Global Review of Smart City Governance Practices

Abstract

Through smart city initiatives, digital technologies are increasingly applied in cities to modernize city operations and transform service delivery. The ongoing digital transformation provides new opportunities but also creates challenges, and it is increasingly apparent that delivering effective urban digital services is a complex task. Nowadays, smart city projects are typically driven by technology and little attention is given to governance dynamics. In addition, the novelty and complexity of many smart city initiatives make it difficult for public sector organizations to fully grasp how to effectively manage digital transformation processes. As many cities and public sector organizations across the world have been experimenting with smart city initiatives, their actions have generated a data-rich environment from which to learn. As such, this report features findings from a systematic literature review and a global online survey completed by approximately 300 respondents, who have reported on the smart city governance practices of more than 250 municipalities in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. With the objective to support both urban managers and practitioners, the report highlights several dimensions for effective smart city governance and ways to foster a people-centered approach to smart cities. It serves as a knowledge resource to present best practices, gaps in smart city governance mechanisms, and the various elements to consider when governing the planning and implementation of smart city initiatives. The report is part of UN-Habitat’s strategy to promote a people-centered approach to digital transformation supporting local governments in establishing the right capacities, regulatory frameworks, collaborations and arrangements for using technology to advance human developments and show commitment to human rights, both in online and offline environments.

Full text

2022
Final
Report

2
GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
All rights reserved
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
P.O. Box 30030 00100 Nairobi GPO KENYA
Tel: 254-020-7623120 (Central Ofce)
www.unhabitat.org
HS NUMBER: HS/029/22E
Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any county, territory, city or area or its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries regarding its economic system or degree of development. Excerpts
may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily
reflect those of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, the United Nations and its member states.
Acknowledgments
This report has been jointly developed by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), CAF – Development Bank of Latin
America, Edinburgh Napier University’s Urban Innovation Policy Lab and Tallinn University of Technology. Funding was provided by CAF.
We would like to thank the hundreds of representatives from the following municipalities who participated in the online survey and helped
gather the data required to complete this study.
Tirana (Albania), Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Ciudad Jardin Palomar, Cordoba, Jesús María, Malargue, Olavarria, Puerto Madryn,
Reconquista, Rio Cuarto, San Carlos de Bariloche, San Miguel (Argentina ), Graz, Stanz im Mürztal, Vienna (Austria), Baku (Azerbaijan), Dhaka
(Bangladesh), Brussels (Belgium), Colcapirhua (Bolivia), Belo Horizonte, Caxias do Sul, Curitiba, Fortaleza, Ponta Grossa, Porto Alegre, Recife,
Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, São Paulo, Tubarão (Brasil), Bandar Seri Begawan (Brunei Darussalam), Soa (Bulgaria), Bujumbura (Burundi),
Bafoussam (Cameroun), Edmonton, Hamilton, Kelowna, Toronto, Windsor (Canada), Bangui (Central African Republic), Las Condes, Santiago
(Chile), Baoji, Beijing, Changsha, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Jilin, Ningbo, Shanghai, Shijiazhuang, Suzhou, Tianjin, Xingtai, Yinchuan (China),
Bogota, Cucuta, Manizales, Medellin, Neiva (Colombia), Heredia (Costa Rica), Dubrovnik (Croatia), Brno, Prague (Czech Republic), Aarhus,
Albertslund, Copenhagen, Favrskov, Frederikshavn, Gladsaxe, Grenaa, Haderslev, Horsens, Odder, Sønderborg, Syddjurs, Tåstrup, Vejle
(Denmark), Haapsalu, Harku, Keila, Kohtla-Järve, Maardu, Narva, Parnu, Rakvere, Saaremaa, Saue, Tallinn, Tartu, Võru (Estonia), Tórshavnar
(Faroe Islands), Espoo, Helsinki, Oulu, Porvoo, Tampere, Turku, Vantaa (Finland), Montpellier, Soissons (France), Banjul (Gambia), Tbilisi
(Georgia), Ahrensburg, Augsburg, Bamberg, Berlin, Dortmund, Eichenzell, Freiburg, Gütersloh, Hamm, Iserlohn, Kusel, Landsberg am Lech,
Leipzig, Lohmar, Mannheim, Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar, Münster, Olpe, Rheinberg, Soest, Zwönitz (Germany), Kumasi (Ghana), Dehradun,
Patna, Raipur (India), Banjarbaru (Indonesia), Tehran (Iran), Dublin (Ireland), Tel Aviv (Israel), Bergamo, Cagliari, Empoli, Florence, Genova,
Latina, Messina, Milan, Parma, Prato, Rome (Italy), Amman, Irbid (Jordan), Jelgava (Latvija), Johor Bahru, Seberang Perai (Malaysia),
Guadalajara (México), Benguerir (Morocco), Maputo, Matola (Mozambique), Amsterdam, Utrecht (Netherlands), Kaduna (Nigeria), Narvik
(Norway), Ramallah (Palestine), Gdynia, Lublin (Poland), Aveiro, Cascais, Porto, Seixal (Portugal), Alba Lulia, Iași (Romania), Kigali (Rwanda),
Subotica (Serbia), Bratislava (Slovakia), Durban, Johannesburg, Mangaung, Port Elizabeth (South Africa), Algeciras, Barcelona, Benicasim,
Bilbao, Burgos, Donostia-San Sebastián, Gavà, Gijón, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Logroño, Madrid, Malaga, Rivas-Vaciamadrid, Valencia
(Spain), Göteborg, Lund, Malmö, Stockholm, Umeå (Sweden), Basel, Bern, Luzern, Saint Gallen, Uster, Winterthur, Yverdon-les-Bains, Zurich
(Switzerland), Taipei (Taiwan), Phuket (Thailand), Tunis (Tunisia), Glasgow, London, Milton Keynes, Perth, Reading, Southampton (United
Kingdom), Long Beach, Los Angeles, Louisville, Mesa, New York City, Peachtree Corners, Portland, San Antonio (United States of America),
Fray Bentos, Montevideo, San José (Uruguay), Barquisimeto (Venezuela), Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam).

3
We thank the representatives from the following organizations who have supported the
distribution of our online survey, helping to widen our reach:
• Aalto University
• Asociación Colombiana de Ciudades Capitales - Asocapitales
• Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (SCTM)
• African Smart Towns Network (ASToN)
• City of Hamilton
• City of San Diego
• European Commission - Intelligent Cities Challenge (ICC)
• KL - Local Government Denmark
• National League of Cities (NLC)
• PALGO Smart
• Red Española de Ciudades Inteligentes (RECI)
• Red de Innovación Local (RIL)
• South African Cities Network
• Technical University of Denmark
• Viable Cities
• United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
We also thank the representatives from the organizations involved in the Expert Group
Meeting “The Governance of Smart City Initiatives” held on 27 April 2022, for the relevant
feedback and comments on the ndings that have been shared during the event.
Cities Coalition for Digital Rights
Enel X
Eurocities
European Commission
GIZ
GOVE
IDC
Intelligent Cities Challenge
ITU
Kampala Capital City Authority
MIT
Munidigital
National League of Cities
OS City
Red de Innovación Local - RIL - Argentina
City of San Antonio
Smart Cities Council
UNDP
United Nation University
University Mohamed 6 Polytechnic ben Guerir
Vikua
Project supvervisors
Abdinassir Sagar, Pontus Westerberg, Marcelo Facchina
Authors
Dominik Beckers, Paolo Gerli, Prof Luca Mora, Sara Thabit, Francesco Tonnarelli
Contributors
Bruno Dercon, Marcelo Facchina, Rodolfo Fiori, Sergio Gambacorta, Lena Geraghty,
Leandry Jieutsa, Samuel Njuguna, Melissa Permezel, Federico Platania, Emily Royall,
Abdinassir Sagar, Pontus Westerberg, Ruthbea Yesner
Design and layout: Austin Ogola

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................2
FOREWORD ...............................................................................................................................6
Message from UN-Habitat Executive Director ............................................................................ 6
Message from CAF ...................................................................................................................... 7
Message from Edinburgh Napier University ................................................................................8
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................10
Smart city initiatives ................................................................................................................. 10
Structure of the report .............................................................................................................. 11
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................12
A two-stage analysis ................................................................................................................ 12
Stage 1: Systematic literature review ....................................................................................... 12
Stage 2: Global online survey ...................................................................................................12
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK FOR SMART CITY INITIATIVES ......................................................... 14
Pillars and components of the governance framework ............................................................14
PILLAR 1: STRATEGY ................................................................................................................16
Component 1.1: Planning ......................................................................................................... 16
Component 1.2: Public sector setting ......................................................................................23
Component 1.3: Policy and regulations .................................................................................... 25
PILLAR 2: COLLABORATIVE ECOSYSTEM ...................................................................................32
Component 2.1: Actors and collaborative practices ................................................................. 32
Component 2.2: Partnership coordination................................................................................45
PILLAR 3: TECHNOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ..........................................................................50
Component 3.1: Information architecture ................................................................................50
Component 3.2: Digital service design and delivery ................................................................. 55
CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................62
Key lessons ............................................................................................................................... 62
Recommendations to municipal governments ......................................................................... 64
Table of Contents

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 5
Aleksandra Tokarz / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
6
Ms. Maimunah Mohd Sharif
Under-Secretary-General and Executive
Director, United Nations Human Settlements
Programme (UN-Habitat)
Today, half of the world’s population - 3.5 billion people - live in
cities. This growing urbanization trend is now accompanied by
digitalization fuelled by advancements in connectivity and the
rise of newer technologies such as articial intelligence. Digital
technologies have the potential to transform how people
live, do business and participate in democratic life in cities.
The digitalization trend has contributed to the emergence
of the “smart city” concept which is being widely discussed
now by both governments, at all levels, the private sector
and international bodies. Smart cities raise questions around
impact, governance, values and principles and the role of
government in digital transformation.
Whilst smart cities and associated digital technologies have
transformative potential for positive change, they can also
perpetuate existing social and economic inequalities. It is for
the reason that UN-Habitat promotes a “people-centered”
approach to smart cities and advocate for commitment
to human rights, digital inclusion and the use of digital
technologies to improve people’s quality of life.
The people-centered smart city approach is anchored on
a number of existing global frameworks. In the New Urban
Agenda, Member States commit to “adopting a smart-city
approach that makes use of opportunities from digitalization,
clean energy and technologies, as well as innovative transport
technologies”. The UN Secretary General’s Roadmap on
Digital Cooperation calls for the redoubling of efforts to better
harness the potential of digital technologies while mitigating
the harm that they may cause.
To operationalize these frameworks in the context of smart
cities, it is important to understand how the governance
of smart city initiatives is interpreted and implemented in
different settings. This report, Global Review of Smart City
Governance Practices, captures the ndings of a global online
survey undertaken to understand smart city governance
practices employed by municipal governments. It also
explores the mechanisms. partnerships and design principles
guiding the choice of urban technological infrastructure.
The report puts emphasis on the signicance of regulating
the ethical aspects of smart city technologies and the role
municipal governments.
I believe local governments have an important role to play
in the governance of smart cities and in countering the
challenges and risks of rising digitalization in public service
delivery and implications such as digital divide, digital
inclusion and social equity.
Message from UN-Habitat Executive Director
FOREWORD

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 7
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the most urbanized
developing region on the planet, smart city management
is a key element in improving people’s lives. In a context of
exponential growth in the amount of available data and an
increase in the demand for services imposed by the change in
citizens’ expectations, the search for innovative management
models, more than an opportunity, is an imperative.
CAF – Development Bank of Latin America, within the
framework of its Digital Transformation Agenda and its
initiatives for smart cities, seeks to promote territories that
are more attentive to the needs of the economy and society,
through the expansion and use of physical infrastructures,
new technologies, data intelligence and innovative governance
mechanisms. We accompany the region’s cities in their digital
transformation through a new way of looking at territorial
management capabilities and public service, so that they are
increasingly better, more sustainable, more transparent and
people-centric.
The collaboration between CAF, UN-Habitat and Edinburgh
Napier University makes us very proud and also offers
many lessons. The elaboration of digital transformation
strategies is complex and involves the articulation of several
actors. Implementing the proper governance and incentive
mechanisms are critical to make them come to fruition.
Digital transformation plans are designed to be discussed
and adapted as the city, its people and technologies advance,
and having the right institutions, regulations and channels to
make them happen are essential. The ability to have a world-
encompassing approach to governing smart city transitions
is of great use to cities in the region, and also allows to
disseminate the good examples we have on this matter.
With this work, we hope to contribute to the debate on issues
of inclusive urban development in the region and to the
dissemination of innovative initiatives that seek to strengthen
the intelligent management of cities.
Message from CAF
FOREWORD
Antonio Silveira
Physical Infrastructure and Digital
Transformation Manager
Angel Cardenas
Urban Development and Creative
Economies Manager

