Content uploaded by Luca Mora
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luca Mora on Jan 08, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
17
2. The current status of smart city
research: exposing the division
Luca Mora, Alasdair Reid and
Margarita Angelidou
2.1 THE RISE OF SMART CITY RESEARCH
A new global movement has emerged around smart city development
and the technology-driven approach to urban sustainability that such
developments represent. Forecasts from IDC (2018) suggest that spending
on technological solutions for smart cities will reach 135 billion dollars
by 2021. Similar projections from the consulting rms ARUP, BCC
Research, and Frost & Sullivan are even more optimistic, estimating the
smart technology market to be worth 775 billion dollars by 2021, rising
to somewhere between 2,000 and 3,600 billion dollars by 2025 (ARUP,
2013; Frost & Sullivan, 2018; Research and Markets, 2017; Sullivan, 2017).
Despite these variances, a common theme emerges: the global market for
smart technology is expected to grow exponentially.
The increasing demand for information and communications technol-
ogy (ICT) solutions to support the objectives of sustainable urban devel-
opment is evident. In 2010, Frost & Sullivan reported that only 41 cities
throughout the world were attempting to integrate smart city solutions
(Singh, 2010). However, when Yonsei University repeated this mapping
exercise in 2012, the gure had changed signicantly. In just two years,
the number of cities adopting ICT solutions to meet urban sustainability
challenges had grown to 143 (Lee and Hancock, 2012), most of which were
located in Europe, Asia, and North America. A study undertaken in 2014
by the RAND Corporation on behalf of the European Parliament also
conrmed this trend, identifying nearly 500 cities within the EU that were
in the process of developing smart city strategies (Manville et al., 2014).
Smart city development is now a global phenomenon that is closely
monitored by a community of researchers interested in investigating the
design and implementation process of smart city strategies. The origin of
this investigation can be traced back to 1992 with the publication of The
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 17 25/09/2019 15:02
18 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
Technopolis Phenomenon: Smart Cities, Fast Systems, Global Networks, a
seminal book authored by Gibson et al. (1992). The publication is notable
as being the rst work of academic literature to introduce the smart city
concept (Komninos, 2011). Since then, smart cities have become synony-
mous with ICT-driven urban sustainability and have become the focus of
a growing community of researchers representing academia, government,
industry, and civil society (Mora and Deakin, 2019; Mora et al., 2019a).
Thanks to their collective eorts, the production of literature dealing with
smart city research has been growing rapidly since 1992 (Mora et al., 2017).
This literature conrms the existence of a worldwide movement in smart
city development and the ICT-driven approach to urban sustainability it
promotes. However, it also exposes the uncertainty, confusion, and divi-
sion around smart city development. Despite three decades of research,
the available literature fails to oer the insight needed for the community
of stakeholders working on smart city developments to eectively promote
an ICT-driven approach to sustainable urban development, leaving many
gaps in what is understood about these developments and how urban sus-
tainability can be delivered (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017; Colding and Barthel,
2017; Grossi and Pianezzi, 2017; Kitchin, 2015; Meijer and Bolivar, 2016).
In critically reecting upon the rst three decades of research into smart
city development, this chapter exposes the division aecting this knowledge
domain. This activity builds on a number of studies that the authors have
undertaken between 2017 and 2018 in order to investigate the mechanisms
of knowledge production shaping the intellectual structure of the smart
city research eld (Komninos and Mora, 2018; Mora and Deakin, 2019;
Mora et al., 2017, 2018, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d). In this chapter, these studies
and their ndings are reviewed, and a synopsis is oered which captures
the signicance of the insights into the current state of smart city research
that these systematic investigations have brought together.
The discussion begins by reporting on the results of two bibliometric
studies of smart city literature produced during the rst 21 years of
research, from 1992 to 2012. The rst bibliometric analysis reveals a lack
of cohesion and a limited intellectual exchange between the researchers
involved in smart city research, which has resulted in little consensus on
what cities should do in order to become smart and activate the ICT-driven
approach to urban sustainability (Komninos and Mora, 2018; Mora et
al., 2017). The second study continues this investigation and reveals that
this intellectual division manifests itself in the form of ve discrete paths
for the development of smart cities. As the ndings will demonstrate,
these development paths provide alternative interpretations as to how
smart city development should be approached and are represented as a
set of dichotomies (Mora et al., 2018, 2019b). The signicance of these
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 18 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 19
dichotomies is then discussed by reporting on a detailed examination of
the smart city literature produced between 1992 and 2018. Extending the
scope of the investigation has provided the necessary evidence to suggest
that the division and lack of cohesion surfaced in the literature produced
during the rst two decades of smart city research remains embedded in its
intellectual structure and continues to undermine the progressive evolution
of this knowledge domain (Mora et al., 2019c, 2019d).
2.2 A DEEPLY ROOTED DIVISION
Knowledge domains can be considered as groups of publications which
are interrelated, and the deployment of complex mapping techniques helps
assemble and visualise their intellectual structure (Giannakis, 2012; Xiao
et al., 2017). The connection between publications belonging to the same
knowledge domain is represented by citations. As such, citations serve
as a “symbolic currency that signals intellectual inuences” (Jacobsen et
al., 2013, p. 226) and the citation process enables researchers to extract
intellectual work embedded in other studies and incorporate it into their
own research. It is through this exchange of knowledge that researchers
collaborate in shaping the intellectual structure of knowledge domains
(Corsini et al., 2019; Gareld, 1970).
