (in press).

Dameri, R., Benevolo, C., Veglianti, E., Li, Y., 2018. Understanding smart cities as a glocal strategy: a

comparison between Italy and China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.025 (in press).

Dameri, R.P., Ricciardi, F., 2017. Leveraging smart city projects for benefitting citizens: the role of

ICTs. In: Rassia, S., Pardalos, P. (Eds.), Smart City Networks. Springer Optimization and Its

Applications, vol. 125 Springer, Cham.

Desdemoustier, J., Crutzen, N., Giffinger, R., 2018. Municipalities' understanding of the Smart City

concept: an exploratory analysis in Belgium. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.029 (in press).

Dupont, L., Hubert, J., Guidat, C., Camargo, M., 2018. Understanding user representations, a new

development path for supporting Smart City policy: evaluation of the electric car use in Lorraine

Region. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.027 (in press).

Dustdar, S., Nastić, S., Šćekić, O., 2017. Smart Cities: The Internet of Things, People and Systems.

Springer. Ellul, J., 2012. Le système technician. Cherche midi.

Engelbert, J., van Zoonen, L., Hirzalla, F., 2018. Excluding citizens from the European smart city: the

discourse practices of pursuing and granting smartness. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.020 (in press).

Escolar, S., Villanueva, F.J., Santofimia, M., Alises, D.V., del Toro Garcia, X., Lopez, J.C., 2018. A

multiple-attribute decision making-based approach for Smart City rankings design. Technol. Forecast.

Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.024 (in press).

European Innovation Partnership (EIP), 2013. Smart cities and communities: operational

implementation plan. In: Available at, https://www.smartcities.at/assets/Uploads/ operational-

implementation-plan-oip-v2-en.pdf.

European Union, 2016. General Data Protection Regulation. Available at: https://eur-lex.

europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.

Florida, R., 2014. The Rise of the Creative Class: Revisited, Revised and Expanded. Basic Books.

Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanović, N., Meijers, E., 2007. Smart

Cities: Ranking of European medium-sized Cities. Centre of Regional Science (SRF), Vienna

University of Technology, Vienna, Austria Available at. http://www. smart-

cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf.

Glanzel, W., Thijs, B., 2011. Using ‘core documents’ for the representation of clusters and topics.

Scientometrics 88, 297–309.

Goldin, C., 2016. Human capital. In: Diebolt, C., Haupert, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Cliometrics.

Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 55–86.

Greenfield, A., 2013. Against the Smart City: A Pamphlet. Do Projects, New York, NY.

Grimaldi, D., Fernandez, V., 2015. The alignment of University curricula with the building of a smart

city: a case study from Barcelona. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 123, 298–306.

Grimaldi, D., Fernandez, V., Carrasco, C., 2018. Heuristic for the localization of new shops based on

business and social criteria. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.011 (in press).

Hall, R.E., 2000. The vision of a smart city. In: The 2nd International Life Extension Technology

Workshop, 28 September, Paris, France.

Hamidi, S., Zandiatashbar, A., Bonakdar, A., 2018. The relationship between regional compactness

and regional innovation capacity (RIC): empirical evidence from a national study. Technol. Forecast.

Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2018.07.026 (in press).

Harrison, C., Eckman, B., Hamilton, R., Hartswick, P., Kalagnanam, J., Paraszczak, J., Williams, P.,

2010. Foundations for smarter cities. IBM J. Res. Dev. 54 (4), 1–16.

Hopkins, J., McKay, J., 2018. Investigating ‘anywhere working’ as a mechanism for alleviating traffic

congestion in smart cities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.032 (in press).

Hutchison, W., Bedford, N., Bedford, S., 2011. Ukraine's global strategy in the post-crisis economy:

developing an intelligent nation to achieve a competitive advantage. Innov. Market. 7, 46–53.

Ijaz, S., Shah, M.A., Khan, A., Ahmed, M., 2016. Smart cities: a survey on security concerns. Int. J.

Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 7 (2), 612–625. International Standards Organization (ISO), 2018. ISO

37122 – sustainable development in communities – indicators for Smart Cities. Available at:

https://www.iso.org/obp/ ui/#iso:std:iso:37122:dis:ed-1:v1:en.

Jacobides, M.G., Cennamo, C., Gawer, A., 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strateg. Manag. J.

39, 2255–2276.

Jamil, M.S., Jamil, M.A., Mazhar, A., Ikram, A., Ahmed, A., Munawar, U., 2015. Smart environment

monitoring system by employing wireless sensor networks on vehicles for pollution free smart cities.

Procedia Eng. 107, 480–484.

Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., Engel-Yan, J., 2007. The changing metabolism of cities. J. Ind. Ecol. 11,

43–59.