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
8
Professor Andrea Nolan OBE
Principal and Vice Chancellor of
Edinburgh Napier University
Professor Nick Antonopoulos
Vice Principal and Deputy Vice Chancellor
of Edinburgh Napier University
Available data pictures a challenging scenario: the world is
far from attaining resource efcient, safe, and universally
accessible urban settlements, and more work is needed to
ensure that nobody is left behind.
More sustainable urban futures are urgently required, and
the transformative power of smart technologies offers the
opportunity to accelerate the implementation of this goal.
The transition to smart cities is introducing the means for
designing and experimenting with new approaches to urban
sustainability enhancement. Through smart city initiatives,
the many urban challenges facing cities worldwide can
be tackled – ranging from inefcient and polluting energy
systems to water scarcity, trafc congestion, unaffordable
housing, gender-based inequalities, urban poverty, and much
more. But capturing the sustainability potential embedded in
these emerging technological developments demands radical
changes in the way we study, govern, and organize urban
environments.
At Edinburgh Napier University, we are strongly committed
to supporting this change, and this dedication manifests in
the continuous contribution of our research community to
shaping academic and policy-oriented debates on smart
city development. With multidisciplinary research that unites
social science to engineering and technology studies, our
researchers have been investing signicant intellectual
recourses in activities whose main objective is to provide
urban development actors worldwide with the knowledge
required to effectively manage the complexity of smart city
initiatives and to ensure that digital innovation becomes a true
instrument for boosting sustainable urban development and
public value creation.
The report Global Review of Smart City Governance Practices
demonstrates the intrinsic value of these collaborative
and interdisciplinary research efforts. The partnership with
UN-Habitat, Tallinn University of Technology, and CAF –
Development Bank of Latin America – has produced a
milestone in the international landscape for smart city policy
development: the rst-ever global overview and comparison of
how the governance of smart city initiatives is interpreted and
managed across regions.
Among its key recommendations, the report reafrms the
critical importance to adopt a people-centred rather than
technology-led approach to smart city initiatives and urge
caution in strategizing smart city ambitions. The report
also highlights the need to position local governments at
the forefront of urban digital transformations, but it further
emphasizes that multi-stakeholder capacity and citizen
empowerment are of the utmost importance. Effective
governance requires organizing for collective action. Clear and
powerful advice that will inform any efforts to leverage smart
technologies in the construction of more sustainable urban
futures.
Message from Edinburgh Napier University
FOREWORD

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 9
Rasheed Kemy / unsplash.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
10
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
INTRODUCTION
Smart city initiatives
Housing, transportation, energy, public lightening, waste
management, healthcare, public safety, telecommunications,
and education are only some of the many services that
towns and cities offer to satisfy the needs of their residents.
Increasingly, many of these services are being delivered
or supported by digital technologies. The ongoing digital
transformation provides new opportunities but also creates
challenges, and it is increasingly apparent that delivering
effective urban digital services is a complex task. Part of the
challenge for local governments in what we are calling smart
city initiatives is establishing digital leadership functions,
understanding the fast-moving digital landscape and nding
new ways to collaborate with the various stakeholders that
participate in the development of cities. They need to nd
ways to equip urban areas with new digital technologies that
help run operations, contribute to positive urban development
and improve the quality of life of residents while reducing the
environmental impact of cities.
Smart city initiatives are not only about technology.
Successful transition to smart cities requires technology
to be contextualized and combined with changes in policy,
regulatory, organizational and institutional settings within local
governments. It also calls for a redenition of user practices
and attitudes, skills and behaviours within local communities.
To sustain this transformation process, smart city initiatives
set in motion collaborative ecosystems, typically based
on cross-sector partnerships, whose activities change the
conguration of urban infrastructures. These changes are
complementary and instrumental to solving technical and
social challenges that can prevent newly introduced digital
technologies from being adopted in an effective way – an
outcome that would compromise their capability to solve or
mitigate the urban challenges they are meant to address.
What is emerging is that the key challenge in this transition
process is the governance aspect; there is a strong need
for local governments to orchestrate activities in highly
collaborative contexts involving actors such as various
municipal departments and agencies, private sector suppliers,
universities and other research institutes, civil society
organizations and residents.
The governance challenge
The political and executive bodies of national and local
governments are at the forefront of the digital transition. As
representatives of public interests, governments at all levels
are increasingly expected to provide the leadership needed
to ensure that digital technologies in urban spaces produce
positive outcomes. This is, however, easier said than done.
The novelty and complexity of many smart city initiatives
make it difcult for public sector organizations to effectively
govern digital transformation processes. There is a strong
need for guidance and more clarity on a wide range of issues,
including the collection and management of data, data privacy,
collaboration with the private sector, technology procurement
and public participation in smart city initiatives.
Building on a global study on the governance of smart city
initiatives, this report offers a two-fold contribution that helps
overcome such a critical knowledge gap.
 First, it details how smart city governance is being
approached by cities across the world. Differences and
similarities of existing pathways have been insufciently
clear for many years. There is a need to examine the global
state of smart city governance practices and compare
them.
 Second, by building on the data describing this
global scenario, the report provides key practical
recommendations for local governments and their
ofcials who are responsible for governing the planning,
implementation and sustainability of smart city initiatives.

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 11
Structure of the report
The report is structured in six main sections. It begins by
introducing the methodology used to conduct the analysis,
where systematic literature review methods and a global
online survey were combined. Building on this analysis, it then
presents a proposed governance framework for smart city
initiatives.
The smart city governance framework has three pillars. These
three pillars are covered in the following three sections of
the report. Each section introduces a pillar of the governance
framework and details the ndings of the global online survey
while reflecting on their signicance in the context of the
systematic literature review.
The report then highlights key lessons and opportunities for
improvement in the current global practices, that are exposed
through the survey data. Organized by pillar, these lessons
are presented in the last section of the report, along with
recommendations for local governments on how to improve
smart city governance mechanisms.
Adam Winger / unsplash.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
12
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
A two-stage analysis
Many public sector organizations across the world have been
experimenting with smart city initiatives and their actions have
generated a data-rich environment from which to learn. It is
by sourcing, reviewing and codifying this critical knowledge
that this global study advances the current understanding of
smart city governance approaches across the world, exposing
differences and similarities. This objective was achieved by
means of a two-stage analytical process.
Stage 1: Systematic literature review
Approximately 150 scientic publications were analysed. This
literature covers three decades of research on the governance
of smart city initiatives and was used to develop a smart
city governance framework. This framework highlights the
key governance areas to be considered when managing the
planning, implementation, and maintenance operations of
smart city initiatives. The framework is divided into three
pillars: Strategy, Collaborative Environment, and Technological
Infrastructure (see Figure 1).
Stage 2: Global online survey
The ndings of the review were complemented with data
collected through an online survey, which was structured
based on the governance framework. The survey was
completed by approximately 300 respondents in more than
250 municipalities in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and
North America (Figure 2).
Signicant efforts went into ensuring a high response rate to
the survey and a global representation of the responses. The
survey was translated into nine languages and distributed
globally by combining many different communication
channels. The support of city networks and smart city
associations was key to reaching such many respondents.
METHODOLOGY
Systematic
literature review
Global online
survey
A systematic
review of the most
relevant academic
literature reporting
on local and
regional governance
mechanisms of
smart city initiatives.
An online survey
targeting individuals
knowledgeable about
city-level smart
city governance
approaches, in
particular public
sector ofcials.
Stage 1 Stage 2
myboys.me / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 13
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK FOR SMART CITY INITIATIVES
Figure 1 Governance framework for smart city initiatives
Digital services
design and
delivery
Information
architecture
Strategy Collaborative
environment
Technological
infrastructure
Partnership
coordination
Actors and
collaborative
practices
Policy and
regulation
Public sector
setting
Planning
Pillar 1
Component 1.3Component 1.2Component 1.1
Pillar 2
Component 2.2Component 2.1 Component 3.2Component 3.1
Pillar 3
Figure 2 Municipalities included in the online survey
It is important to note that the
municipalities included in this study were
not preselected. The final sample of
municipalities resulted from an open
sampling process based on voluntary
participation. Therefore, not all regions
and countries could be examined in this
research. Moreover, due to this sampling
approach, with municipalities
self-selecting their participation, data
collection in Asia has produced a more
significant representation of Chinese
municipalities compared to other
countries of the Asian region.
As a result, during the statistical analysis,
the data collected from China has been
examined and presented separately from
other Asian countries to avoid misleading
interpretations of the results. This
decision only reflects implications in data
collection and processing.
Note on sampling and
representation of
Chinese municipalities

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
14
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
FOR SMART CITY INITIATIVES
Pillars and components of
the governance framework
The framework concerns the governance of the key pillars
underpinning smart city initiatives:
 Pillar 1: Strategy Refers to the governance of strategic
smart city frameworks, which include the public policies,
regulations and institutional arrangements that municipal
governments and other relevant government agencies at
different administrative levels require to manage smart city
initiatives.
 Pillar 2: Collaborative ecosystem Refers to the
governance mechanisms that are needed to manage the
networks of stakeholders that are involved in smart city
initiatives, as well as the wide range of tools that enable
the formation and management of the collaborative
partnerships sustaining the development of these
initiatives.
 Pillar 3: Technological infrastructure. Refers to the
governance efforts required to steer the design and
provision of hardware and software elements underpinning
smart city services.
The rst pillar (Strategy) groups all activities required to de-
velop the policies and regulations that govern the implemen-
tation and usage of digital technologies in urban areas, such
as standards for cybersecurity, public technology procurement
and innovation and municipal rules for smart city planning.
National- and local-level smart city policies also belong to
this category. In addition, this pillar reflects the governance of
public sector setting in the context of smart city initiatives: the
organizational structure, internal culture, attitude towards digi-
tal innovation and availability of scal and human resources –
a set of main determinants of success in smart city initiatives.
Finally, this pillar also includes the administration of smart city
planning processes and their outcomes, including strategic
plans, vision statements, funding strategies and monitoring
processes adopted by municipal governments to orient and
direct the implementation of digital transformation projects.
The second pillar (Collaborative ecosystem) contributes to
shaping the urban innovation ecosystem where smart city
initiatives take place through the interaction of multiple actors.
The partnerships sustaining smart city initiatives cannot be
limited to public organizations and private companies; broader
participation is needed, extending collaboration to research
institutions, residents and civil society organizations. Building
these coalitions requires governance tools and strategies able
to ensure that all stakeholders, including marginalized groups,
can effectively participate and contribute to the development
of smart city initiatives. These tools span from trust and
leadership (fundamental to manage tensions and power dy-
namics among different stakeholders) to digital skills training,
communication (enhancing the inclusivity and transparency of
smart city initiatives) and public participation. This pillar also
comprises the management of physical and virtual innova-
tion hubs (such as coworking spaces, incubators, accelera-
tors, makerspaces and living labs) whose presence in urban
settings facilitate the collaboration and sharing of knowledge
among multiple partners participating in urban digital transfor-
mation projects.
The third pillar (Technological infrastructure) covers the gov-
ernance of two main elements: the information architecture
supporting the collection, transmission, integration, and usage
of data across urban systems and the design and delivery
of smart city services that feed and make use of this data
environment. Key components of this pillar are tools deployed
for data governance and the measures in place to ensure that
smart city technologies are safe, resilient, interoperable and
respectful of data privacy and human rights. This pillar also
contains those mechanisms that enable the delivery and man-
agement of smart city services, such as the business models
making smart city solutions scalable, and the measures taken
to enhance user satisfaction and incentivise technology adop-
tion among residents.