These mapping techniques enabled the visualisation of the rst two dec-
ades of research into smart cities, from 1992 to 2012, and made it possible
to reveal the intellectual structure of this knowledge domain (Komninos
and Mora, 2018; Mora et al., 2017). This structure, which is composed
of 1,067 publications, is represented as a network graph in which the
publications belonging to the smart city research eld have become nodes
and the elements connecting them are citations (see Figure 2.1). In the
graph, the publications are represented as circles and the diameter of each
circle is directly proportional to the number of citations that a publication
has received. Therefore, a large circle corresponds to a high number of
citations. In addition, the publications which have received at least one
citation are shown in dark grey, whereas the light grey is used to identify
those articles without citations.
By observing the distribution of the nodes, the intellectual structure
is seen as fragmented and divergent due to the absence of connections
between the publications produced during the rst two decades of
research. As a consequence of this fragmentation, the intellectual structure
of the smart city research domain is divided into a multitude of uncon-
nected publications. A central core emerges, in which the network is
well-articulated, due to the presence of citations, which indicate an active
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 19 25/09/2019 15:02
20 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
knowledge exchange process between the researchers. However, when
moving towards the external edge, the organisation of the intellectual
structure changes. Publications either remain completely disconnected or
form small groups which remain detached from the central core.
When trying to identify a shared interpretation of smart cities, this
divergence and lack of cohesion becomes even more noticeable. Various
attempts to dene the smart city concept can be found in the body of lit-
erature under investigation, with two dominant interpretations emerging.
The rst denition characterises smart cities as an urban environment
where a combination of human, social, cultural, economic, environmental,
Figure 2.1 The rst two decades of smart city research: intellectual structure
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 20 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 21
and technological features facilitates urban sustainability. This interpreta-
tion nds support in the research published by Caragliu et al. (2011) and
Ginger et al. (2007), who move the smart city concept away from an
excessively technology-dominated perspective and oer a human-centric
reading of the subject. In their research, smart cities are not places dened
by the prevalence of ICTs, but urban areas where “investments in human
and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) com-
munication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high
quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through
participatory governance” (Caragliu et al., 2011, p. 70).
This interpretation, which can be considered as holistic, responds
to Hollands’ call for a more progressive understanding of smart cities,
which “start with people and the human capital side of the equation,
rather than blindly believing that IT itself can automatically transform
and improve cities” (Hollands, 2008, p. 315). This point was previously
picked up by Komninos (2006, p. 13), who suggests merging the intelligent
city concept with the smart city concept, where the former is dened as
an urban environment “with high capacity for learning and innovation,
which is built-in to the creativity of their population, their institutions of
knowledge creation, and their digital infrastructure for communication
and knowledge management”. This denition conceives smart cities as
urban areas in which the technological, human, social, and cultural capital
of a community makes it possible to better understand urban challenges
and develop more eective solutions (Komninos, 2002, 2008).
The smart city that IBM proposes, as documented by Dirks and Keeling
(2009), stands in contrast to this holistic and human-centric interpretation.
Smart cities are instead envisioned as urban environments permeated with
ICT solutions, and where all physical infrastructures are interconnected.
This alternative reading, which is focused on the singular role that ICTs
play in developing integrated platforms for city services, is aligned with
Washburn et al. (2010), who suggest that cities become smart when they
combine the use “of software systems, server infrastructure, network
infrastructure, and client devices [. . .] to better connect seven critical city
infrastructure components and services: city administration, education,
healthcare, public safety, real estate, transportation, and utilities”.
2.3 THE MAIN DEVELOPMENT PATHS OF SMART
CITIES
In undertaking a second bibliometric analysis of the literature, ve emerg-
ing development paths have been identied. Each of these development
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 21 25/09/2019 15:02
22 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
paths interprets the smart city as being an urban environment in which
an ICT-driven approach to sustainability has been adopted. However, the
approaches that they suggest deploying to assemble smart city development
strategies are conicting.
Experimental Path
The experimental path focuses attention on two emerging paradigms – the
Internet of Things (IoT) and ubiquitous computing – and highlights
the contribution of both concepts in the development of strategies for
sustainable development.
As explained by Weiser et al. (1999), ubiquitous computing is one of
the essential paradigms underpinning the IoT (ITU, 2005) and is based on
“the idea of spreading computers ubiquitously, but invisibly, throughout the
environment”, superseding the “one person-one computer desktop para-
digm” (Weiser et al., 1999, p. 693). In line with this vision, which was rst
developed in the early 1990s, computers are (1) interconnected by ubiquitous
networks, (2) spread out in the real world, and (3) able to work invisibly and
autonomously, with no need for human intervention. Wireless technologies
have enabled this vision, by allowing multiple networks of physical objects
with Internet capability to connect with each other (Mitchell, 2003).
It is this proliferation of Internet-connected devices which has enabled
the Internet of Things: an expansion of the existing Internet which oers
new ICT services and digital applications (Atzori et al., 2010; Tselentis et
al., 2009). The elds of application are many and, as Miorandi et al. (2012)
point out, these include smart cities. The Experimental Path builds on this
assumption and suggests smart cities are urban areas characterised by a
large deployment of IoT solutions. In this interpretation, smart cities are
seen as urban testbeds for experimenting IoT infrastructures and service
applications where the functionality, relevance, and potential impact in real
life environments can be analysed.
Ubiquitous Path
This development path suggests that the ubiquitous city and smart city are
essentially two corresponding terms, both representing an extension of the
knowledge city (Lee et al., 2008). The knowledge city is an information-
based notion which results from research undertaken within the framework
of the knowledge economy and advances an urban environment where
knowledge production and management processes are placed at the heart
of urban sustainable development strategies. As Yigitcanlar et al. (2008)
point out, knowledge has become a fundamental asset in wealth creation
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 22 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 23
and sustainable growth dynamics, and cities can use such resources to
develop a better understanding of the urban issues which aect sustainable
development and how these problems can be overcome.