Kennedy, C., Pincetl, S., Bunje, P., 2011. The study of urban metabolism and its applications to urban

planning and design. Environ. Pollut. 159, 1965–1973.

Kitchin, R., 2014. The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal 79 (1), 1–14.

Knight, E., Paroutis, S., 2017. Becoming salient: the TMT leader's role in shaping the interpretive

context of paradoxical tensions. Organ. Stud. 38 (3–4), 403–432.

Koutitas, G., 2018. The smart grid: anchor of the Smart City. In: McClellan, S., Jimenez, J., Koutitas,

G. (Eds.), Smart Cities. Springer, Cham.

Kraus, S., Richter, C., Papagiannidis, S., Durst, S., 2015. Innovating and exploiting entrepreneurial

opportunities in smart cities: evidence from Germany. Creat. Innov. Manag. 24 (4), 601–616.

Kretschmer, T., Claussen, J., 2016. Generational transitions in platform markets—the role of

backward compatibility. Strategy Sci. 1 (2), 90–104.

Kumar, V.T.M., Dahiya, B., 2017. Smart economy in smart cities. In: Kumar, V.T.M. (Ed.), Smart

Economy in Smart Cities. Springer, Singapore, pp. 3–76.

Kumaraswamy, A., Garud, R., Ansari, S., 2018. Perspectives on disruptive innovations. J. Manag.

Stud. 55 (7), 1025–1042.

Lee, J.H., Hancock, M.G., Hu, M.-C., 2014. Towards an effective framework for building smart cities:

lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 89 (1), 80–99.

Lehr, T., 2018. Smart cities: vision on-the-ground. In: McClellan, S., Jimenez, J., Koutitas, G. (Eds.),

Smart Cities. Springer, Cham.

Lewis, M.W., 2000. Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25,

760–776.

Lex, S., Cali, D., Rasmussen, M.K., Bacher, P., Bachalarz, M., Madsen, H., 2018. A crossdisciplinary

path to healthy and energy efficient buildings. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.023 (in press).

Leydesdorff, L., Deakin, M., 2011. The triple-helix model of smart cities: a neo-evolutionary

perspective. J. Urban Technol. 18 (2), 53–63.

Lim, C., Kim, K.-J., Maglio, P.P., 2018. Smart cities with big data: reference models, challenges, and

considerations. Cities 82, 86–99.

Lindkvist, C., Nielsen, B.F., Hans-Martin, N., Juhasw-Nagy, E., Lobaccaro, G., Wyckmans, A., 2018.

Intermediaries for knowledge transfer in integrated energy planning of urban districts. Technol.

Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2018.07.020 (in press).

Luger, M.I., Goldstein, H.A., 1991. Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional

Economic Development. University of North Carolina Press.

Lyon, D., 2006. Theorising Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. (Willand, Cullompton).

Marsal-Llacuna, M.L., Colomer-Llinàs, J., Meléndez-Frigola, J., 2015. Lessons in urban monitoring

taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the smart cities initiative. Technol. Forecast.

Soc. Chang. 90 (B), 611–622.

Mora, L., Deakin, M., Reid, A., 2018a. Combining co-citation clustering and text-based analysis to

reveal the main development paths of smart cities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.019 (in press).

Mora, L., Deakin, M., Reid, A., 2018b. Strategic principles for Smart City development: a multiple

case study analysis of European best practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.035 (in press).

Morozov, E., Bria, F., 2018. Rethinking the Smart City: Democratizing Urban Technology. Rosa

Luxemburg Stiftung, New York, NY Available at: http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/ wp-

content/files_mf/morozovandbria_eng_final55.pdf.

Moustaka, V., Theodosious, Z., Vakali, A., Kounoudes, A., Anthopoulos, L., 2018. Enhancing social

networking in smart cities: privacy and security borderlines. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.026 (in press).

Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A.C., Mangano, G., Scorrano, F., 2014. Current trends in smart

city initiatives: some stylized facts. Cities 38, 25–36.

Nielsen, B.F., Lindkvist, C., Baer, D., 2018. Identifying and supporting exploratory and exploitative

models of innovation in municipal urban planning; key challenges from seven Norwegian energy

ambitious neighborhood pilots. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.007 (in press).

Nilssen, M., 2018. To the smart city and beyond? Developing a typology of smart urban innovation.

Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018. 07.060 (in press).

Ning, Z., Xia, F., Ullah, N., Kong, X., Hu, X., 2017. Vehicular social networks: enabling smart

mobility. IEEE Commun. Mag. 55 (5), 16–55.

OECD, 2017. Better Life Initiative: Measuring Well-being. Éditions OCDE, Paris Available at:

https://www.oecd.org/sdd/OECD-Better-Life-Initiative.pdf.

Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., Paroutis, S., 2016. In pursuit of ambidexterity: managerial reactions to

innovation-efficiency tensions. Hum. Relat. 69 (9), 1791–1822.

Paroutis, S., Bennett, M., Heracleous, L., 2014. A strategic view on smart city technology: the case of

IBM Smarter Cities during a recession. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 89 (1), 262–272.

Perera, C., Zaslavsky, A., Christen, P., Georgakopoulos, D., 2014. Sensing as a service model for

smart cities supported by internet of things. Trans. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol. 25 (1), 81–93.

Ramaswami, A., Russell, A.G., Culligan, P.J., Rahul Sharma, K., Kumar, E., 2016. Metaprinciples for

developing smart, sustainable, and healthy cities. Science 352 (6288), 940–943.

Ruhlandt, R.W.S., 2018. The governance of smart cities: a systematic literature review. Cities 81, 1–

23.

Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,

social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55 (1), 68.

Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., Oliveira, A., 2011. Smart cities and

the future internet: Towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In: Domingue, J. (Ed.), The

Future Internet. FIA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol. 6656 Springer, Berlin,

Heidelberg.

Schiavone, F., Paolone, F., Mancini, D., 2018. Business model innovation for urban smartization.

Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2018.10.028 (in press).

Sennett, R., 2012. No one likes a city that's too smart. In: The Guardian, Available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/smart-city-rio-songdomasdar.

Sennett, R., 2018. Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York,

NY.

Sepasgozar, S., Hawken, S., Sargolzaei, S., Foroozanfa, M., 2018. Implementing citizen centric

technology in developing smart cities: a model for predicting the acceptance of urban technologies.

Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.012 (in press).

Shapiro, J.M., 2006. Smart cities: quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital.

Rev. Econ. Stat. 88 (2), 324–335.

Smith, W.K., 2014. Dynamic decision making: a model of senior leaders managing strategic

paradoxes. Acad. Manag. J. 57, 1592–1623.

Söderström, O., Till, P., Klauser, F., 2014. Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City 18, 307–320.

Stratigea, A., Papadopoulou, C.-A., Panagiotopoulou, M., 2015. Tools and technologies for planning

the development of smart cities. J. Urban Technol. 22 (2), 43–62.

Suzuki, L.R., 2017. Smart cities IoT: enablers and technology road map. In: Rassia, S., Pardalos, P.

(Eds.), Smart City Networks. Springer Optimization and Its Applications, vol. 125 Springer, Cham.

Tanguy, M., Kumar, V., 2018. Measuring the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public

art in their city. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.016 (in

press).

Tokoro, N., 2015. The Smart City and the Co-creation of Value: A Source of New Competitiveness in

a Low-Carbon Society. Springer.

Toppeta, D.J., 2010. The Smart City Vision: How and ICT Can Build Smart, “Livable”, Sustainable

Cities. The Innovation Knowledge Foundation Available at:

https://intaaivn.org/images/cc/Urbanism/background%20documents/Toppeta_Report_005_ 2010.pdf.

Trencher, G., 2018. Towards the smart city 2.0: empirical evidence of using smartness as a tool for

tackling social challenges. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.033 (in press).

Van den Buuse, D., Kolk, A., 2018. An exploration of smart city approaches by international ICT

firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2018.07.029 (in press).

Van der Graaf, S., Ballon, P., 2018. Navigating platform urbanism. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.027 (in press).

Van Eck, N., Waltman, L., 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric

mapping. Scientometrics 84, 523–538.

Washburn, D., Sindhu, U., Balaouras, S., Dines, R.A., Hayes, N., Nelson, L.E., 2009. Helping CIOs

understand “smart city” initiatives. Growth 17 (2), 1–17.

Weddle, R.L., 2009. Research triangle park: past success and the global challenge. In: Wessner, C.

(Ed.), Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices—Summary of a

Symposium. The National Academies Press; National Research Council, Washington DC.

Wells, H.G., 1897. A story of the days to come. In: The Pall Mall Magazine, Available at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070607034652/http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/W/We

llsHerbertGeorge/prose/timeandspace/index.html.

West, G., 2017. Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life

in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies. Penguin Press, New York, NY.

Yu, J., Wen, Y., Jin, J., Zhang, Y., 2018. Towards a service-dominant platform for public value co-

creation in a smart city: evidence from two metropolitan cities in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc.

Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.017 (in press).

Zygiaris, S., 2013. Smart city reference model: Assisting planners to conceptualize the building of

smart city innovation ecosystems. J. Knowl. Econ. 4 (2), 217–231.