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 15
TippaPatt / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
16
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
01
respective cities on the basis of a specic denition of the
smart city concept. The exception is Africa, where only 25%
of the respondents indicated that their cities are operating
with a clear smart city denition. Moreover, about 12% of
respondents did not know whether their city follows an ofcial
smart city denition. This was particularly common among
respondents from Africa and China (see Table 1).
Compared to the previous question, slightly more cities
appear to have a smart city vision statement; 61% of all
respondents have reported a smart city vision in their city.
Respondents from Europe, Asia and North America mostly
reported the presence of a vision statement, with the Latin
American respondents (55%) being only slightly below the
global average, while the continent of Africa, according to the
respondents, lags behind with around 39% (see Table 2).
Pillar
One
STRATEGY
Component 1.1: Planning
The planning phase of smart city initiatives is usually
formalized by combining a smart city denition, a vision
statement1 and a strategic plan adopted at the municipal level.
Among the respondents, 70% highlighted that their city has at
least one of these strategic tools and one third has introduced
all of them.
While denitions need to be case-specic and place-sensitive,
a well-established overall understanding of the smart city
concept can serve as a basis to build strategic efforts on.
This notion is partially reflected in the survey; about half of
all respondents worldwide (51%) indicated that their city is
working with an ofcial smart city denition. This gure is
consistent across different geographic areas, with about
half of all respondents from Latin America, North America,
Europe and Asia working on smart city initiatives in their
Panimoni / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 17
Yes (%) No (%) I don't Know (%)
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
51%
55%
49%
56%
14%
25%
55%
52%
60%
53%
53%
54%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
37%
39%
33%
33%
43%
43%
23%
15%
35%
40%
38%
46%
12%
6%
18%
11%
43%
32%
23%
33%
5%
7%
9%
0%
Table 1 Does your city have an official definition of the "smart city" concept?
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
61%
66%
58%
56%
29%
39%
62%
64%
60%
66%
55%
62%
26%
27%
24%
28%
29%
32%
15%
9%
25%
25%
34%
38%
13%
7%
18%
17%
43%
29%
23%
27%
15%
8%
11%
0%
Table 2 Does your municipal government have a vision statement that describes what the city wants
to achieve in the long-term with smart city initiatives?
Yes (%) No (%) I don't Know (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
Objectives are key elements of smart city visions and strategic
plans, and they contribute to summarising the overarching
motivations that trigger smart city initiatives. In the global
sample covered by the online survey, environmental objectives
are most commonly being pursued, with 69% of respondents
claiming that an environmental focus has been included in
the smart city initiatives of their cities either to a very large or
good extent. Social objectives follow closely with 68%, and
economic objectives complement the spectrum with 61%. The
relatively balanced shares between the three listed objectives
are in line with the view that digital technologies should be
designed and implemented holistically to improve the quality

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
18
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
of life of citizens while also boosting the economic prosperity
of cities. Environmental objectives are more often a priority
for European municiaplities and those located in high-income
countries, whereas cities from lower-income countries tend to
prioritise social objectives. Moreover, cities in higher-income
economies tend to follow objectives more strategically than
their lower income counterparts; while on average about
70% of the respondents from high-income cities reported to
explicitly follow the above-mentioned objectives, only about
45% followed suit from their low-income counterparts (see
Table 3).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
61%
61%
68%
44%
36%
50%
62%
70%
50%
61%
68%
54%
68%
71%
67%
50%
57%
57%
64%
70%
55%
70%
72%
69%
69%
79%
63%
33%
43%
43%
60%
67%
50%
78%
68%
62%
Economic objectives (%) Social objectives (%) Environmental objectives (%)
Table 3 To what extent are these objectives included in the smart city initiatives of your municipal government?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
72%
78%
72%
39%
50%
54%
64%
76%
45%
77%
72%
92%
64%
66%
65%
50%
50%
54%
64%
79%
40%
66%
62%
62%
Table 4 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Smart city development in your city…
(Answers: “Strongly Agree“ and “Agree“)
...ensures that the objectives of smart city
initiatives are aligned with overall city
development goals (%)
...ensures that the lessons learned from smart
city initiatives are captured and used (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 19
BOX 1: Guadalajara, Mexico
Vision and objectives
In its smart city project, the city of Guadalajara follows a
clearly dened vision, which is to “recognise and enhance
the creativity, talent, courage and determination that
characterise us Mexicans and Guadalajarans, through
a space where the use of technology and the drive for
innovation provide economic, mobility, environmental and
social benets”. To achieve this vision, the city has also
dened several goals, which all serve the main objective
to “strengthen Mexico’s position within the creative
economy through the generation of better jobs, competitive
advantages for the industry and new spaces that promote
coexistence, talent, innovation and productivity”.8
The data presented in Table 4 indicates that smart city initia-
tives generally cater to their respective cities’ development
needs. When asked to what extent smart city development
responds to the overall development needs of their city, one
in four respondents voiced strong agreement, while almost
one in two generally agree. When combining the responses
“Strongly Agree” and “Agree”, these gures are particularly pro-
nounced in North America (92%), Europe (77%), China (76%)
and Latin America (72%). This result suggests that smart city
initiatives are relatively well embedded into the overall devel-
opment of cities rather than being conceived in isolation, an
issue frequently highlighted in existing smart city literature.
Little under half of all respondents reported that their cities
have established strategic plans for supporting their smart
city initiatives. Especially those from Latin America, Asia
and Europe formulate such plans, while North American and
African cities less commonly do so. This discrepancy might be
traced back to the different capabilities, skills and resources
that cities possess. In fact, the sample shows that higher-
income economies are more likely to have strategic plans for
smart city initiatives than their lower-income counterparts
(see Table 5).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
44%
44%
50%
33%
14%
21%
45%
48%
40%
48%
45%
38%
37%
45%
22%
33%
43%
39%
15%
3%
35%
42%
36%
62%
20%
11%
28%
33%
43%
39%
40%
48%
25%
10%
19%
0%
Yes (%) No (%) I don't Know (%)
Table 5 Does your municipal government have a strategic plan for coordinating smart city initiatives?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
Luis Alvarado Alvarado / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
20
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
37%
40%
37%
22%
14%
21%
25%
21%
30%
39%
53%
38%
38%
47%
24%
39%
36%
39%
19%
6%
40%
47%
28%
54%
25%
13%
39%
39%
50%
39%
57%
73%
30%
14%
19%
8%
Yes (%) No (%) I don't Know (%)
Table 6 Does your city monitor the overall impact of smart city initiatives?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
BOX 2: Medellin, Colombia
Strategic plan
The transformation process of the city of Medellin towards becoming a smart city started in 2004. Several programmes
have been launched since then such as Digital Medellin and the Medellin Smart City Strategy (2007) which aims to
improve the quality of life in the city by employing smart city services and further ICT-based solutions. In addition to the
Smart City Strategy, Medellin also initiated Route N, the city’s strategic plan for science, technology and innovation (STI),
for the period 2011-2021. Together, these plans formed the backbone of Medellin’s smart city endeavours, aiming to
transform Medellin’s economy into a knowledge-based economy with particular attention to the ICT, energy and health
industries.2 The smart city plan furthermore outlines the four major action areas: citizen participation (creating a culture
of participation), open government (making data openly available for the benet of citizens), social innovation (making
citizens active collaborators) and sustainability (economic, environmental, political and social sustainability for the sake of
future generations).3
BOX 3: Prague, Czech Republic
Monitoring
Based on a set of pre-dened indicators, the City of Prague regularly evaluates and assesses its initiatives and progress
made towards becoming a smart city. These indicators cover the ve main areas of i) mobility of the future, ii) waste-
free city, iii) smart buildings and energy, iv) attractive tourism as well as v) people and the urban environment. Taking the
second area – waste-free city – as an example, Prague developed several measurable indicators around the main levers
material utilisation of waste, intelligent waste collection and storage system and use of wastewater and rainwater for
energy and raw material purposes. The number of trips of collection vehicles for different kinds of waste per calendar
year is being measured and compared against the overarching goal of reducing the number of kilometres that collection
vehicles drive. Smart routing systems or smart bins that indicate when bins are full and ready for collection can support
Prague in this endeavour.4