In order to full the potential of a knowledge-based urban development,
cities have started leveraging ICTs as the means to achieve such ambitions,
in what is termed the ubiquitous city (Lee et al., 2008). The ubiquitous
city concept derives from the ubiquitous computing paradigm and is used
to describe those urban environments in which ubiquitous infrastructure
components are omnipresent and enable a wide range of digital services. In
accessing these online services, city users can obtain real-time information
which describes the functionality of the city (Shin, 2007, 2010). Therefore,
ubiquitous cities can be dened as places where “all information systems
are linked and [. . .] everyone is connected”, fully utilising the potential of
internet-enabled devices and the broadband infrastructure (Shin and Kim,
2010, p. 148).
This concept has been most widely adopted in the Asian continent, in
particular South Korea, where a nationwide programme on ubiquitous
cities was launched in 2007 (Republic of Korea, 2007). As a result of
this programme, many city governments in South Korea have integrated
ubiquitous technologies into their urban environment in order to boost
urban sustainability. Research by Tekes (2011) reports that more than fty
city initiatives have been implemented.
However, the South Korean experience of ubiquitous cities has been criti-
cised by Shin (2007, 2009, 2010), whose research activity sheds light on the
limitations and weaknesses of this nationally-endorsed programme. Indeed,
Shin’s investigation revealed that most organisations involved in the develop-
ment of ubiquitous cities were primarily motivated by market perspectives
and nancial interests, rather than satisfying the needs of city users.
Corporate Path
In looking to exploit the lucrative smart city market, multinational ICT
companies such as Hitachi (Kohno et al., 2011), Cisco Systems (Amato
et al., 2012), and IBM have started operating in the domain of urban
technology, and as a result of this choice, they are now deeply involved
in the debate on smart city development. The participation of industry in
the smart city area has led to the production of a large body of literature
which is seen as championing a corporate smart city model. This model
suggests the transition from ordinary urban environments to smart cities
requires cities to adopt a one-size-ts-all platform of digital solutions
provided by ICT companies. Research by Dirks et al. (2009, 2010), Dirks
and Keeling (2009), and Harrison et al. (2010, 2011) reveals IBM to be
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 23 25/09/2019 15:02
24 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
a primary exponent of the corporate smart city model, which underpins
their Smarter Planet initiative.
The Smarter Planet initiative was launched by IBM in 2008, a corporate
initiative to deliver smart city related consultancy services to city adminis-
trations (Palmisano, 2008). The Smarter Planet initiative interprets smart
city development as a three-stage process, which is discussed in Dirks and
Keeling’s (2009) report A Vision of Smarter Cities. These phases are called
Instrumentation, Interconnection, and Intelligence: (1) Instrumentation
enables cities to be transformed into large data capture systems by
means of sensor networks which continuously gather data describing
the functionality of the urban infrastructure; (2) Interconnection refers
to the connections that these networks create between infrastructure
components; and (3) Intelligence is what advanced analytics can extract
from the processing of large amounts of data which is collected and then
interpreted to support evidence-based decision-making.
European Path
ICTs have proven important in helping governments to mitigate climate
change and promote a low-carbon future. The signicance of this support
is exposed in SMART 2020, a report published in 2008 by The Climate
Group, a non-prot organisation whose mission is to help society address
climate change. This report describes the pivotal role of ICTs in reducing
carbon emissions and improving energy eciency, and provides empirical
evidence which demonstrates that ICTs can oer a signicant contribution
to improving the sustainability of power networks, transportation systems,
and buildings (The Climate Group, 2008).
Information and communications technologies can foster the transition
to an energy-ecient and low-carbon economy by reducing the volume of
greenhouse gases, increasing the share of renewable energies, and improv-
ing energy eciency. This commitment to making urban environments
more sustainable is a key pledge of all EU member states. It is within this
context that the European Commission envisages smart cities as those cities
which transform their buildings, energy networks, and transport systems
into highly energy-ecient systems by making full use of the energy-saving
capacity of the most advanced low-carbon technological solutions that the
market has to oer (European Commission, 2009a, 2009b).
Holistic Path
Research investigating the contribution of digital technologies to sustain-
able urban development has grown progressively in recent years, as has the
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 24 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 25
number of cities experimenting with ICT solutions to promote sustainable
urban development. These city initiatives have subsequently been aorded
a prex that is seen to characterise the particular development model
adopted, including ‘digital’, ‘intelligent’, and ‘smart’.
The term digital city rst emerged at the end of the last century and was
applied to a number of projects launched across Europe, North America,
and Asia. A key feature of these projects was the development of websites
for city authorities, where local residents could access online services.
Research on the digital city concept found the main objectives as being: to
stimulate local economic development; to improve the image and visibility
of the city; to widen Internet access to all residents; to support the growth
of active online communities participating in local matters; and to manage
the city’s infrastructure more eectively (Aurigi and Graham, 2000; Ishida
and Isbister, 2000).
The beginning of the twenty-rst century witnessed the emergence of
intelligent cities into the urban discourse, characterised by the use of ICT
to increase the innovation capacity and problem-solving capability of local
communities (Komninos, 2002, 2006, 2008). Whilst both digital cities and
intelligent cities are seen as championing ICT-driven urban development,
the motivation behind each approach is distinct. Digital city projects aim
to facilitate some aspects of the urban social and economic life, while the
ICT component of intelligent city initiatives is to provide the conditions
for strengthening the capability of cities to produce new knowledge and
innovation.