Algorithm for Promoting Smart City Projects on Social Networks

Conference Paper

Apr 2025

An analysis of the results of published studies shows the existence of a problem on the absence of a systematic approach to apply various tools for promoting innovative projects on social networks. The purpose of this study is to develop an algorithm for promoting a smart city projects on social networks. The object of this study is social networks. The subject of the study is an algorithm for promoting innovative projects of smart cities on social networks. As a result of the study, the stages of the procedure for promoting innovative projects of the smart city on social networks were identified, the features of each of the stages of promoting innovative projects on social networks were considered. The author’s algorithm for promoting the smart city projects on social networks is presented, supplementing the existing management tools for the implementation of the digital transformation of urbanized territories based on the use of social networks.

Algorithm For Increasing Population Loyalty To Smart City Projects

Conference Paper

Apr 2025

In the modern world, digital technologies penetrate into all spheres of society and open up completely new opportunities for the development of smart cities. The rapid spread of the Internet is leading to an increase in the number of platforms and virtual communities that allow companies to effectively harness the potential of consumers to develop new products. Despite the huge number of studies on smart city projects, an algorithm for promoting innovative smart city projects among the local population has not yet been developed, which would increase the population’s loyalty to the ideas of digital transformation of urban areas. As a result of the study, the stages of promoting smart city projects among the population were identified, and a comprehensive algorithm for promoting smart city projects was developed. The scientific novelty of the obtained result lies in the development of a procedure for promoting smart city projects among the local population in order to increase loyalty to the ideas of digital transformation of urban areas.

MODEL AND ALGORITHM OF OPERATIONAL PLANNING OF LOGISTIC PROCESSES OF TIMELY DELIVERY OF CARGO WITH THE INTERACTION OF A GROUP OF ROBOTIC COMPLEXES

Article

Apr 2025

Целью исследования является повышение качества оперативного планирования (программ-ного управления) логистических процессов в условиях современных городских систем при взаимо-действии группировки робототехнических комплексов. Качество управления в рамках данногоисследования будет оцениваться по количеству доставок выполненных позже установленных ди-рективных сроков. Поставленная в ходе исследования цель декомпозируется на следующие задачи:системный анализ современного состояния исследований в области логистики мегаполиса, выпол-нение содержательной и формальной постановки задачи оперативного планирования логистиче-ских процессов в мегаполисе с использованием группировки робототехнических комплексов, разра-ботка модели и алгоритма оперативного планирования логистических процессов в мегаполисе сиспользованием группировки робототехнических комплексов, разработка специального модельно-алгоритмического обеспечения и его программного прототипа решения задачи оперативного пла-нирования логистических процессов в мегаполисе с использованием группировки робототехниче-ских комплексов. Проактивное (упреждающего) управление группировкой робототехническихкомплексов при решении транспортно-логистических задач в мегаполисе в рамках концепции «Ум-ный город» позволяет повысить экономическую эффективность доставки грузов. В рамках ста-тьи рассматривается научно-техническая задача синтеза технологий (планов) своевременнойдоставки малогабаритных грузов с использованием группировки робототехнических комплексов.Теоретическая значимость заключается в применении концепции комплексного (системного) мо-делирования и проактивного (упреждающего) управления, а практическая значимость – в обеспе-чении своевременной доставки грузов с использованием группировки робототехнических комплек-сов в условиях мегаполиса. В статье рассмотрен пример решения задачи оперативного планирова-ния логистических процессов на примере Иннополиса с использованием характеристик роботов-доставщиков компании Яндекс (в качестве робототехнических комплексов). В ходе исследованияпроведен анализ различных вариантов целевых функций: максимизация прибыли и минимизациявремени доставки; максимизация прибыли и минимизация времени; минимизация количества ро-бототехнических комплексов. Показателями оценки полученных результатов были выбраны: сум-марная прибыль от доставок; количество доставок, доставленных не вовремя и общее количествовыполненных заказов. Наиболее подходящими целевыми функциями для решения задачи являютсяминимизация времени или одновременная минимизация времени и максимизация прибыли. Крометого, в заключении приведены направления дальнейших исследований

Orchestrating an ecosystem touring approach: united data and mobility as a service