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 21
A crucial element for any smart city initiative to be successful
lies in the ability of stakeholders to monitor project activities.
Only a little over a third of all respondents indicated that their
respective cities monitor their smart city initiatives. This gure
is lowest among African and Chinese cities (21% each). Latin
American cities appear to be the most active in this regard,
with more than half of the respondents conrming that their
cities have put in place monitoring efforts (see Table 6).
As part of their strategic planning activities for smart city
initiatives, municipal governments are also expected to
dene the criteria for the selection of technological solutions
(further discussed in the section Pillar 3: Technological
Infrastructure) and the funding strategy. The survey revealed
that the municipal budget is one of the most common means
for funding smart city initiatives. About 65% of all initiatives
worldwide rely on this source either to a very large or good
extent. A similar situation can be seen for national funding
sources, which are frequently employed in all world regions.
Regional differences, instead, can be observed regarding
the funding stemming from other sources. For instance,
the survey data suggests that the use of private capital
is relatively more prevalent in Latin American cities and
municipalities located in middle-income economies, even
if it remains the least utilised funding source overall. Latin
American and Asian cities rely more often on regional funding
than their counterparts from other regions, while funding
from intergovernmental streams is utilised more among Latin
American, African and European cities (see Table 7), thanks
to the efforts of institutions such as the European Union,
United Nations and Development Banks. It is also important
to note that almost half of the respondents reported budget
constraints to be an issue in the smart city initiatives of their
cities, a key point that will be further discussed in the following
section.
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
66%
66%
71%
39%
57%
50%
64%
73%
50%
63%
77%
92%
34%
30%
47%
28%
7%
18%
47%
52%
40%
31%
45%
15%
45%
47%
48%
39%
21%
29%
49%
45%
55%
48%
47%
31%
32%
29%
33%
44%
50%
39%
30%
21%
45%
33%
38%
0%
14%
9%
23%
11%
14%
11%
17%
21%
10%
7%
32%
15%
9%
5%
16%
11%
7%
4%
19%
21%
15%
4%
17%
8%
Table 7 To what extent does your municipal government rely on the following funding sources to finance smart city initiatives?
(Answers: “To a very large extent” and “To a good extent”)
City budget (%)Regional funding (%) National funding (%) Funding from
intergovern-mental
organisations (%)
Private capital (%)Others (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
i_am_zews / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
22
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
70%
71%
73%
50%
71%
64%
66%
73%
55%
71%
74%
77%
54%
47%
70%
44%
43%
46%
58%
70%
40%
47%
79%
46%
53%
53%
58%
44%
36%
32%
49%
61%
30%
53%
68%
62%
Table 9 To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Your municipal government... (Answers: “Strongly agree” and “Agree”)
...has the competencies required to
manage smart city initiatives (%)
...has a strong
entrepreneurial mindse (%)
...nurtures a culture
of innovation (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
34%
32%
35%
56%
29%
54%
23%
18%
30%
29%
51%
38%
Table 8 Do these factors constrain the smart city initiatives of your city? (Answers: “Always” and “Most of the time”)
Resistance to change within
the public sector (%)
Budget constraints (%) Lack of skills within the
public sector (%)
Lack of coordination within
the public sector (%)
51%
44%
54%
78%
71%
86%
36%
30%
45%
41%
72%
62%
35%
26%
43%
56%
57%
64%
36%
33%
40%
27%
45%
31%
33%
23%
45%
72%
36%
64%
34%
30%
40%
27%
45%
0%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 23
Component 1.2:
Public sector setting
The organisational structure of public organisations, alongside
their resources and culture, have signicant influence on the
governance of smart city initiatives. The structure of municipal
authorities, in particular, affects their decision-making power
and their ability to lead smart city initiatives and to coordinate
with project partners. One third of the respondents lamented a
lack of coordination within the public sector, but a signicant
variance can be observed across regions. None of the North
American cities included in the sample has experienced
coordination issues among actors in the public sector, which
are, however, reported in 64% of the African cities and 45%
of the Latin American municipalities (see Table 8). These
challenges are analysed in further detail in the section Pillar 2:
Innovation Ecosystem.
Zooming in on the resources and culture of public sector
organisations, about half of the respondents identied
budget constraints as a major barrier to smart city initiatives.
The incidence is higher among African cities, followed by
Latin American ones. Unsurprisingly, this issue seems less
pronounced among respondents positioned in high-income
economies (see Table 8). Likewise, the lack of skills within
the public sector appears to primarily affect cities in low- and
lower-middle income countries. Overall, however, only 53% of
the respondents claimed that their municipal government has
the competencies needed to manage smart city initiatives,
with lower-income countries and African cities scoring the
lowest rates (see Table 9).
Regarding cultural aspects within the public sector, 34%
of participants reported resistance to change in public
organisations as a barrier to smart city initiatives in their cities.
This percentage is consistent across regions, except for lower-
middle income economies, where it is signicantly higher
(more than half of the respondents highlighted this challenge;
see Table 8).
At the same time, 70% of respondents agreed that their
municipal governments nurture a culture of innovation, with
results being generally consistent across regions. A strong
entrepreneurial mindset was reported by 54% of respondents
worldwide. However, regional differences can be noted: 79%
of respondents from Latin American cities describe their
municipal governments as having a strong entrepreneurial
mindset, while this percentage is signicantly lower in Europe
(47%), North America (46%) and Africa (46%) (see Table 9).
Another important aspect to consider in light of the structure
of the public sector is the presence of a dedicated unit
(such as a department, a task force, a working group or
similar) that oversees and coordinates the planning and
implementation of smart city initiatives in the city. Previous
research has emphasised how such dedicated entities
(hereinafter referred to as smart city units), while not being
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
57%
66%
45%
61%
29%
36%
42%
30%
60%
64%
60%
77%
31%
30%
34%
17%
43%
43%
23%
18%
30%
32%
32%
23%
12%
4%
22%
22%
29%
21%
36%
52%
10%
4%
9%
0%
Yes (%) No (%) I don't Know (%)
Table 10 Does your city have a dedicated entity (such as a smart city unit, team, working group, etc.)
that is tasked with overseeing the city's smart city initiatives?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
24
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
a guarantor for success, have the potential to foster cross-
sector collaboration of smart city efforts, enhance their impact
and long-term sustainability, and more strategically embed
initiatives into the overall development plans of the city due to
increased coordination inside and outside the boundaries of
the municipal government.
It is a promising sign to see that more than half of the
respondents indicated that their cities have established
a smart city unit. This share is particularly high among
respondents from North America, but lower in China and Africa
(see Table 10).
About 65% of all the smart city units detected in our survey are
integrated into an already existing public sector department
or agency, while a new department or agency has been set up
for about 22% of them. Especially cities in Latin America, North
America and Asia tend to integrate their units into already
existing organisations. European cities, on the other hand,
are relatively more likely to set up new units for coordinating
their smart city initiatives and activities. Overall, our survey
suggests that cities rarely delegate the coordination of their
smart city endeavours to external organisations. Only about
one in twenty smart city units worldwide is located at an
external organisation, be it in a newly established or already
existing one (see Table 11). This suggests that cities prefer to
build their own internal capacities for smart city coordination
and complement them with external input, rather than
primarily relying on the latter.
This preference towards capacity building is reflected in the
functions and activities covered by smart city units. Worldwide,
these units full many of the functions listed in Table 12. While
stakeholder management is the least common activity per-
formed by smart city units, the coordination and development
of smart city initiatives features particularly high in their agen-
da. Knowledge sharing activities are more frequently performed
by smart city units in North America and Europe, while Asian
units less commonly promote and communicate their smart
city initiatives than their peers in other geographical regions.
But despite these differences, almost all of the listed functions
are fullled by at least more than half of the respective cities’
smart city units across all areas, with stakeholder management
in China being the only exception.
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
65%
64%
68%
73%
25%
40%
73%
60%
83%
62%
71%
80%
22%
24%
22%
9%
25%
20%
23%
40%
8%
24%
21%
10%
4%
5%
0%
9%
0%
0%
5%
0%
8%
5%
0%
0%
2%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
6%
4%
7%
9%
50%
40%
0%
0%
0%
4%
4%
10%
1%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
Table 11 Where is the dedicated entity located?
In an existing public
sector department or
agency (%)
In a newly-
established public
sector department or
agency (%)
In an existing external
organization (%)
In a newly established
external organization
(%)
Other (Please specify)
(%)
I don't know (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 25
Component 1.3:
Policy and regulations
Cities are embedded in regional and national contexts and the
policies introduced at these levels also influence how smart
city initiatives are approached at the municipal level. National
policies specically designed for smart city initiatives can
serve as incentives and catalysers and, if properly framed,
as a framework in which innovation can prosper. More than
half of the respondents indicated that their countries have
adopted specic policies for smart city initiatives. This share
is higher in Asia and Latin America, where nearly 75% and
66% of respondents, respectively, reported the existence of a
national smart city policy. On the other end of the spectrum,
respondents did not highlight national policies in North
American cities (see Table 13).
In addition to these policies, laws and regulations passed
at both national and international level are crucial elements
to consider when implementing smart city initiatives and
influence their capability to create public value. Of relevance in
this context are the national laws and international regulations
that set rules and conditions for the design, development, use,
and management of digital technologies in urban settings.
BOX 4: Estonia
Ensuring interoperability
between organisations and
systems in Estonia
Being a country with one of the highest presences
of public services online worldwide, Estonia laid
the foundations of its digital transformation on
data interoperability and sharing standards in the
early 2000s. The Baltic nation developed a national
regulatory framework that establishes the use of and
maintenance of “X-Road”, a data exchange technology
platform for public authorities.5 X-Road ensures
information security and privacy, while allowing data
sharing and co-functioning of diverse public and
private e-services within the country itself as well
as between countries. For instance, the solution has
allowed the delivery of healthcare public services
across borders for citizens in both Estonia and
Finland.6 In 2021, more than 450 entities, including
150 public sector institutions, were connected
through X-Road, with approximately 13,000 interfaced
information systems.7
Planning of your
city’s smart city
strategy (%)
Development
of smart city
initiatives (%)
Coordination
of smart city
initiatives (%)
Stakeholder
management (%)
Promotion and
communication
of smart city
initiatives (%)
Knowledge
sharing
activities (%)
Monitoring and
assessment
of smart city
initiatives (%)
Others (%)
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
84%
82%
90%
73%
75%
80%
91%
100%
83%
82%
86%
80%
89%
92%
85%
73%
75%
80%
77%
70%
83%
92%
89%
80%
92%
93%
88%
91%
100%
100%
86%
80%
92%
92%
89%
100%
70%
73%
66%
73%
50%
60%
64%
40%
83%
74%
64%
80%
85%
84%
90%
73%
0%
90%
73%
80%
67%
85%
89%
90%
81%
87%
73%
55%
0%
70%
59%
60%
58%
89%
68%
90%
84%
82%
90%
82%
0%
70%
86%
90%
83%
84%
86%
80%
9%
7%
12%
18%
0%
10%
14%
10%
17%
8%
11%
0%
Table 12 Which functions are covered by the dedicated entity?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
26
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
54%
48%
70%
56%
29%
36%
75%
82%
65%
51%
66%
0%
27%
36%
12%
28%
29%
25%
13%
3%
30%
32%
17%
69%
18%
17%
18%
17%
43%
39%
11%
15%
5%
16%
17%
31%
Yes (%) No (%) I don't Know (%)
Table 13 Does your country have a national policy to guide smart city initiatives?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
92%
97%
90%
78%
64%
75%
85%
94%
70%
98%
94%
85%
Table 14 Does your country have laws or regulations in place to manage the following matters? (Answers: “Yes”)
Data protection (%)
50%
49%
58%
50%
7%
36%
57%
73%
30%
49%
60%
23%
Interoperability of
technological
solutions (%)
75%
77%
76%
83%
36%
57%
83%
94%
65%
79%
68%
62%
Cybersecurity (%)
69%
71%
70%
67%
36%
54%
68%
73%
60%
73%
79%
15%
Digital rights (%)
46%
42%
52%
56%
43%
54%
55%
52%
60%
43%
51%
8%
Ethics of
technology (%)
47%
42%
61%
44%
7%
32%
55%
67%
35%
44%
64%
15%
Open-source
technology usage (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 27
Many experts taking part in our survey conrmed that the
smart city initiatives in their cities lean on regulations on
data protection (92%), cybersecurity (75%) and digital rights
(69%). The interoperability of technical solutions and ethics
of technology have received considerably less attention with
only between 46% and 50% of the respondents highlighting
the presence of corresponding legislative tools in their cities.
Moreover, the results of the survey show that the smart-
city-related laws and regulations presented in this study
are generally more prevalent in higher- than lower-income
countries. The discrepancy is particularly pronounced with
respect to the interoperability of technical solutions. Concerns
around the ethics of technology, however, appear to be more
common in middle-income rather than high- and low-income
countries (see Table 14).
Another pivotal aspect of smart city planning processes are
technology procurement practices. Our sample shows that
procurement requirements oftentimes reflect the conditions
set by laws and regulations on various aspects of digital
technologies. Hence, where these laws and regulations have
been set up, it is more likely that they are also translated
into requirements for procurement. Interestingly, the
interoperability of technological solutions is more often a
requirement in cities’ technology procurement practices
than it is a legal condition. Furthermore, digital rights and
data protection are less commonly anchored in procurement
practices than they are in laws and regulations (see Table 14 &
Table 15).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
74%
81%
70%
61%
29%
39%
74%
79%
65%
84%
62%
77%
Table 15 In the procurement processes of your municipal government, are there specific requirements
on the following matters? (Answers: “Yes”)
Data protection (%)
55%
56%
58%
56%
14%
32%
58%
70%
40%
59%
51%
54%
Interoperability of
technological
solutions (%)
64%
71%
60%
67%
14%
36%
70%
79%
55%
72%
45%
92%
Cybersecurity (%)
47%
48%
50%
56%
14%
29%
62%
70%
50%
52%
38%
8%
Digital rights (%)
35%
31%
42%
44%
21%
29%
49%
58%
35%
34%
36%
0%
Ethics of
technology (%)
42%
39%
51%
39%
21%
21%
53%
64%
35%
43%
49%
8%
Open-source
technology usage (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
28
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
60%
60%
65%
50%
43%
46%
53%
42%
70%
57%
79%
85%
57%
61%
59%
44%
29%
39%
45%
36%
50%
58%
72%
85%
Table 16 To what extent do you agree with these statements? (Answers: “Always” and “Most of the time”)
Public procurement regulations mandate tight
bureaucratic control in smart city initiatives (%)
Public procurement regulations pose major
challenges to the engagement of external actors
in smart city initiatives (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
31%
24%
39%
50%
36%
39%
45%
42%
50%
23%
34%
31%
54%
55%
57%
39%
43%
36%
57%
67%
40%
57%
57%
38%
48%
46%
50%
50%
57%
54%
58%
64%
30%
47%
38%
46%
Table 17 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? When selecting new technological solutions
for the city, the municipal government… (Answers: “Strongly agree” and “Agree”)
…prefers to work with
local suppliers (%)
…thoroughly estimates the
implementation and maintenance
costs of the new technology (%)
… prioritizes low acquisition
costs over societal benefits (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 29
About 60% of the respondents agreed that public procurement
regulations mandate tight bureaucratic control on smart city
initiatives and pose major challenges to the engagement of
external partners. These issues were particularly remarked
in Latin American and North American municipalities, where
public procurement regulations and their tight bureaucratic
control were identied as a major challenge by 79% and 85%
of the respondents, respectively (see Table 16).
As to the criteria driving the procurement processes for
smart city initiatives, about half of the respondents worldwide
claimed that their municipal governments thoroughly
estimate the implementation and maintenance costs of new
technologies when they are acquired. Similarly, about half of
the cities included in our sample seem to prefer to work with
local suppliers. This preference is most clearly expressed in
Africa and China, whereas Latin American cities rely on local
suppliers less frequently. Moreover, low acquisition costs
tend to be prioritised over societal benets, mainly in Africa
and Asia, and, more generally, in lower- than higher-income
economies (see Table 17).
FreeProd33 / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
30
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
A lack of coherently structured procurement practices and
laws and regulations can have adverse effects on smart
city initiatives. Yet, respondents witness actual constraints
only sometimes. Due to its practical nature and direct
implications, the lack of regulations on interoperability and
technological solutions is being criticised the most, albeit by
a narrow margin. Moreover, the lack of laws and regulations
for supporting smart city initiatives appears to be more
critical in lower-income economies (see Table 18). This data
might imply that dedicated orchestration is needed more
in those countries and cannot be easily delegated to other
infrastructures, networks or ecosystems that could cover
some of these functions and might already be in place in
higher-income countries.
The effect of laws and regulations, however, cannot solely be
based on their existence, but is also determined by their ease
of application and implementation. On a global scale, laws
and regulations on cybersecurity, open-source technology
usage, digital rights and cybersecurity appear to be easier
to implement than those on interoperability of technological
solutions and ethics of technology. High-income economies
are those struggling the most with ethics of technologies,
while low-income countries nd it more difcult to implement
regulations on interoperability and open-source software.
Conversely, the use of open-source software was perceived
as less problematic among Latin American respondents,
who also struggle with the application of laws concerned
with cybersecurity, ethics and interoperability. But overall, the
implementation of laws and regulations remains a compelling
issue for most of the municipalities that participated in this
study (see Table 19).
Jon Chica / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 31
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
17%
9%
25%
39%
29%
32%
21%
18%
25%
8%
32%
8%
Table 18 Do these factors constrain the smart city initiatives of your city? (Answers: “Always” and “Most of the time”)
Lack of regulations on the
interoperability of
technological solutions
(%)
10%
2%
18%
28%
36%
36%
11%
9%
15%
3%
21%
0%
Lack of regulations on
cybersecurity (%)
15%
6%
24%
28%
36%
43%
19%
21%
15%
5%
21%
15%