The transition from intelligent cities to smart cities results from the
merging of two separate dynamics. Firstly, there is the technological
innovation of the ICT sector that has opened up new possibilities for
addressing urban sustainability issues by means of digital solutions
(Komninos, 2011; Schaers et al., 2011). Secondly, there is a movement
towards a more progressive view of ICT-driven strategies for sustainable
urban development, which clearly emerges from the smart city literature
published between 2009 and 2011 (see Caragliu et al., 2009; Hollands,
2008; Ratti and Townsend, 2011) – a progressive view that research previ-
ously conducted between the 1990s and the 2000s by Aurigi (2000, 2005,
2006), Castells (1996), Graham and Marvin (1996, 1999, 2001), and Mino
(2000) had already called for.
In an attempt to create distance from the technological determinism and
top-down entrepreneurial-based business logic of both the corporate smart
city model and the ubiquitous city experience, there is a call for a more
holistic interpretation of smart cities in which human, social, cultural,
environmental, economic, and technological components assume equal
standing (Deakin and Al Wear, 2011; Leydesdor and Deakin, 2011). This
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 25 25/09/2019 15:02
26 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
interpretation is embedded in the Holistic Path, in which smart cities are
perceived as urban areas where ICT solutions are adopted in order to meet
local sustainability goals, be they social, economic, or environmental. In
addition, the approach that this path proposes for building smart cities is
grounded in the collective intelligence of a bottom-up approach and based
upon participatory governance, open and user-driven innovation, and
community-led urban development.
2.4 THE DICHOTOMOUS NATURE OF RESEARCH
ON SMART CITIES
The analysis of these ve development paths reveals a division in the
intellectual organisation of the research domain. This division can be
represented as four distinct dichotomies that dictate the fundamental
attributes of smart city development. These dichotomies bring about
divergent hypotheses on what principles should be considered when
approaching smart city development strategies and are summarised as
follows: (1) technology-led or holistic strategy; (2) top-down or bottom-up
approach; (3) double or quadruple-helix model of collaboration; and (4)
mono-dimensional or integrated intervention logic. The questions which
emerge from these dichotomies generate a critical knowledge gap that
current research on smart cities is unable to close. Evidence of this short-
coming can be sourced from a comprehensive examination of the smart
city literature produced between 1992 and 2018.
Technology-Led or Holistic Strategy
The Experimental Path, Ubiquitous Path, and Corporate Path agree in
their assertion that information technologies are the main drivers behind
smart city developments, which result in the widespread integration of
one-size-ts-all technological solutions in the urban infrastructure. The
literature championing this approach to smart city development is in
contrast to a growing body of literature which suggests such an approach
promotes “a new kind of technology-led urban utopia” (Hollands, 2015,
p. 61). This is a utopia which is driven by multinational conglomerates
who are primarily concerned with commercial objectives, rather than
improving urban sustainability (Angelidou, 2015, 2017b; Carvalho, 2015;
Ersoy, 2017, Hollands, 2016; Kitchin, 2014; McNeill, 2016; Niaros, 2016;
Soderstrom et al., 2014; Viitanen and Kingston, 2014). This literature also
draws attention to the unintended consequences of the technological-led
approach, citing issues pertaining to privacy, democracy, and security.
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 26 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 27
Top-Down or Bottom-Up Approach
The dierences between top-down and bottom-up approaches to smart city
development create additional confusion, an issue which has been addressed
in various studies (see Exner, 2015, Gooch et al., 2015, Komninos, 2014,
Lee et al., 2014, Ludlow et al., 2017; Ratti and Townsend, 2011; Townsend,
2013). As evidenced by the literature, top-down approaches are seen to
emerge from initiatives where the city government has full autonomy for
outlining a citywide strategy which other stakeholders are invited to adhere
to. Conversely, a bottom-up approach is characterised by the prevalence
of grass-roots community activism and a less rigid hierarchical structure.
The literature that considers these opposing approaches has generated
much debate regarding their eective capacity to support smart city
development. In this debate, top-down smart cities are criticised as being
incapable of eectively serving the local community, because the focus
remains on meeting the interests of ICT companies involved in the smart
city market (Gooch et al., 2015; Shin, 2007, 2009, 2010; Townsend, 2013).
Research by Lee and Hancock (2012) proposes a dierent interpretation
and suggests a centralised top-down smart city development strategy that
is correctly aligned with local priorities is preferable to a strategy based
on a bottom-up approach. However, in an alternative interpretation, it is
pointed out that top-down and bottom-up approaches are both beset by
their respective limitations, therefore, successful smart city developments
require strategies able to combine both approaches (Angelidou, 2017a;
Bolici and Mora, 2015; Breuer et al., 2014; Exner, 2015; Mora and Bolici,
2016, 2017).
Double or Quadruple-Helix Model of Collaboration
There are signicant discrepancies in how the Corporate Path and Holistic
Path conceptualise smart cities, and this divergence surfaces when consid-
ering the collaborative model that each path promotes for the management
of smart city developments. The Corporate Path proposes a double-helix
collaborative model in which IT companies become the main providers
of technological solutions for urban challenges. In this model, industry is
portrayed as the dominant force, where the main objective is to sell their
proprietary technologies to city authorities (McNeill, 2016; Soderstrom et
al., 2014).
Alternatively, research by Angelidou (2014), Baccarne et al. (2014a,
2014b), Deakin and Leydesdor (2014), Bolici and Mora (2015), Mora
and Bolici (2016, 2017), and van Waart et al. (2016) suggests smart city
development strategies require the quadruple-helix collaborative model
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 27 25/09/2019 15:02
28 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
championed by the Holistic Path. This model is based on an open and
inclusive collaborative environment where government, academia, indus-
try, and civil society engage in joint initiatives. This literature highlights the
incapability of the double-helix model to t the complexity of smart city
developments and invites prospective smart cities to engage in “knowledge
sharing and collaboration across all levels of society” (Selada, 2017, p. 217).