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025

Purpose This study proposes a distinct ecosystem orchestration concept, with the idea to address some of the technology and value proposition uncertainties that can occur during the birth phase of an innovation ecosystem linked to its actor’s relation with each other as well as policymakers and customers. In order to better explain the proposed orchestration concept, Mobility as a Service (MaaS), a technological and social complex, innovative ecosystem, was chosen. Design/methodology/approach The suggested touring orchestrating model emerges by utilizing multiple case study analyses, focusing on ecosystem construct, orchestration mechanism, and various actors of five selected mobility as service use cases, each presenting one category with unique characteristics. The analysis is complemented by a multi-vocal literature review (MLR) of secondary data. Findings The study findings reveal substantial barriers to successful collaboration between innovation ecosystem actors, using traditional ways of orchestrating the ecosystem due to competition and unwillingness to invest for the benefit of others or risk of losing their customer base to competitors by joining a MaaS ecosystem, particularly when a new actor as orchestrator is onboarded. Additionally, there is a need to increase incentives and to enhance offerings in order to generate demand and attract stakeholders toward a new innovation ecosystem like MaaS. Research limitations/implications Most of the models reviewed in this study are predominantly successful examples of mobility as a service originating from northern Europe and the Baltic region, potentially shaped by the characteristics of these markets. This regional focus represents a limitation of the study. Furthermore, the study’s conceptual nature and lack of practical testing and empirical data support are additional limitations which could be addressed in future research through empirical investigation. The results of this study could assist in shaping future research and contribute to the development of more effective orchestration models and stakeholder management frameworks for managing innovation ecosystems across different industry contexts. Practical implications The proposed touring orchestration model (TOM) provides insights not only for the actors in transportation industry but also for providers in other industries; on how to manage uncertainties and risks tied to technology and value proposition while advancing seamless cross-firm collaboration with other market actors during the formation of an innovation ecosystem. It can also facilitate the emergence of unexplored cross-industry business models by leveraging various data-sharing frameworks. The proposed model can also streamline processes and lower costs for policymakers in encouraging transportation and mobility providers to participate in MaaS, as it reduces risks and can offer greater financial advantages for these stakeholders. Originality/value The findings of this study enhance the evolving ecosystem literature by exploring orchestration amid technological and value proposition uncertainties. Additionally, this study contributes to the expanding research on MaaS business models and ecosystem orchestration by leveraging data as a service-sharing model.

Open social innovation: A systematic literature review and future research agenda

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2025
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

Open Social Innovation (OSI) has garnered significant attention in recent years as a collaborative approach to addressing societal challenges. However, the field remains fragmented, with divergent definitions, methods, and theoretical underpinnings across disciplines. Through bibliometric and multi-level content analysis, we analyze 115 studies to address these tensions and propose a systems-based framework that bridges conceptual and practical divides. We map the intellectual structure and synthesize OSI research's antecedents, processes, relationships , and outcomes. Unlike prior reviews focused on particular OSI initiatives (e.g., Living Labs) or single levels of analysis, our study integrates dispersed knowledge to highlight actionable insights for practitioners and policymakers. Finally, our review establishes a thematic agenda for future research, targeting multi-level investigations into OSI drivers, mechanisms, and impacts.

Knowledge Advancing Shopping Mall Living Labs and Customer Value Co-Creation, with a Focus on Social Integration

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Marina van Geenhuizen

This paper aims at a broad scan of needs for knowledge advancing living labs and broader customer value co-creation in shopping malls. Special attention is given to the meeting and social integration function and metaverse development. Living labs are understood as a methodology of co-creative and open experimentation that is customer-led in a real-life environment. Emerging metaverse development tends to change opportunities and limitations, about which almost nothing is known. The paper uses a qualitative approach in two steps. The first step explores relevant theory on systems, like retail systems, customer-value co-creation (marketing) and capability and personal traits in behavioural change (individuals), while distinguishing between three living lab stages, namely, anticipation, processes on the way, and ex-post evaluation. A few central themes that are becoming increasingly important are the emerging metaverse, if and how traditional malls can continue serving as physical meeting places, and the possibility they will change course towards new combinations of physical and virtual activity. In the second step, a broad array of knowledge-advancing needs is discussed, and this results in a smaller set of knowledge gaps on the basis of urgency, like interests of new ICT stakeholders in shopping malls, impacts from metaverse on site-specificity, and benefits and barriers of disabled persons. The paper also forwards the need for more attention to the ex-post evaluation of co-creation projects, which calls for standard protocols and AI-supported data systems. The paper closes with contributions, management implications, and ideas about future research.

Smarter and Cleaner? The Carbon Reduction Effect of Smart Cities: A Perspective on Green Technology Progress

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2024

In the context of the global climate change problem intensifying due to a dramatic increase in carbon emissions, smart cities, as a topical application of digitalization and intelligence, have become a new urban governance mode for countries, which helps to achieve sustainable development. This research studies the relationship between smart city construction (SCC) and carbon dioxide emissions based on the differences-in-differences model (DID) and propensity score matching (PSM) to promote China to achieve dual carbon goals and high-quality development. The findings are as follows: (a) SCC could promote carbon emission reduction by reducing urban carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 11.4%, which also has significant long-term dynamic effects. Specifically, SCC has more obvious emission reduction effects on activities, such as industrial production and waste treatment. (b) Mechanism verification shows that green technology progress is a significant booster for the carbon reduction effect in SCC. The pilot project can increase output of green patents, which helps transfer production mode and consumption patterns in an environmentally friendly manner. SCC could increase the total factor productivity (TFP) through the rational allocation and efficient use of resources, and thus reducing carbon emissions. (c) Research on city heterogeneity shows that a high level of human capital, material, and financial resources can provide support for smart cities to better achieve the carbon reduction effect. Among them, material resources have the best carbon reduction effect in the process of SCC, which could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 6.6–17.7%. This study is useful for policymakers to continuously and dynamically adjust urban development strategies in the future, to achieve a balance between socioeconomic prosperity and environmental sustainability.