Lack of regulations on
ethics of technology (%)
13%
4%
21%
33%
29%
39%
17%
15%
20%
3%
19%
23%
Lack of regulations on
digital rights (%)
15%
7%
22%
33%
50%
50%
19%
18%
20%
7%
19%
8%
Lack of regulations on
open-source technology
usage (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 19 In your municipal government, how difficult is it to apply legal requirements on the following matters?
(Answers: “Very easy” and “Easy”)
Data protection (%) Interoperability of
technological
solutions (%)
Cybersecurity (%) Digital rights (%) Ethics of
technology (%)
24%
17%
36%
39%
7%
21%
32%
39%
20%
16%
43%
15%
Open-source
technology usage (%)
35%
38%
35%
17%
21%
14%
30%
33%
25%
40%
36%
31%
17%
13%
26%
17%
7%
7%
30%
39%
15%
14%
23%
8%
26%
24%
30%
28%
21%
21%
36%
39%
30%
24%
21%
38%
25%
23%
29%
22%
21%
21%
30%
30%
30%
24%
28%
8%
16%
10%
24%
22%
21%
21%
23%
24%
20%
11%
23%
0%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
32
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
02
Component 2.1: Actors and
collaborative practices
Municipal governments are central actors in the planning and
development processes of smart city initiatives. They play
a key role in ensuring that smart city initiatives respond to
the needs of each specic city and their local communities.
In smart city initiatives, municipal governments collaborate
with a broad range of actors, from public and private
organizations to academia and other research institutions,
intergovernmental organizations, civil society, and residents.
However, collaboration practices differ in each city, leading
to variation among countries and regions. For example, the
overall levels of collaboration activity - referring to the number
of external actors that each municipality collaborates with in
their smart city initiatives - are higher in North America and
Europe (approximately 70% of collaboration with all various
external actors), which are followed by Latin America (64%),
and are representatively lower in Africa (50%). In Asia, China
comprises the lower levels of average collaboration activity
(39%) while the collaboration rates of Asian countries (62%) are
more similar to those captured in Latin America (see Table 20 ).
Collaboration practices vary in relation to the different phases
of smart city initiatives (i.e. planning, implementation) as
per the different nature of the tasks and functions needed in
each of these phases. During planning activities, municipal
governments are observed to have higher collaboration levels
with the following actors: other local public organizations
(80%), universities or other research institutions (77%), and
national public organisations (71%). Private companies
and civil society organizations are associated with lower
percentages, with active collaboration reported in 64%
and 62% of the cities, respectively. Intergovernmental
organisations have the overall lowest collaboration levels, with
highest presence in Africa (57%) and Latin America (53%),
and lowest rates in North America (15%) and China (30%), as
shown in Table 21.
COLLABORATIVE
ECOSYSTEM
Pillar
Two
Boyko.Pictures / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 33
Other local public
organisations (%)
National public
organisations (%)
Intergovernmental
organisations (%)
Local private
companies (%)
Non-local private
companies (%)
Universities or
research
institutions (%)
Civil society
organisations (%)
Residents (%)
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
80%
80%
72%
78%
71%
82%
68%
61%
80%
86%
74%
92%
71%
76%
60%
78%
71%
86%
57%
48%
70%
77%
62%
62%
46%
43%
50%
39%
64%
57%
38%
30%
50%
47%
53%
15%
66%
72%
62%
56%
29%
46%
47%
39%
60%
71%
77%
85%
62%
69%
54%
67%
29%
39%
49%
36%
70%
68%
66%
77%
77%
85%
72%
67%
43%
57%
70%
67%
75%
84%
70%
100%
62%
72%
47%
61%
43%
50%
36%
18%
65%
72%
60%
85%
58%
72%
38%
61%
21%
39%
28%
15%
50%
73%
51%
85%
Table 21 Who does your municipal government collaborate with in the planning of their smart city initiatives?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
65%
72%
57%
63%
46%
57%
49%
39%
65%
72%
64%
75%
Planning (%) Implementation (%)Average (%)
Table 20 Overall municipal collaboration levels with external actors
60%
68%
53%
42%
41%
42%
46%
38%
58%
68%
63%
66%
63%
70%
55%
53%
44%
50%
47%
39%
62%
70%
64%
71%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
34
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
In the implementation of smart city initiatives, respondents
observed lower collaboration rates between municipal
governments and other stakeholders engaged in the planning
phase, with the exception of private sector companies, which
have higher collaboration rates in most countries and regions
(see Table 22). In Asia, the highest rate of collaboration in
the implementation of smart city initiatives takes place with
local private companies (60% of respondents). Likewise,
in Latin America, private sector companies are associated
with the highest collaboration rates in both planning and
implementation phases, with a more prominent role of local
private companies in the region (77% of presence in both
planning and implementation phases).
BOX 5: Vienna, Austria
Cross-departmental
collaboration in Vienna
A central point in Vienna’s smart city strategy is the
initiation of cross-departmental projects. The city
notes that “major, innovative, multidimensional beacon
projects require inspiration and impetus to get them
off the ground in the rst place and coordinated
partnerships within the municipal administration for
their implementation, not least with regard to raising
of funds and planning of resources”. To further spur
collaboration, Vienna’s smart city strategy relies
on a diverse array of stakeholders from business,
research and development and civil society. Through
these links, the city of Vienna hopes to realise several
benets ranging from the exchange of expertise to the
implementation of innovative solutions.9
Other local public
organisations (%)
National public
organisations (%)
Intergovernmental
organisations (%)
Local private
companies (%)
Non-local private
companies (%)
Universities or
research
institutions (%)
Civil society
organisations (%)
Residents (%)
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
73%
82%
64%
61%
50%
61%
58%
48%
75%
79%
77%
85%
63%
71%
53%
61%
36%
54%
47%
33%
70%
71%
64%
54%
39%
39%
39%
17%
71%
54%
23%
18%
30%
43%
45%
8%
69%
75%
65%
61%
36%
43%
60%
52%
75%
73%
77%
85%
64%
75%
55%
44%
29%
21%
55%
45%
70%
74%
64%
92%
68%
77%
64%
33%
43%
43%
58%
58%
60%
75%
68%
92%
56%
64%
48%
39%
50%
43%
36%
24%
55%
64%
62%
69%
48%
60%
38%
22%
14%
21%
26%
24%
30%
62%
49%
46%
Table 22 Who does your municipal government collaborate with in the implementation of their smart city initiatives?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 35
Curioso.Photography / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
36
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
Municipal
government (%)
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian
c
ountries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 23 To what extent are these actors active in the smart city initiatives of your city? (Answers: “Active” and “Very active”)
Other local public
organisations (%)
43%
42%
46%
44%
36%
46%
38%
42%
30%
46%
40%
38%
National public
organisations (%)
39%
34%
42%
56%
57%
57%
43%
45%
40%
36%
45%
8%
Intergovernmental
organisations (%)
31%
24%
41%
28%
57%
43%
34%
36%
30%
25%
47%
15%
Local private
companies (%)
46%
47%
48%
22%
50%
43%
40%
36%
45%
47%
51%
54%
Non-local private
companies (%)
42%
46%
40%
28%
21%
18%
42%
39%
45%
47%
43%
31%
Universities or
research
institutions (%)
66%
77%
54%
44%
36%
36%
58%
55%
65%
76%
57%
69%
Civil society
organisations (%)
35%
37%
33%
33%
29%
29%
32%
21%
50%
36%
38%
38%
Residents (%)
22%
24%
17%
33%
14%
18%
19%
15%
25%
24%
21%
23%
76%
80%
73%
72%
57%
64%
72%
70%
75%
80%
74%
85%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
76%
80%
73%
72%
57%
64%
72%
70%
75%
80%
74%
85%
91%
95%
86%
83%
79%
86%
83%
79%
90%
95%
87%
92%
78%
80%
78%
78%
64%
71%
72%
64%
85%
79%
85%
92%
Table 24 Municipal governments: active engagement and leadership
Municipal governments
have a leading role in smart
city implementation (%)
Municipal governments
have a leading role in smart
city planning (%)
Municipal governments
are active or very active
stakeholders (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 37
While municipal governments collaborate with different
stakeholders, entities play different roles and have different
activity levels in smart city initiatives. For example, in the
planning phases, municipal governments are observed to have
collaboration practices with residents in 58% of the cases
(see Table 21), whereas the percentage decreases to 48% in
implementation stages (see Table 22). However, only 22% of
the respondents have identied residents as “active actors”
(see Table 23), meaning that the collaboration with residents
is not directly associated with their active participation. The
following sections describe the different levels of active
engagement and various roles that diverse stakeholders can
play in smart city initiatives.
Overall, the most active stakeholders in smart city initiatives
are municipal governments (see Table 23). Respondents have
selected municipal governments as the main leading actors
in the planning and implementation stages of smart city
initiatives in all countries and regions (see Table 24). However,
their level of engagement decreases from high- to low-income
countries. High-income countries have the highest rates of
active engagement, where respondents reported municipal
government as active stakeholders in 80% of the cases. This
rate is progressively lower as the income-level decreases,
with just 57% of active engagement in low-income countries
(see Table 24). Furthermore, in low-income countries,
intergovernmental and national public organizations are
identied as active as municipal governments. Only in this
group of countries municipalities share the same levels of
active engagement than other actors (see Table 23).
Universities and research institutions are the second most
active stakeholder after municipal governments (see Table 23),
with greater activity rates in high-income countries. In North
America, almost all respondents reported that these entities
collaborate with municipal governments (96% of average
between planning and implementation phases, see Table 21
and Table 22), although only 69% of them indicated that they
are active stakeholders (see Table 25). Overall, universities are
a key collaborating actor in both planning and implementation
phases in most of the countries, despite some regional
differences in their levels of collaboration. In fact, these entities
are observed as the second most important leading partner
for the planning of smart city initiatives in all regions, except
for Asia, where they are the third one after national public
organizations (see Table 25 and Table 26).
Furthermore, approximately 65% of respondents conrmed
that universities play various important roles. A leadership
role is highlighted by almost half of the respondents, who
also selected universities and other research institutes as the
second most important data provider, after national public
organizations: 43% of respondents conrmed that their
municipal governments rely on university-provided data (see
Table 39 in section Pillar 3: Technological infrastructure). In
addition, 71% of respondents identied that universities and
research institutions are instrumental in facilitating knowledge
exchange in the smart city initiatives of their cities.
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
66%
77%
54%
44%
36%
36%
58%
55%
65%
76%
57%
69%
54%
61%
45%
39%
50%
54%
34%
30%
40%
58%
55%
85%
39%
45%
34%
22%
29%
32%
25%
24%
25%
44%
38%
62%
Table 25 Universities and research institutions: active engagement and leadership
Universities and research
institutions have a leading role in
smart city implementation (%)
Universities and research
institutions have a leading role in
smart city planning (%)
Universities and research
institutions are active or very
active stakeholders (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
38
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
The results suggest that national public organizations are
frequently involved in the planning and implementation of smart
cities initiatives. However, they are not recognized as active
stakeholders. As an example, national entities are collaborating
partners in approximately three-fourths of the European
cities (see Table 21 and Table 22), but only one-third of the
respondents reported them as active actors (see Table 26).
Among their main roles, national public organizations are
identied as the main external provider of both data and
funding for municipal smart city initiatives (see Table 7 in
section Pillar 1: Strategy). Multi-level governance practices
should be considered to ensure local autonomy, coordinated
efforts, and mutual benets among different government tiers.
As shown in Table 26, this is particularly relevant in lower
income countries, where national public organizations are in
general more active, As shown in Table 26, this is particularly
relevant in lower and lower-middle income countries, where
national public organizations are in general more active. .
Further information on the coordination practices among local
and national entities can be found in the following section (see
section Component 2.2: Partnership coordination).
In general, private companies have moderate levels of
active engagement. While they are observed to have high
collaboration rates in planning and implementing smart city
initiatives (see Table 21 and Table 22), they are less active
actors than municipal governments or universities and other
research institutes (see Table 23).
Building on the ndings of this study, it is important to
note that, in all regions, data provided by external parties
mainly come from national public organizations, universities
and other research institutes or residents. Private sector
companies are the second lowest provider of data in most
smart city initiatives, with particularly low rates in Europe and
North America (see Table 39 in section Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure). Similarly, private sector funding has been
included among the least used nancial resources in smart
city initiatives, representing a funding source in just 32% of
the cases in Latin America, 15% in North America and Asia,
11% in Africa, and 7% in Europe (see Table 7 in section Pillar
1: Strategy). These rates might indicate that private sector
companies are mostly engaged as contracted delivery
partners, with low levels of proactive engagement and share of
in-house assets (e.g., nancial resources, data, etc.).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
39%
34%
42%
56%
57%
57%
43%
45%
40%
36%
45%
8%
36%
31%
40%
44%
50%
43%
42%
36%
50%
32%
45%
8%
24%
18%
32%
39%
29%
25%
32%
30%
35%
20%
36%
0%
Table 26 National public organizations: active engagement and leadership
National public organizations
have a leading role in smart city
implementation (%)
National public organizations
have a leading role in smart
city planning (%)
National public organizations
are active or very active
stakeholders (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 39
Furthermore, the overall lack of Business-to-Government
collaboration models, constitute a main barrier to unlock the
full potential of private sector data to contribute to developing
smart city initiatives that foster public interests and needs.
Nonetheless, private companies, and especially local private
companies, stand as key players in the smart city collaboration
ecosystem of many cities involved in this study. In regions
such as Latin America and Asian countries (excluding China),
local private companies undertake a leadership role in the
implementation of smart city initiatives in 51% and 60% of
the cases, respectively, becoming the second most important
leader after the municipal government (see Table 27).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
42%
46%
40%
28%
21%
18%
42%
39%
45%
47%
43%
31%
Table 27 Private companies: active engagement and leadership
Are they active
stakeholders? (%)
28%
30%
23%
39%
21%
25%
25%
12%
45%
30%
23%
38%
Do they have a
leading role in smart
city planning? (%)
28%
31%
25%
22%
14%
11%
21%
15%
30%
32%
30%
46%
Do they have a
leading role in smart
city implementation?
(%)
46%
47%
48%
22%
50%
43%
40%
36%
45%
47%
51%
54%
Are they active
stakeholders? (%)
40%
40%
37%
44%
50%
46%
34%
21%
55%
39%
43%
46%
Do they have a
leading role in smart
city planning? (%)
43%
42%
45%
50%
29%
29%
43%
33%
60%
41%
51%
54%
Do they have a
leading role in smart
city implementation?
(%)
NON-LOCAL PRIVATE COMPANIES LOCAL PRIVATE COMPANIES
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
ThisisEngineering RAEng / unsplash.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
40
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
BOX 6: Santiago de Chile, Chile
Private sector participation
In Santiago de Chile, companies are considered an
integral part in the process of resilience-building. The
Santiago +B project aims to motivate companies,
and especially small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) to self-evaluate their social and environmental
impact. This, in turn, is expected to increase the
private sector’s participation in the region’s resilience
agenda and smart city initiatives. To ensure a
mutually benecial participation of companies, proven
instruments and standards are employed, while
participating businesses become part of a network that
allows for more direct communication and exchange
of knowledge. The Santiago +B project is embedded in
the city’s overall resilience strategy, which comprises
the four focal areas of i) human approach (placing
people at the centre of discussion), ii) participatory
city (including key stakeholders in decision-making),
iii) territorial intelligence (making the best decision
for each territory in the city in light of its respective
particularities) as well as iv) promoting the right to
the city (providing access to the city’s services to all
citizens).10
Intergovernmental organizations, such as United Nations,
European Union or International Development Banks,
represent the group of entities with lower collaboration levels
with municipal governments, in comparison with the other
actors (see Table 21 and Table 22). This rate is particularly low
in North America, with an average of just 12% of respondents
reporting collaboration practices with intergovernmental
organizations, followed by Asia (24% in China, and 40%
in other Asian countries) and Europe (45%). In turn, Africa
reports the highest levels of collaboration with this kind of
organizations (55%) followed by Latin America (49%).
Similarly, the highest level of active engagement of
intergovernmental organizations is found in Latin America
(47%, see Table 28). Africa has the second highest level of
intergovernmental organizations’ active engagement (43%),
where they are the second main provider of data, after national
public organizations (see Table 39), and the second source
of funding for smart city initiatives, after the city budget (see
Table 7 in section Pillar 1: Strategy). In this region, however,
intergovernmental organizations report lower levels of
leadership in smart city planning and implementation (see
Table 28).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
31%
24%
41%
28%
57%
43%
34%
36%
30%
25%
47%
15%
Table 28 Intergovernmental organizations: active engagement and leadership
Intergovernmental organizations
have a leading role in smart city
implementation (%)
Intergovernmental organizations
have a leading role in smart city
planning (%)
Intergovernmental organizations
are active or very active
stakeholders (%)
24%
18%
35%
11%
36%
29%
34%
33%
35%
16%
32%
31%
19%
13%
27%
11%
36%
21%
25%
21%
30%
13%
30%
15%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 41
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
35%
37%
33%
33%
29%
29%
32%
21%
50%
36%
38%
38%
Table 29 Civil society organizations: active engagement and leadership
Civil society organizations
have a leading role in smart
city implementation (%)
Civil society organizations
have a leading role in smart
city planning (%)
Civil society organizations
are active or very active
stakeholders (%)
30%
28%
27%
33%
64%
54%
21%
3%
50%
25%
38%
38%
24%
22%
26%
22%
36%
29%
17%
9%
30%
22%
36%
23%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
59%
56%
72%
41%
18%
17%
11%
43%
Public consultations
Public meetings
Workshops
Hackathons
App contests
Crowdsourcing technique
s
Bootcamp
s
Testing of prototype
s
Table 30 What instruments does your city use to ensure that stakeholders participate in smart city initiatives?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
42
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
Overall, civil society organizations have low levels of active
engagement (only 35% of the respondents marked them as
active partners), making them the third least active actor after
residents (22%) and intergovernmental organizations (31%),
as shown in Table 23. These levels are quite homogeneous
across the different regions, with slightly higher rates in