Mono-Dimensional or Integrated Intervention Logic
The fourth dichotomy relates to the intervention logic. The path endorsed
by the European Commission focuses primarily on the energy market.
This approach promotes a one-dimensional intervention logic in which
smart cities are described as low-carbon and resource ecient urban
environments where ICT solutions are used to transform buildings, energy
networks, and transport systems into smart buildings, smart grids, and
smart transport systems.
Whilst the European Commission has endorsed this energy-focused
interpretation of smart cities since 2009, the literature supporting the
Experimental Path, Ubiquitous Path, Corporate Path, and Holistic Path
believes this vision is too limited, and suggests it ignores the additional
benets that smart city technologies can produce in other policy domains,
such as education, healthcare, and public safety. In this multi-dimensional
approach, a successful smart city has a portfolio of initiatives which
attempt to embed ICT solutions across the full spectrum of public service
provision (see Ginger et al., 2007; Manville et al., 2014).
2.5 DIVIDED WE STAND, UNITED WE FALL
This chapter critically reects upon the ndings of Komninos and Mora
(2018) and Mora et al. (2017, 2018, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d) in their investiga-
tions into the mechanisms of knowledge production which have shaped
the scholarly debate within the smart city research domain over the last
30 years. The signicance of these studies lies in their ability to expose the
deeply rooted divisions that undermine the evolution of smart cities. The
absence of consensus, with regard to selecting an approach to eectively
manage smart city developments, exposes a critical limitation which under-
mines the potential that smart cities have to deliver ICT-related urban
innovation. To exemplify such confusion, many cities are now adopting the
smart city term to represent all green initiatives, regardless of the role of
ICT, using the term as a synonym for the broader sustainable city concept
(De Jong et al., 2015).
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 28 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 29
The ambiguity surrounding smart city research continues to leave many
gaps, making it dicult to capture what is understood about the ICT-driven
approach to urban sustainability driving the smart city concept (Colding
and Barthel, 2017; Grossi and Pianezzi, 2017; Kitchin, 2015). The challenge
that this poses to future research is clear: to move beyond the confusion
surrounding the smart city subject and fully overcome the knowledge gap
that the dichotomous nature of smart city research has generated. However,
meeting this objective requires the community of stakeholders promoting
smart city development to coordinate their eorts, and establish a shared
vision that is grounded in intellectual exchange and collaboration.
REFERENCES
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., and Airaksinen, M. (2017). What
are the dierences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities: The International
Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 60, 234–45.
Amato, V., Bloomer, L., Holmes, A., and Kondepudi, S. (2012). Using ICT to Deliver
Benets to Cities by Enabling Smart+Connected Communities. White paper. Cisco
Systems. http://www.smartconnectedcommunities.org/docs/DOC-2150. Accessed
4 January 2013.
Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: a spatial approach. Cities: The
International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 41(Supplement 1), S3–S11.
Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: a conjuncture of four forces. Cities: The
International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 47, 95–106.
Angelidou, M. (2017a). The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fteen
cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 3–28.
Angelidou, M. (2017b). Smart city planning and development shortcomings.
TeMA: Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 10(1), 77–94.
ARUP (2013). The Smart City Market: Opportunities for the UK. BIS Research
Paper no. 136. Government of the United Kingdom – Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/le/249423/bis-13-1217-smart-city-market-opportunties-uk.pdf.
Accessed 23 January 2014.
Atzori, L., Iera, A., and Morabito, G. (2010). The Internet of Things: a survey.
Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787–2805.
Aurigi, A. (2000). Digital city or urban simulator? In: T. Ishida and K. Isbister (eds),
Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences and Future Perspectives (pp. 33–44).
Berlin: Springer.
Aurigi, A. (2005). Urban cyberspace as a social construction: non-technological
factors in the shaping of digital Bristol. In: P. van den Besselaar and S. Koizumi
(eds), Digital Cities III. Information Technologies for Social Capital: Cross-
Cultural Perspectives. Third International Digital Cities Workshop, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, September 18–19, 2003. Revised Selected Papers (pp. 97–112). Berlin:
Springer.
Aurigi, A. (2006). New technologies, same dilemmas: policy and design issues for
the augmented city. Journal of Urban Technology, 13(3), 5–28.
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 29 25/09/2019 15:02
30 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
Aurigi, A. and Graham, S. (2000). Cyberspace and the city: the “virtual city”
in Europe. In: G. Bridge and S. Watson (eds), A Companion to the City (pp.
489–502). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Baccarne, B., Mechant, P., and Schuurman, D. (2014a). Empowered cities? An analy-
sis of the structure and generated value of the smart city Ghent. In: R.P. Dameri,
and C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (eds), Smart City: How to Create Public and Economic
Value with High Technology in Urban Space (pp. 157–82). Cham: Springer.
Baccarne, B., Schuurman, D., Mechant, P., and De Marez, L. (2014b). The role
of urban living labs in a smart city. Paper presented at XXV ISPIM Innovation
Conference: Innovation for Sustainable Economy and Society, Dublin, 8–11 June
2014. Manchester: International Society for Professional Innovation Management.
Bolici, R. and Mora, L. (2015). Urban regeneration in the digital era: how to
develop smart city strategies in large European cities. TECHNE: Journal of
Technology for Architecture and Environment, 5(2), 110–19.
Breuer, J., Walravens, N., and Ballon, P. (2014). Beyond dening the smart city:
meeting top-down and bottom-up approaches in the middle. TeMA: Journal of
Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 7, 153–64.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., and Nijkamp, P. (2009). Smart cities in Europe. Paper
presented at 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science, Kosice, 7–9
October 2009. http://www.inta-aivn.org/images/cc/Urbanism/background%20do
cuments/01_03_Nijkamp.pdf. Accessed 29 December 2012.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., and Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of
Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82.