Smart Cities & Sustainable Development: A Bibliometric Review Using Scopus Database

Conference Paper

Nov 2024

Smart cities: digital transformation for sustainable urban development

Chapter

Jan 2025

Toward a practical methodology for smart city planning and design: Key elements, issues, and directions

Article

Apr 2025

Dongwen Zhu

Numerous frameworks and elements have been proposed on the concept and path of smart city, while discussions on how to practically achieve smart cities are still not systematic enough. Considering as a form of evolving urbanism along with digitalization rather than a specific technical or construction subject, smart city as a practice tends to be disconnected from urban planning. Smart cities are in especial need of planning and design support. Based on insights and evidence from practical projects, we propose basic elements and practical main challenges faced by effective smart city planning and design, regarding the integration of urban planning thinking and methods, the optimal layout of urban digital elements, and the coordination of digital space with the physical and social space of the city. To achieve these, beneficial technical approaches are suggested for practical smart city planning and design at an operational level, including governance scheme, scenario-based design, and utilization of standardization. It is promising to develop new technological paths and methodological systems specific to smart city based on planning and design thinking and approaches.

Identifying and supporting exploratory and exploitative models of innovation in municipal urban planning; key challenges from seven Norwegian energy ambitious neighborhood pilots

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

The planning of energy ambitious neighborhood pilots in Norway typically begin with the creation of holistic and socially ambitious visions based on extensive stakeholder collaboration, citizen insight generation and vision setting. However, as projects move from planning to implementation, the exploratory innovation methods are replaced by exploitative approaches. ‘The holistic vision and in particular, citizens’ described needs, fail to transfer into the implementation phase. This paper identifies four main challenges as to why this happens and link these to theory on ambidextrous organizations that need to exploit existing knowledge while reaching into the future with its rapidly changing goals and technological opportunities. Implementing stakeholders are familiar with exploitative tools, which build on earlier experience and capabilities of the selected implementing stakeholders, and the implementation stage leaves little time and resources for innovation on a lower hierarchical level. While extensive research on smart and integrated planning focus on ‘breaking down the silos’ meaning sectors and disciplines, our findings argue that the need to manage ambidextrous organizations and support both exploratory and exploitative innovation is equally important. An ambidextrous organization is one that has the ability to be efficient in its management of today's business while being adaptable for coping with the changing demand of tomorrow. We propose a model in which the organizational style and management style of innovative neighborhood pilots focus more on how to transfer knowledge and learn from the bottom-up and horizontally through management that foster both innovation models.

Understanding user representations, a new development path for supporting Smart City policy: Evaluation of the electric car use in Lorraine Region

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

Today electric car and Smart Grid are potential elements of any ‘Smart City’ initiative. According to several recent studies, French citizens are ready to purchase an electric car. Despite of these positive figures, sales of the electric cars are not really taking-off, but slightly increasing. Although, previous studies have identified motivation and barriers for the diffusion of electric cars (EC), we hypothesise, that the analysis of the a priori knowledge of the actors, in particular the users, can be enriched and it will provide a new understanding of the spread of EC. However, there is no studies explaining the types of representations people have of the EC, particularly for non-users, in order to have a better consideration of individuals, not so much as consumers or users, but rather as citizens. Thus, this paper explores the determining factors that determine how social groups perceive the emerging technology of EC and thus provide elements about a potential acceptability enabling its dissemination. In order to achieve this, this paper proposes a new approach based on the use of the AttrakDiff-2 questionnaire, a specific User eXperience (UX) method. This method assesses four different but complementary aspects of the social representation: the possibility of action of the subject on the system; the stimulation, caused, by the system; how the user will identify with the system and, the overall attraction. Data about the social representations of electric car for 131 potential users in the Lorraine Region of France were collected and analysed. Results show that there are differences of user representation regarding the socio-demographic variables. The proposed approach will provide relevant inputs to the infrastructure network design and Smart City policy decision makers.