high-income countries (37%) and lower ones in low-income
economies (29%).
This moderately low rate of active engagement is contrasted
with moderately high levels of collaboration with municipal
governments in both planning (62%, see Table 21) and
implementation phases (56%, see Table 22) of smart city
initiatives. In Africa, civil society organizations are the second
most important partner (together with universities and other
research centres in planning phases, and with local private
entities in implementation stages). However, the level of active
engagement of civil society organizations is the lowest among
all actors, with just 29% of respondents reporting them as
active or very active.
In terms of public engagement, most respondents conrmed
that their municipalities deploy participation tools to engage
stakeholders in smart city initiatives. As shown in Table 30,
workshops are the most frequently used instruments for
public participation (72%) followed by public consultations
(59%) and public meetings (56%). Disaggregated data of
survey responses further indicate that, North America has
slightly different patterns, with public consultations (92%),
public meetings (77%), and testing of prototypes (69%) being
used more than workshops or any other techniques.
Regarding the capacity of residents to engage in and
influence smart city initiatives, more than three quarters of the
respondents conrmed that residents of their cities can provide
feedback on the quality of digital services. Moreover, 72% of
respondents also conrmed that residents have the possibility
to share ideas, whereas 60% responded that residents are
provided with the means for monitoring public decisions on
smart city initiatives (see Table 31). However, respondents
also identied that municipal governments act upon feedback
and inputs of residents in only 66% of the cases worldwide,
with particularly low rates in Africa (46%) and Asia (45%),
with the exclusion of China. Interestingly, 48% of respondents
conrmed that it is difcult for municipal governments to
ensure participation of residents, even though only 22%
reported overall low willingness of residents to participate in
smart city initiatives (see Table 32). Imbalances can be found
at the regional level, with 40% of respondents in Asia reporting
low willingness of residents to engage in smart city initiatives,
followed by Africa (32%) and Latin America (26%).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
60%
60%
64%
39%
50%
43%
53%
61%
40%
61%
72%
62%
76%
76%
78%
78%
50%
54%
75%
82%
65%
77%
87%
62%
72%
74%
73%
67%
50%
50%
72%
79%
60%
74%
77%
77%
66%
70%
64%
56%
43%
46%
57%
64%
45%
71%
74%
62%
48%
46%
54%
50%
29%
43%
55%
52%
60%
45%
51%
62%
Table 31 Resident inclusion and participation (Part 1)
Residents can monitor
public decisions regarding
the smart city initiatives
of your city. (%)
Residents are able to
provide feedback on the
quality of your digital
services. (%)
Residents have the
possibility to share ideas
on the smart city
initiatives of your city. (%)
The municipal government
acts upon the feedback
and input of residents. (%)
The municipal government
finds it difficult to ensure
the participation of
residents. (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 43
BOX 7: Iserlohn, Germany
Public participation in Iserlohn
In the “Waldstadtlabor” in Iserlohn’s city centre, an open space has been created to spur conversation between citizens
and the municipality about the digital transformation of their city. Topics such as digitalisation, sustainability and climate
protection, are discussed here. In addition to this space, events, workshops or conferences are held in the city. As a digital
participation offer, a separate communication platform is available for citizens online. The goal of the “Waldstadtlabor” and
other participation tools is to involve Iserlohn’s citizens in smart city topics for a joint future-oriented approach.11
Keith M Ramsey / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
44
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
The capacity of residents to participate in smart city initiatives
is also associated with aspects such as internet connectivity
(access and affordability) and the levels of digital literacy
and skills among city users. These aspects represent digital
divides (see the UN-Habitat playbook Assessing the Digital
Divide: Understanding Internet Connectivity and Digital
Literacy in Cities) and play an important role in enabling
digital inclusion policies. Among the regions of the study, the
lowest rates of digital literacy (25%) and internet connectivity
(21%) were reported in Africa, whereas the highest levels of
digital literacy (61%) and internet connectivity (82%) among
residents was recorded in the European sample (see Table 32).
Following the survey responses, Latin America was associated
to moderate levels of digital literacy (40%) and internet
connectivity (55%).
In addition, different measures to improve the digital inclusion
of residents are identied in the study. As shown in the
following section of the report (see Pillar 3: Technological
Infrastructure), Latin America has emerged as the region
with the highest level of digital skills trainings (81%) and
IT workshops that provide help with digital devices (71%),
followed by North America and Europe, with rates at
approximately 50% (see Table 32).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 32 Resident inclusion and participation (Part 2)
Active engagement of
residents in smart city
initiatives (%)
Low willingness to
participate among
residents (%)
Internet connectivity
among residents and
other city users (%)
Digital literacy among
residents and other
city users (%)
Digital skills training
in your city (%)
IT workshops
providing help with
digital devices in your
city (%)
22%
24%
17%
33%
14%
18%
19%
15%
25%
24%
21%
23%
22%
12%
34%
50%
21%
32%
40%
45%
30%
12%
26%
23%
65%
81%
51%
22%
29%
21%
49%
52%
45%
82%
55%
69%
49%
61%
36%
22%
36%
25%
40%
39%
40%
61%
40%
46%
59%
57%
63%
50%
64%
50%
49%
42%
60%
58%
81%
54%
46%
47%
46%
39%
57%
39%
38%
30%
50%
42%
70%
54%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 45
Component 2.2:
Partnership coordination
Activating multi-stakeholder collaborations towards the
realization of people-centred smart cities requires the
engagement of multiple societal sectors and types of entities.
Managing these collaborative ventures is a complex task that
entails a combination of different procedures, collaborative
and leadership skills, and managerial abilities.
In the smart city initiatives that our respondents refer to,
municipal governments have made use of both formal
and informal procedures to oversee their partnerships
with other stakeholders. Two thirds of the respondents
have confirmed the use of formal instruments such as
bureaucratic control measures or formal regulations, with
the highest rates reported in Asia and Latin America (74%,
as shown in Table 33).
Informal procedures, such as trust-building or stewardship
models, seem to have lower application rates than formal
instruments in most cities and regions. North America and
Europe report the highest number of respondents observing
the use of informal procedures (54% and 51% respectively),
while in Asia is less than the half (45%) and Latin America only
38% (see Table 33).
Coordination among different stakeholders is also a crucial
factor in smart city collaborations. Approximately one third
of the respondents have identied the lack of coordination
between the public sector and other actors as a barrier to the
development of smart city initiatives in their cities (see Table
33). North America reports the highest rates of coordination
between public sector and other actors, which also coincides
with the highest rate of dedicated smart city entities in
municipal governments (77%, see Table 10 in section Pillar 1:
Strategy).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
30%
20%
41%
67%
29%
57%
38%
33%
45%
21%
40%
8%
Table 33 Coordination and procedures
The municipal government uses
informal procedures to oversee
its partnerships (%)
The municipal government uses
formal procedures to oversee its
partnerships (%)
The lack of coordination between
public sector and other actors
constrains the smart city
initiatives of your city (%)
66%
63%
68%
78%
64%
64%
74%
73%
75%
60%
74%
62%
46%
51%
42%
39%
14%
25%
45%
48%
40%
51%
38%
54%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
46
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
86%
89%
86%
72%
79%
75%
79%
82%
75%
89%
94%
85%
Table 34 Decision-making power and interests’ alignment
Your municipal government
always balances economic and
social interests in smart city
initiatives (%)
Your municipal government
finds it difficult to ensure that
business interests of smart city
technology providers are
aligned with citywide urban
development needs (%)
Your municipal government has
strong decision-making power
when collaborating with other
partners in smart city
initiatives (%)
39%
37%
46%
44%
7%
29%
47%
45%
50%
37%
43%
38%
58%
63%
54%
44%
43%
39%
49%
55%
40%
64%
64%
54%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
68%
65%
76%
67%
43%
54%
75%
85%
60%
65%
77%
62%
Table 35 Collaboration between different agencies and departments within the municipal government
There is a clear division of roles
and responsibilities (%)
There is active participation of
all parties involved (%)
There is effective coordination
between municipal agencies
and departments (%)
70%
71%
72%
61%
50%
57%
66%
79%
45%
71%
74%
77%
61%
57%
70%
61%
43%
50%
72%
82%
55%
55%
68%
77%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 47
Partnerships and collaborations imply active and transparent
dialogue to reach agreements among the different partners
involved. The negotiation of diverse and often competing
interests is a common issue arising from the development
of smart city initiatives. The survey data shows that
approximately 40% of the respondents suggest their municipal
governments nd it difcult to ensure that business interests
of smart city technology providers are aligned with citywide
urban development needs (see Table 34). In low-income
countries, where the study has shown a more prominent
role of intergovernmental organizations over private sector
companies, only 7% of respondents have reported the
alignment of technology providers’ interests and city needs as
a main constraint.
Overall, most respondents have suggested that their
municipal government has strong decision-making power
when collaborating with other partners in smart city
initiatives (86% of the cases). However, only one third of
those respondents have reported that, in these initiatives,
their municipality always balances economic and social
interests (see Table 34). The highest rates of municipal
decision-making power are observed in Latin America. In
the region, 94% of respondents reported strong municipal
decision-making power, but only 64% of them indicated that
their municipal governments balance economic and social
interests in all smart city initiatives.
Public sector collaboration is mainly observed from two
perspectives: horizontally, among different entities of the
municipal government, and vertically, between the local
and national level. Overall, better collaboration practices
have been reported in the horizontal direction, while lower
levels of coordination and less clear distribution of roles and
responsibilities are observed between municipal and national
governments (see Table 35 and Table 36).
As shown in Table 35, the collaboration between different
agencies and departments within the municipal government
has overall medium-to-high levels of effective coordination
(68%), active participation of the parties involved (70%) and a
clear division of roles and responsibilities (61%), At the regional
level, Latin America reports the highest levels of effective
coordination between different agencies and departments
of the municipal government (77%), followed by Asia (75%),
with particularly good rates reported in China (85%). Effective
municipal-level collaboration decreases in Africa, where
respondents have led to overall rates between 50% and 57%.
Regarding collaboration between municipal and national
government, only 49% of respondents remarked an effective
coordination between the two tiers of government. In addition,
the effective distribution of decision-making powers was
reported in just 42% of the cities included in the sample, and a
clear division of roles and responsibilities in 48% of the cases.
As previously mentioned, this global representation directly
relates to the multi-level governance aspects of smart city
initiatives, a governance area in which cities seem to face
difculties (see Table 36).
logoboom / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
48
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
The region with the highest rates of effective collaboration
between local and national public entities is Asia (in which
China reports a rate of 79%, and 55% other Asian countries),
followed by Latin America (53%), and thirdly Africa (43%).
However, there is not sufcient information to evaluate
whether municipal governments have adequate levels of
autonomy in decision-making and work under a balanced
structure of multi-level governance. Overall, Europe and
North America report lower levels of effective coordination,
distribution of powers, and division of responsibilities between
national and local public entities, as shown in Table 36.
BOX 8: India
National Smart City Policy
India’s national Smart Cities Mission is an urban
renewal and retrotting programme run by the
Government of India, aiming to develop smart cities
nationwide, where aspects such as quality of life and
sustainability enjoy specic attention. Since 2015,
the Union Ministry of Urban Development serves
as the main coordinating and implementing body
and cooperates with the state governments of the
participating cities. 100 cities embarked on their
individual missions which ought to be completed
between 2019 and 2023. The missions rely on area-
based development and pan-city development along
the three action axes of redevelopment, retrotting and
greeneld. Nearly USD 27 billion were made available
for all missions by the central government, state and
local governments as well as other funding sources. 12
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
49%
43%
59%
61%
43%
43%
70%
79%
55%
42%
53%
38%
Table 36 Collaboration between municipal and national governments
... a clear division of roles and
responsibilities (%)
... the active participation of all
parties involved (%)
... effective coordination (%)
42%
34%
53%
56%
43%
43%
64%
73%
50%
34%
45%
31%
48%
42%
59%
50%
50%
43%
70%
82%
50%
41%
53%
31%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 49
Karen Dole / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
50
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
03
TECHNOLOGICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
Pillar
Three
Component 3.1:
Information architecture
About 80% of the respondents across all regions reported that
data is used to inform the decision-making process of munici-
pal governments (see Table 37). This percentage decreases in
lower-income economies, but it remains above 60%.
Municipalities collect and use a wide range of data (see
Table 38). Overall, non-automated data collection tools,
such as questionnaires, surveys, and consultations are
the most frequently used. However, these tools are also
frequently combined with additional data sources. 81% of
the respondents from high-income countries reported the
use of automated data gathered from sensing devices, such
as air quality monitors, energy meters and weather stations.
Interestingly, the use of this type of data declines as the
income becomes lower, reaching only 29% in low-income
countries. Crowdsourced data and other types of large-scale
databases are generally more popular in North America, Asia
and Europe, where between 62% and 27% of the respondents
highlighted the adoption of this data source in their cities,
whereas the gure drops to 21% in Latin America and Africa,
respectively.
Ozz Design / shuttertock.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 51
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 37 Does your municipal government use data to inform decision making?
I don't know (%)No (%)Yes (%)
9%
8%
8%
22%
14%
18%
8%
0%
20%
9%
9%
0%
13%
7%
7%
17%
14%
11%
26%
30%
20%
8%
15%
0%
78%
85%
72%
61%
71%
71%
66%
70%
60%
83%
77%
100%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 38 Data collected and used by municipal governments
Non-automated data (%) Automated data (%) Crowdsourced data (%) Others (%)
73%
82%
70%
39%
29%
43%
68%
73%
60%
82%
64%
92%
31%
30%
36%
22%
14%
21%
45%
48%
40%
27%
21%
62%
10%
9%
12%
6%
7%
7%
2%
3%
0%
9%
19%
23%
76%
87%
63%
56%
64%
61%
53%
48%
60%
85%
77%
100%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
52
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
BOX 9: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Rio Operations Centre
Rio de Janeiro’s Operations Centre (COR) is a central entity collecting and managing a vast amount of data stemming
from the city’s sensors and further data sources, which are received through various protocols (e.g. FTP, SOAP, and
REST) in different formats (e.g. XML, JSON, KML, GeoJSON). Among other functions, the created infrastructure serves
a Community and Alert Warning System, which combines and analyses data and information on various elements
concerning transport and mobility, citizen safety, the environment and energy efciency. The Community and Alert
Warning System informs about risk situations and warnings by sending out SMSs to residents and community workers in
high-risk areas in addition to launching sirens in these areas. The system operates in 103 communities in Rio de Janeiro,
and it relies on more than 160 sirens and 80 automatic rain gauges as well as about 200 points of support to complement
the central COR.13
BOX 10: Toronto, Canada
Digital autonomy
Toronto’s Digital Infrastructure Strategic Framework foresees that “the city will maintain control in the selection, use
and design of its digital infrastructure, so that it – and its residents – can act with autonomy and in a self-determined
manner within the digital realm.” The focus lies on the city’s internal capacity building in data and digital infrastructure
gathering, development, management and analysis instead of having to rely on third parties and contractors. To achieve
these objectives, Toronto identied ve strategic principles and priorities: i) open source, ii) intellectual property, iii) open
standards and interoperability, iv) maintenance and repair as well as v) democratic control. 14
Besides data that they directly collect, local governments
also rely on third-party data providers (see Table 39).
Across geographical areas, national public organizations
have been indicated consistently as the main external data
source. This external data provider is followed by universities
and research institutions, with approximately half of the
respondents suggesting that their municipal governments
work with this data provider in Latin America, North America,
and Asia. The only exceptions are Europe and Africa, where
the percentages decrease to approximately 40%. It is also
worth noting that municipalities from China, according to our
respondents, mainly source their data from universities and
other research institutes (67%) and only in second instance
from national organisation (55%). Moreover, data sourced
from intergovernmental organisations were indicated only by
about a third of the respondents worldwide. However, while
the share of North American and European cities seems to
lag behind the global average (15 and 21%, respectively), the
percentages are remarkably higher when looking at African
and Asian municipalities outside China (50% and 55%,
respectively). These gures are similar to those related to the
adoption of data provided by private companies; municipalities
in Africa, Asia and Latin America have reported the use of
such data in approximately 40% of the cases, whereas this
percentage drops by half in Europe and North America. The
fact that municipalities positioned in the Global South rely
on data from external or non-national actors may point to
at a lack of availability, reliability, accessibility and usability
of existing public national and sub-national datasets in this
geographical area.
Overall, 68% of respondents pointed out that their municipal
government makes use of data visualisation tools, indicating
that they have become a primary way for their cities to
analyse, explore and communicate data gathered from various
sources, including smart technologies and applications.
Outliers at the two extremes of the sample are North America
(92%) and Africa (32%). However, departments and agencies
within the same municipal government rarely (one out of
six) share a single visualization tool (see Table 40). This
trend indicates a potential opportunity to improve system
integration that can lead to a more transversal reading of
available data, which in turn can provide additional and more
articulated data-driven representations of urban operations.