Carvalho, L. (2015). Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective.
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 43–60.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Colding, J. and Barthel, S. (2017). An urban ecology critique on the “smart city”
model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 95–101.
Corsini, F., Laurenti, R., Meinherz, F., Appio, F.P., and Mora, L. (2019). The
advent of practice theories in research on sustainable consumption: past, current
and future directions of the eld. Sustainability, 11(2), 341–59.
De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., and Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable–
smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities: making sense of a multitude
of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production,
109, 25–38.
Deakin, M. and Al Wear, H. (2011). From intelligent to smart cities. Intelligent
Buildings International, 3(3), 140–52.
Deakin, M. and Leydesdor, L. (2014). The triple helix model of smart cities:
a neo-evolutionary perspective. In: M. Deakin (ed.), Smart Cities: Governing,
Modelling and Analyzing the Transition (pp. 134–49). New York: Routledge.
Dirks, S., Gurdgiev, C., and Keeling, M. (2010). Smarter Cities for Smarter
Growth: How Cities Can Optimize Their Systems for the Talent-Based Economy.
Executive report. IBM Corporation. http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/
en/gbe03348usen/GBE03348USEN.PDF. Accessed 3 February 2012.
Dirks, S. and Keeling, M. (2009). A Vision of Smarter Cities: How Cities Can
Lead the Way into a Prosperous and Sustainable Future. Executive report. IBM
Corporation. http://www-03.ibm.com/press/attachments/IBV_Smarter_Cities_-_
Final.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2012.
Dirks, S., Keeling, M., and Dencik, J. (2009). How Smart Is Your City: Helping Cities
Measure Progress. Executive report. IBM Corporation. http://public.dhe.ibm.
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 30 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 31
com/common/ssi/ecm/en/gbe03248usen/GBE03248USEN.PDF. Accessed 6 June
2014.
Ersoy, A. (2017). Smart cities as a mechanism towards a broader understanding of
infrastructure interdependencies. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 4(1), 1–6.
European Commission (2009a). Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions. Investing in the Development of Low Carbon
Technologies (SET-Plan). COM (2009) 519 nal. European Commission. http://eur
-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0519&from=
EN. Accessed 2 February 2014.
European Commission (2009b). Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions on Mobilising Information and Communication
Technologies to Facilitate the Transition to An Energy Ecient, Low-carbon
Economy. COM(2009) 111 nal. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/ infor
mation_society/activities/sustainable_growth/docs/com_2009_111/com2009-111
-en.pdf. Accessed 2 February 2014.
Exner, J. (2015). Smart cities: eld of application for planning support systems
in the 21st century? Paper presented at Computers in Urban Planning and
Urban Management 2015, Cambridge, MA, 7–10 July 2015. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Frost & Sullivan (2018). Frost & Sullivan experts announce global smart cities to raise
a market of over $2 trillion by 2025. Press release. Frost & Sullivan. https://ww2.
frost.com/news/press-releases/frost-sullivan-experts-announce-global-smart-cities
-raise-market-over-2-trillion-2025/. Accessed 13 April 2018.
Gareld, E. (1970). Citation indexing for studying science. Information Scientist,
1(15), 133–8.
Giannakis, M. (2012). The intellectual structure of the supply chain manage-
ment discipline: a citation and social network analysis. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 25(2), 136–69.
Gibson, D.V., Kozmetsky, G., and Smilor, R.W. (eds) (1992). The Technopolis
Phenomenon: Smart Cities, Fast Systems, Global Networks. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littleeld.
Ginger, R., Ferter, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanović, N., & Meijers, E.
(2007). Smart Cities: Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities. Research report.
Vienna University of Technology – Centre of Regional Science (SRF). http://www.
smart-cities.eu/download/smart_cities_nal_report.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2012.
Gooch, D., Wol, A., Kortuem, G., and Brown, R. (2015). Reimagining the role of
citizens in smart city projects. In: UbiComp/ISWC’15 Adjunct: Adjunct Proceedings
of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous
Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable
Computers, Osaka, 7–11 September 2015 (pp. 1587–94). New York: ACM.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (1996). Telecommunications and the City: Electronic
Spaces, Urban Places. New York: Routledge.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (1999). Planning cyber-cities? Integrating telecommuni-
cations into urban planning. Town Planning Review, 70(1), 89–114.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures,
Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. New York: Routledge.
Grossi, G. and Pianezzi, D. (2017). Smart cities: utopia or neoliberal ideology?
Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 69, 79–85.
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 31 25/09/2019 15:02
32 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
Harrison, C., Eckman, B., Hamilton, R., Hartswick, P., Kalagnanam, J.,
Paraszczak, J., and Williams, P. (2010). Foundations for smarter cities. IBM
Journal of Research and Development, 54(4), 1–16.
Harrison, C., Paraszczak, J., and Williams, R.P. (2011). Preface: smarter cities.
IBM Journal of Research and Development, 55(1–2), 1–5.
Hollands, R.G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City: Analysis of
Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 12(3), 303–20.
Hollands, R.G. (2015). Critical interventions into the corporate smart city.
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 61–77.
Hollands, R.G. (2016). Beyond the corporate smart city? Glimpses of other
possibilities of smartness. In: S. Marvin, A. Luque-Ayala, and C. McFarlane
(eds), Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision or False Dawn? (pp. 168–84). New York:
Routledge.
IDC (2018). Investments in technologies enabling smart cities initiatives are forecast
to reach $80 billion in 2018, according to a new IDC spending guide. Press release.
International Data Corporation. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=pr
US43576718. Accessed 20 April 2018.
Ishida, T. and Isbister, K. (eds) (2000). Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences and
Future Perspectives. Berlin: Springer.