Smart city reference model: Assisting planners to conceptualize the building of smart city innovation ecosystems

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2013

Sotirios Zygiaris

The objective of this paper is to address the smart innovation ecosystem characteristics that elucidate the assembly of all smart city notions into green, interconnected, instrumented, open, integrated, intelligent, and innovating layers composing a planning framework called, Smart City Reference Model. Since cities come in different shapes and sizes, the model could be adopted and utilized in a range of smart policy paradigms that embrace the green, broadband, and urban economies. These paradigms address global sustainability challenges at a local context. Smart city planners could use the reference model to define the conceptual layout of a smart city and describe the smart innovation characteristics in each one of the six layers. Cases of smart cities, such as Barcelona, Edinburgh, and Amsterdam are examined to evaluate their entirety in relation to the Smart City Reference Model.

Reframing technologically enhanced urban scenarios: A design research model towards human centered smart cities

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

Smart city initiatives can be seen as a powerful driver for exploring future scenarios of contemporary cities through the lens of emerging technologies. Yet, the translation of those visions into actual urban implementations often fails to place the citizen experience at the forefront for the sake of the efficiency and optimization of urban processes and systems. Looking at the future as a design opportunity, this paper offers an alternative perspective to the technocentric and universalist approach on smart cities through a design-driven and human-centric approach. The article draws on a research initiative focused on mid-sized European cities, attempting to bridge the gap between strategic visions and innovative interventions towards a socio-technological hybridization of the city. Selected projects from this initiative present urban scenarios of adaptive street environments, responsive urban safety, and dynamic retail spaces developed through smart city tactics. Resulting from an inductive approach, a threefold design research model is then outlined: (1) grounded vision, addressing the ideation of alternative futures that stem from specific needs or local opportunities; (2) embraced technology, elaborating on the role played by urban technologies in augmenting the inner intelligence of places; and (3) urban co-evolution, fostering a mutually-constructive interaction between the urban players (citizens, researchers and designers, and stakeholders) for collaborative innovation. This framework may ultimately be employed in smart city projects to reveal latent future scenarios and eventually support the design of an environment and infrastructure where various parties can experiment, develop and test ideas, services and technologies in participatory ‘living labs’.

Measuring the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public art in their city

Article

Dec 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

Contemporary research into future cities tends to focus on technology, architecture and infrastructure. However, this study highlights the importance of public art projects for our future cities. Very little empirical evidence and academic studies exist to determine whether or not public art is core to the life and demand of citizens. Using a hybrid contingent valuation (CV) and wellbeing valuation (WV) survey approach (Bakhshi et al., 2015), we collected data at two public art initiatives organised by MTArt Agency. 60% of our sample audience were willing to pay at least £5 for the implementation of more public art in their local area, with 84% willing to pay at least £2, and 84% of our sample said regular public art initiatives would increase their wellbeing. A binary logistic regression model was then used to measure the extent to which Londoners are willing to pay for public art and which factors influenced their decision. This paper evaluates the potential financial support and desire from citizens towards public art in their cities. We find evidence to suggest that Londoners are willing to pay for more public art in their local area and discover a range of explanatory variables which influenced their decisions. We hope to add to the existing academic research by demonstrating a core need from the audience towards public art, particularly, a willingness to pay for public art projects to become an integral part of their city experience. It is important to understand the economic value of public art initiatives within smart cities context because it will allow policy makers, urban planners and developers to implement such initiatives in the future. With this innovative multi-disciplinary approach, we hope to enable arts projects to engage wider demographics, obtain stronger financial support and become a more meaningful integration into our urban realm.

Towards a service-dominant platform for public value co-creation in a smart city: Evidence from two metropolitan cities in China

Article

Dec 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

Providing, integrating and improving efficient public service in the construction of 'smart cities’ in metropolitan areas have been showed to be difficult to achieve. In this article, we propose a strategy for developing service-dominant platforms with the advancement of ICT and more internet enterprises initiatives. We use the concept of SDP (service dominant platform) as a key contributor in a smart city's construction to explain how value can be co-created during the formation and evolution of the platform. Drawing on case materials from a Business-oriented platform named WeChat in Guangzhou and a government-oriented one in Shanghai, an analytic framework on platform and service innovation-relevant theories are built around the dynamic cyclical value co-creation, and three elements are identified in this process defined as value proposition, value in exchange and value in use, which consist of ten sub-elements on different SDPs along four dimensions, namely openness, services innovation, governance and resource. The study makes three contributions. First, it provides new evidence that pursuing smart city construction is not a mere technological architecture but a value co-creation oriented strategy. While facing persistent problems, China's paths exhibit significant and rapidly improving readiness for it. Second, the study provides new insights into, by positively bridging the linkage between platform governance and service innovation and proposing the service dominant platform (SDP) as a clear sustainable strategy. Finally, the study proposes two different resources-based models for guiding smart city initiatives in developing countries. By providing theoretical concepts to support public service innovation, identifying some implications for smart city developed in emerging countries, and suggesting some operational approaches to co-creating value against the local context, this paper has made a meaningful theoretical and practical significance about smart city.