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 53
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 39 Data provided by third parties that municipalities rely on
National public
organisations (%)
Intergovernmental
organisations (%)
Private
companies (%)
Universities or
research
institutions (%)
Residents (%) Others (Please
specify) (%)
59%
61%
54%
61%
57%
61%
58%
55%
65%
60%
53%
54%
29%
21%
35%
44%
64%
50%
40%
30%
55%
21%
34%
15%
31%
24%
42%
33%
43%
39%
42%
39%
45%
23%
43%
23%
43%
37%
52%
44%
43%
39%
57%
67%
40%
36%
47%
46%
35%
33%
41%
28%
36%
36%
36%
33%
40%
28%
51%
54%
14%
10%
20%
17%
21%
14%
17%
15%
20%
10%
26%
0%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
68%
72%
71%
50%
14%
32%
72%
70%
75%
70%
70%
92%
Table 40 Municipal data visualization tools
Yes (%)
20%
20%
20%
28%
36%
43%
8%
6%
10%
23%
15%
8%
No (%)
13%
8%
8%
22%
50%
25%
21%
24%
15%
8%
15%
0%
I don't know (%)
71%
75%
68%
44%
50%
67%
58%
61%
53%
73%
82%
75%
Multiple tools (%)
15%
16%
12%
33%
0%
11%
13%
4%
27%
17%
12%
25%
Single tool (%)
13%
8%
20%
22%
50%
22%
29%
35%
20%
11%
6%
0%
I don't know (%)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WITH DATA VISUALIZATION TOOLSMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WITH SINGLE DATA VISUALIZATION TOOL
SHARED BY ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
54
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
BOX 11: Winterthur, Switzerland
Using dashboards to display data
Networked sensors can measure data and transmit it in real time. In the city of Winterthur, Switzerland, the data
gathered through these sensors are displayed, analysed and evaluated on a dashboard. The idea to create a dashboard
originally arose from the city’s energy department’s need for better trafc data. Until the project’s initiation, no reliable,
comprehensive and continuous sensor data had been available. In a like manner, the installed induction loops had offered
only little information about the vehicles passing through Winterthur’s streets nor their characteristics such as size,
speed etc. With the installation of new IoT sensors the city managed to address this information gap. The gathered data,
however, does not only inform trafc control, but is also of interest to other specialised agencies and end-use applications,
such as public lighting or air pollution calculations. Various measurements of motion detectors, climate loggers, water
level sensors for water bodies and stormwater basins, trafc radar and noise level meters are now being displayed on an
OpenStreetMap map. For this smart city project, the city of Winterthur worked together with a private partner.15
Yes (%)
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian
c
ountries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 41 Municipal data collection standards and open data policies
No (%) I don't know (%) Yes (%) No (%) I don't know (%) Yes (%) No (%) I don't know (%)
Does your municipal government use official
standards for data collection that all departments
and agencies are required to comply with?
Does your municipal government have
an open data policy
Does your municipal government have an open
data platform (i.e. an online portal where all
open data are made available to the public)?
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
31%
34%
34%
22%
36%
36%
17%
6%
35%
32%
32%
62%
23%
17%
17%
33%
36%
25%
40%
48%
25%
21%
15%
0%
56%
60%
59%
22%
43%
39%
47%
55%
35%
57%
66%
92%
28%
26%
26%
39%
50%
46%
26%
18%
40%
27%
23%
8%
16%
14%
14%
39%
7%
14%
26%
27%
25%
16%
11%
0%
57%
63%
53%
39%
36%
32%
42%
45%
35%
62%
66%
85%
32%
31%
31%
28%
64%
50%
30%
24%
40%
32%
28%
15%
11%
7%
7%
33%
0%
18%
28%
30%
25%
7%
6%
0%
46%
49%
45%
44%
29%
39%
43%
45%
40%
47%
53%
38%