ITU (2005). ITU Internet Reports 2005: The Internet of Things. Report. International
Telecommunication Union. http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/internetofth
ings/. Accessed 4 June 2014.
Jacobsen, T., Punzalan, R.L., and Hedstrom, M.L. (2013). Invoking collective
memory: mapping the emergence of a concept in archival science. Archival
Science, 13(2–3), 217–51.
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal,
79(1), 1–14.
Kitchin, R. (2015). Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings.
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 131–6.
Kohno, M., Masuyama, Y., Kato, N., and Tobe, A. (2011). Hitachi’s smart city
solutions for new era of urban development. Hitachi Review, 60(2), 79–88.
Komninos, N. (2002). Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge, Systems and Digital
Spaces. New York: Spon Press.
Komninos, N. (2006). The architecture of intelligent cities: integrating human,
collective and articial intelligence to enhance knowledge. In: Proceedings of the
2nd IET International Conference on Intelligent Environments, Athens, 05–06 July
2006 (pp. 13–20). Norwich: Page Bros Ltd.
Komninos, N. (2008). Intelligent Cities and Globalization of Innovation Networks.
New York: Routledge.
Komninos, N. (2011). Intelligent cities: variable geometries of spatial intelligence.
Intelligent Building International, 3(3), 172–88.
Komninos, N. (2014). The Age of Intelligent Cities: Smart Environments and
Innovation-for-all Strategies. New York: Routledge.
Komninos, N. and Mora, L. (2018). Exploring the big picture of smart city
research. Scienze Regionali: Italian Journal of Regional Science, 1, 15–38.
Lee, S., Han, J., Leem, Y., and Yigitcanlar, T. (2008). Towards ubiquitous city: con-
cept, planning, and experiences in the republic of Korea. In: T. Yigitcanlar, K.
Velibeyoglu, and S. Baum (eds), Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning
and Applications in the Information Era (pp. 148–69). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Lee, J. and Hancock, M.G. (2012). Toward a framework for smart cities: a comparison
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 32 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 33
of Seoul, San Francisco and Amsterdam. Presentation at Yonsei University and
Stanford University. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/7239/Jung_Hoon_Lee_nal.
pdf. Accessed 12 June 2014.
Lee, J., Hancock, M.G., and Hu, M. (2014). Towards an eective framework
for building smart cities: lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 80–99.
Leydesdor, L. and Deakin, M. (2011). The triple-helix model of smart cities: a
neo-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 53–63.
Ludlow, D., Khan, Z., Soomro, K., Marconcini, M., San Jose, R., Malcorps,
P., Lemper, M., Luis Perez, J., and Metz, A. (2017). From top-down land use
planning intelligence to bottom-up stakeholder engagement for smart cities – a
case study: DECUMANUS Service Products. International Journal of Services
Technology and Management, 23(5–6), 465–93.
Manville, C., Cochrane, G., Cave, J., Millard, J., Pederson, J.K., Thaarup, R.K., Liebe,
A., Wissner, M., Massink, R., and Kotterink, B. (2014). Mapping Smart City in
the EU. Research report. European Parliament – Directorate-General for Internal
Policies. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/507480/
IPOL-ITRE_ET(2014)507480_EN.pdf. Accessed 5 February 2014.
McNeill, D. (2016). IBM and the visual formation of smart cities. In: S. Marvin,
A. Luque-Ayala, and C. McFarlane (eds), Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision or
False Dawn? (pp. 34–51). New York: Routledge.
Meijer, A. and Bolivar, M.P.R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the
literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.
Mino, E. (2000). Experiences of European digital cities. In: T. Ishida and K. Isbister
(eds), Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences and Future Perspectives (pp.
58–72). Berlin: Springer.
Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., De Pellegrini, F., and Chlamtac, I. (2012). Internet of
Things: vision, applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks, 10(7),
1497–1516.
Mitchell, W.J. (2003). Me++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Mora, L. and Bolici, R. (2016). The development process of smart city strategies:
the case of Barcelona. In: J. Rajaniemi (ed.), Re-city: Future City – Combining
Disciplines (pp. 155–81). Tampere: Juvenes Print.
Mora, L. and Bolici, R. (2017). How to become a smart city: learning from
Amsterdam. In: A. Bisello, D. Vettorato, R. Stephens, and P. Elisei (eds), Smart
and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions: Results of SSPCR 2015 (pp.
251–66). Cham: Springer.
Mora, L., Bolici, R., and Deakin, M. (2017). The rst two decades of smart-city
research: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(1), 3–27.
Mora, L. and Deakin, M. (2019). Untangling Smart Cities: From Utopian Dreams to
Innovation Systems for a Technology-Enabled Urban Sustainability. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Mora, L., Deakin, M., Aina, Y.A., and Appio, F.P. (2019a). Smart city develop-
ment: ICT innovation for urban sustainability. In: W. Leal Filho, A.M. Azul,
L. Brandli, P.G. Özuyar, and T. Wall (eds), Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals: Sustainable Cities and Communities. Cham: Springer.
Mora, L., Deakin, M., and Reid, A. (2018). Smart city development paths: insights
from the rst two decades of research. In: A. Bisello, D. Vettorato, P. Laconte,
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 33 25/09/2019 15:02
34 Smart cities in the post-algorithmic era
and S. Costa (eds), Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Region: Results
of SSPCR 2017 (pp. 403–27). Cham: Springer.
Mora, L., Deakin, M., and Reid, A. (2019b). Combining co-citation clustering
and text-based analysis to reveal the main development paths of smart cities.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 56–69.
Mora, L., Deakin, M., and Reid, A. (2019c). Strategic principles for smart
city development: a multiple case study analysis of European best practices.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 70–97.