Business model innovation for urban smartization

Article

Nov 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

We present an integrative literature review of the strategic management literature to identify, critically evaluate and integrate the findings of all relevant, high-quality individual studies conducted on business modelling in smart cities. The aim of this work is to investigate how a metropolitan city must organize and re-configure the building blocks of its business model to become a smart city. We explore whether cities innovate their business models to become smart. To answer to this question, we conduct an integrative literature review of the strategic management literature published from 2007 to 2016 in top scientific journals, from which we identify the main drivers and factors used by policy-makers and corporate managers to promote the “smartization” of their urban contexts. We then discuss the results of our review based on the Canvas framework of business modelling. Finally, we present implications for policy-makers, scholars and managers.

Municipalities' understanding of the Smart City concept: An exploratory analysis in Belgium

Article

Nov 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

The Smart City is a fuzzy concept, which integrates numerous characteristics, components and dimensions. These characteristics are challenged in the academic literature, especially the technocentric approach and the central position of private companies. Moreover, the lack of proper conceptualisation pushes cities to claim themselves ‘smart’. Finally, there are few rigorous analytical or statistical analyses of the concept and its application to territories. Therefore, this paper studies how Belgian municipalities understand the concept of Smart Cities in 2016. Based on the groundwork of literature on Smart Cities and the results of a survey of 113 Belgian municipalities, a typology of four understandings of the Smart City (technological, societal, comprehensive and non-existent) is elaborated. The results also show that municipalities with no understanding of the Smart City concept or with a technical understanding are mostly located in small and rural municipalities. This could be a sign of rejection of the phenomenon in this context. Conversely, medium and large-sized municipalities mostly develop a societal or comprehensive understanding. Therefore, this study highlights a dichotomy of understanding and acceptance of the concept of the Smart City between peripheral (rural and small size municipalities) and central municipalities (urban, medium and large size municipalities).

Εnhancing social networking in smart cities: Privacy and security borderlines

Article

Nov 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

The proliferation of social platforms and the enhanced connectivity have led people of different age groups, ethnicity, social or economic status to reveal a great deal about themselves online. Data collected from online social networks (OSN) provides social, economic, and cultural information which can be utilized by governments, policy makers, authorities and even commercial industries to better understand market trends and behavioral patterns, that can influence the individual dynamics through open data sources. OSN constitute a breeding ground for the spread of several risks and threats to privacy and security that affect participation and quality of life in smart cities. Although the aspects of privacy and security, and individuals' behavior in social networking are important for the successful development of smart cities, they have not been adequately discussed. To this end, this study aims to address this issue by revealing the risks, threats and individuals' behavior on OSN as an attempt to enhance privacy and security, and boost community's engagement in smart cities. Furthermore, a novel model which outlines the relationships between privacy and security threats, along with some effective countermeasures for the protection of OSN users in smart cities are proposed.

Centralized simulated annealing for alleviating vehicular congestion in smart cities

Article

Sep 2018
TECHNOL FORECAST SOC

Vehicular traffic congestion is a serious problem arising in many cities around the world, due to the increasing number of vehicles utilizing roads of a limited capacity. Often the congestion has a considerable influence on the travel time, travel distance, fuel consumption and air pollution. This paper proposes a novel dynamic centralized simulated annealing based approach for finding optimal vehicle routes using a VIKOR type of cost function. Five attributes: the average travel speed of the traffic, vehicles density, roads width, road traffic signals and the roads' length are utilized by the proposed approach to find the optimal paths. The average travel speed and vehicles density values can be obtained from the sensors deployed in smart cities and communicated to vehicles and roadside communication units via vehicular ad hoc networks. The performance of the proposed algorithm is compared with four other algorithms, over two test scenarios: Birmingham and Turin city centres. These show the proposed method improves traffic efficiency in the presence of congestion by an overall average of 24.05%, 48.88% and 36.89% in terms of travel time, fuel consumption and CO2 emission, respectively, for a test scenario from Birmingham city in the UK. Additionally, similar performance patterns are achieved for the a test with data from Turin, Italy.

Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation Ecosystems, Technological Advancements, and Societal Challenges

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

SKEMA Global Executive MBA

Covenantal Rights: A Study in Jewish Political Theory

The missing million: the discursive construction of age-related unemployment in the UK

A Importância da Literatura Cinzenta Disponível na Internet para as Áreas de Ciências Contábeis e Ad...

How is the discourse of performance-based financing shaped at the global level? A poststructural ana...

Diversity, radicalization and populism