Mora, L., Deakin, M., Reid, A., and Angelidou, M. (2019d). How to overcome the
dichotomous nature of smart city research: proposed methodology and results
of a pilot study. Journal of Urban Technology, 26(2), 89–128.
Niaros, V. (2016). Introducing a taxonomy of the “smart city”: towards a
commons-oriented approach? tripleC, 14(1), 51–61.
Palmisano, S.J. (2008). A smarter planet: the next leadership agenda. Speech. IBM
Corporation. http://www.ibm.com/ibm/blf/pdf/SJP_Smarter_Planet.pdf. Accessed
3 March 2011.
Ratti, C. and Townsend, A. (2011). The social nexus. Scientic American,
September, 42–8.
Republic of Korea (2007). U-Korea Master Plan: To Achieve the World First Ubiquitous
Society. Republic of Korea. http://www.ipc.go.kr/servlet/download?pt=/ipceng/
public&fn=u-KOREA+Master+Plan+.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2014.
Research and Markets (2017). Smart City Market to 2025 – Global Analysis and
Forecast by Industry Verticals. Report. Research and Markets. https://www.resear
chandmarkets.com/research/2w8qht/smart_city_market. Accessed 4 March 2018.
Schaers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., and Oliveira, A.
(2011). Smart cities and the future internet: towards cooperation frameworks
for open innovation. In: J. Domingue, A. Galis, A. Gavras, T. Zahariadis,
D. Lambert, F. Cleary, P. Daras, S. Krco, H. Muller, M. Li, H. Schaers, V. Lotz,
F. Alvarez, B. Stiller, S. Karnouskos, S. Avessta, and M. Nillson (eds), The Future
Internet. Future Internet Assembly 2011: Achievements and Technological Promises
(pp. 431–46). Berlin: Springer.
Selada, C. (2017). Smart cities and the quadruple helix innovation systems concep-
tual framework: the case of Portugal. In: S. Monteiro and E.G. Carayannis (eds),
The Quadruple Innovation Helix Nexus: A Smart Growth Model, Quantitative
Empirical Validation and Operationalization for OECD Countries (pp. 211–44).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shin, D. (2007). A critique of Korean national information strategy: case of
national information infrastructures. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3),
624–45.
Shin, D. (2009). Ubiquitous city: urban technologies, urban infrastructure and
urban informatics. Journal of Information Science, 35(5), 515–26.
Shin, D. (2010). A realization of pervasive computing: ubiquitous city. In: D.F.
Kocaoglu, T.R. Anderson, and T.U. Daim (eds), 2010 Proceedings of PICMET’10:
Technology Management for Global Economic Growth, Seoul, 18–22 July 2010 (pp.
1–10). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Shin, D. and Kim, T. (2010). Large-scale ICT innovation and policy. In:
D.F. Kocaoglu, T.R. Anderson, and T.U. Daim (eds), 2010 Proceedings of
PICMET’10: Technology Management for Global Economic Growth, Seoul,
18–22 July 2010 (pp. 148–61). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 34 25/09/2019 15:02
The current status of smart city research 35
Singh, S. (2010). Top 20 Mega Trends and Their Impact on Business, Cultures and
Society. Frost & Sullivan. http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/cpo/213016007.
Accessed 25 November 2017.
Soderstrom, O., Paasche, T., and Klauser, F. (2014). Smart cities as corporate
storytelling. City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action,
18(3), 307–20.
Sullivan, M. (2017). Smart Cities: Growing New IT Markets. BCC Research. https://
www.bccresearch.com/market-research/information-technology/smart-cities-gro
wing-new-markets-report-ift115b.html. Accessed 20 January 2018.
Tekes (2011). Ubiquitous City in Korea: Services and Enabling Technologies. Report.
Tekes. https://www.tekes./globalassets/global/ohjelmat-ja-palvelut/ohjelmat/ubi
com/aineistot/raportit/korea/ubiquitouscityinkorea.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014.
The Climate Group (2008). SMART 2020: Enabling the Low Carbon Economy in the
Information Age. Report. The Climate Group. http://www.smart2020.org/_assets/
les/02_Smart2020Report.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2014.
Townsend, A. (2013). Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a
New Utopia. New York: W.W. Norton.
Tselentis, G., Domingue, J., Galis, A., Gavras, A., Hausheer, D., Krco, H., Lotz,
V., and Zahariadis, T. (eds) (2009). Towards the Future Internet: A European
Research Perspective. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
van Waart, P., Mulder, I., and de Bont, C. (2016). A participatory approach for
envisioning a smart city. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 708–23.
Viitanen, J. and Kingston, R. (2014). Smart cities and green growth: outsourc-
ing democratic and environmental resilience to the global technology sector.
Environment and Planning A, 46(4), 803–19.
Washburn, D., Usman, S., Balaouras, S., Dines, R.A., Hayes, N.M., and Nelson, L.E.
(2010). Helping CIOs Understand “Smart City” Initiatives. White paper. Forrester
Research. http://www.forrester.com/Helping+CIOs+Understand+Smart+City+
Ini tiatives/quickscan/-/E-RES55590. Accessed 20 March 2012.
Weiser, M., Gold, R., and Brown, J.S. (1999). The origins of ubiquitous computing
research at PARC in the late 1980s. IBM System Journal, 38(4), 693–6.
Xiao, H., Wang, Y., Li, W., and Ma, Z. (2017). Intellectual structure of research in
business ethics: a citation and co-citation analysis on Business Ethics Quarterly.
Nankai Business Review International, 8(1), 100–20.
Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., and Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2008). Rising
knowledge cities: the role of urban knowledge precincts. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 12(5), 8–20.
M4821 - KOMNINOS_9781789907049_t.indd 35 25/09/2019 15:02