Insufcient system integration is emphasized by half of the
respondents globally, who remarked the limited presence
of ofcial standards for data collection to coordinate the
actions of different departments and agencies, an essential
feature to enable information to travel from one application
or system to another and be used seamlessly (see Table 41).
These types of standards are in place in less than half of the
municipalities included in the survey sample, with African and
North American cities reaching the lowest gures – 39% and
38%, respectively. This result is in line with and echoed by the
low interoperability of technical solutions both in legislative
frameworks and technology procurement practices that has
been noted in previous sections of this report (see Table 14
and Table 15 in Pillar 1: Strategy). Despite the limited internal
coordination, many cities have formulated an open data
policy that encourages the use, reuse, and free distribution of
governmental datasets. The highest rate has been detected in
North America (92%), while Latin America, Europe, Asia, and
Africa follow with a percentage between 66% and 39%.
By only analysing the municipalities with an open data
policy, the survey data revealed that 80% also have an open
data platform where open data is made available to the
public. It is important to note that principles of good open
data governance recommend ensuring that data is made
comparable and interoperable and that it is properly encoded.
Commonly agreed data standards play a crucial role in
making this happen. Despite being beyond the reach of this
survey, given the presence of some misalignment between
the adoption of the data standards, policies, and platforms
that current practices display, it would be important to
examine whether and how these principles are captured in the
formulation of open data policies and how data standards are
embedded in systems, platforms, and analytical products.
Component 3.2: Digital service
design and delivery
The design and delivery of smart city services is positioned
at the critical junction between the development of smart city
strategies and their translation into tangible outcomes.
The design and delivery process should align with technical
and socio-economic aspects of a city, to make sure that
services are usable, desirable, and sustainable in the long
term. For example, existing digital skills among citizens
and civil servants are key factors influencing individual
engagement in digital public services, and it should be central
in the development of technical infrastructures. Lack of skills
within the public sector (56%) and limited digital literacy
among residents and other city users (50%) are some of the
main challenges in the implementation of smart city initiatives
in low and lower-middle income countries, and a relevant
issue among Latin American and African cities (see Table 42).
As seen in Table 43, when selecting new technological
solutions, 73% of the respondents suggested that
their municipal government builds on already available
technological resources, but in lower-income economies this
gure falls to 56%. At the same time, the acceptance of new
digital technologies among residents and city users is highly
considered in high and middle-high income countries (70% of
the respondents) whereas this aspect seems to become less
relevant in lower-middle and low-income regions (40%). It is
worth noticing, however, that resistance to change within the
public sector is indicated as a barrier mainly in Latin America
(51%) and Africa (54%), as shown in Table 42.
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 42 Barriers to smart city initiatives
Resistance to change within
the public sector (%)
Lack of skills within the
public sector (%)
Lack of Internet connectivity
among residents and other
city users (%)
Lack of digital literacy
among residents and other
city users (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
34%
32%
35%
56%
29%
54%
23%
18%
30%
29%
51%
38%
35%
26%
43%
56%
57%
64%
36%
33%
40%
27%
45%
31%
17%
5%
28%
44%
57%
64%
17%
18%
15%
5%
30%
15%
23%
10%
36%
61%
43%
64%
21%
21%
20%
11%
43%
15%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
56
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countrie
s
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 44 Measures in place for digital inclusion of residents
Digital skills training (%) IT workshops providing
help with digital devices (%)
Free WiFi access (%) Subsidising broadband
services to those who
cannot afford them (%)
Subsidising digital devices
to those who cannot
afford them (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
59%
57%
63%
50%
64%
50%
49%
42%
60%
58%
81%
54%
46%
47%
46%
39%
57%
39%
38%
30%
50%
42%
70%
54%
63%
63%
67%
56%
43%
54%
51%
39%
70%
60%
79%
100%
17%
16%
16%
17%
29%
25%
9%
0%
25%
12%
26%
54%
21%
23%
16%
17%
29%
18%
13%
3%
30%
21%
26%
46%
Builds on already
available
technological
resources (%)
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian
c
ountries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 43 When selecting new technological solutions for the city, the municipal government…
Considers the
acceptance
of the new
technology
among residents
and city users (%)
68%
76%
64%
39%
43%
43%
60%
67%
50%
75%
68%
85%
Prioritizes low
acquisition costs
over societal
benefits (%)
31%
24%
39%
50%
36%
39%
45%
42%
50%
23%
34%
31%
Thoroughly
estimates the
implementation
and maintenance
costs of the new
technology (%)
54%
55%
57%
39%
43%
36%
57%
67%
40%
57%
57%
38%
Responds to the
needs expressed
by residents and
city users (%)
63%
71%
57%
39%
50%
46%
51%
64%
30%
72%
60%
69%
Prefers to work
with local
suppliers (%)
48%
46%
50%
50%
57%
54%
58%
67%
45%
47%
38%
46%
Avoids
open-source
software (%)
17%
13%
23%
17%
29%
25%
32%
36%
25%
12%
9%
23%
Prefers
high-tech
solutions over
low-tech
solutions (%)
29%
24%
35%
39%
36%
32%
34%
39%
25%
25%
36%
23%
Evaluates
whether the new
technology is
aligned with local
development
needs (%)
66%
69%
67%
44%
50%
54%
60%
73%
40%
71%
68%
62%
73%
78%
71%
56%
57%
54%
74%
76%
70%
76%
72%
85%
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 57
Municipal governments use several measures to ensure that
newly introduced digital solutions are accessible to their
citizens and several forms of digital divide are bridged (see
Table 44). Within the sample, Latin America appears to be the
most active in introducing measures that aim to enhance the
digital inclusion of residents. These measures include digital
skills training (81% of respondents), workshops providing help
with digital devices (70%), and free WiFi access across the city
(79%). The provision of free WiFi access emerges as the most
popular measure; it has been selected in 63% of the overall
responses and there is consistency across geographical areas
and income groups. However, lack of internet connectivity
among city users is identied as a challenge in Africa (64%)
and, to a certain extent, in Latin America (30%), whereas it
has not been highlighted as a serious issue in other regions.
Moreover, among available measures to sustain digital
inclusion, North American cities are the only ones where
subsidies for broadband services and digital devices have
been highlighted (about half of the sample), whereas this
solution seems to be less popular in other cities worldwide.
Sixty-three per cent of the respondents afrmed that
technology selection by municipalities tries to respond to the
need expressed by residents and city users (see Table 43).
Workshops, public consultations, and meetings are the most
used instruments for enhancing stakeholder participation
in smart city initiatives (see Table 30 in the section Pillar 2:
Collaborative Ecosystem). Furthermore, about half of the
respondents from Europe, Latin America, and North America
indicated the use of hackathons, app contests and testing
of prototypes. These tools allow to iteratively test practical
ideas and improve them throughout the development process,
helping to link the needs of potential users to the design of
digital solutions (see Table 45).
Once in place, the use of smart city services can be boosted by
means of municipal websites and unied service portals that
can help enhance the visibility and accessibility of available
services. According to the survey (Table 46), a large majority
of municipalities in Asia, Europe and Latin America offer digital
public services through a single point of access, a measure
which is adopted by only 46% of cities in North America and
25% in Africa. This is mirrored by the actual provision of basic
public services in a digital format; respondents highlighted that
municipalities deliver digitalized basic services mostly in Latin
America (55%), Europe (66%) and Asia (72%), with Chinese
cities showing the highest gure (79%). North America follows
closely (46%), whereas African cities are lagging behind (14%).
Public
consultations (%)
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian
c
ountries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 45 Instruments used to support stakeholder participation in smart city initiatives
Public
meetings (%)
Workshops (%) Hackathons (%) App contests (%) Crowdsourcing
techniques (%)
Bootcamps (%) Testing of
prototypes (%)
Others (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
59%
63%
53%
44%
57%
43%
55%
45%
70%
60%
60%
92%
56%
64%
42%
72%
29%
50%
32%
9%
70%
64%
55%
77%
72%
75%
67%
72%
57%
61%
62%
52%
80%
77%
74%
62%
41%
49%
33%
28%
14%
18%
21%
6%
45%
49%
45%
62%
18%
13%
26%
22%
7%
4%
23%
18%
30%
14%
36%
40%
17%
20%
13%
17%
7%
4%
19%
15%
25%
19%
11%
31%
11%
12%
12%
11%
0%
0%
15%
9%
25%
12%
15%
0%
43%
59%
28%
11%
0%
11%
21%
15%
30%
58%
34%
69%
14%
18%
10%
6%
14%
7%
6%
3%
10%
16%
19%
23%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
58
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives
Pillar 1: Strategy Pillar 2: Collaborative
ecosystem
Pillar 3: Technological
infrastructure
Conclusions
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 46 Digital service provision
Residents and other city users can
access digital public services through a
single point of access (%)
Your municipal government
provides basic public services
in a digital format (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
63%
66%
70%
50%
14%
25%
60%
64%
55%
71%
72%
46%
60%
65%
62%
33%
14%
14%
72%
79%
60%
66%
55%
46%
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 47 Sustainability of business models for smart cities initiatives
Your municipal government
thoroughly estimates the
implementation and maintenance
costs of the new technology (%)
Your municipal government relies
on business models that ensure
the long-term sustainability of
technological solutions (%)
Your municipal government
mainly focus on pilot
projects (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
50%
50%
54%
39%
36%
43%
51%
52%
50%
50%
55%
38%
54%
55%
57%
39%
43%
36%
57%
67%
40%
57%
57%
38%
61%
62%
60%
56%
64%
68%
64%
64%
65%
63%
51%
46%

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 59
The survey highlighted a certain worry regarding the longevity
of smart cities initiatives. 61% of respondents across the
surveyed regions afrmed that their municipal government
mainly focuses on pilot projects, while half of the respondents
do not think that technological solutions in their cities build on
business models that ensure long-term sustainability or that
thoroughly estimate the implementation and maintenance
costs over time (see Table 47).
Knowledge-management initiatives can help sustain the
scalability and replication of smart city solutions. 64%
respondents globally reported their municipality as active
in ensuring that the lessons learned from their smart city
initiatives are captured and reused, while 52% afrmed that
smart city development in their city avoids duplications of
efforts. These percentages are quite consistent across all
regions, as seen in Table 48, with Chinese cities showing a
higher involvement in the documentation and use of lessons
learnt (79%).
World
High-income
Upper-middle
Lower-middle
Low-income
Africa
Asia
China
Other Asian countries
Europe
Latin America
North America
Table 48 Knowledge management and lessons learned on smart city initiatives
Your municipal government ensures that
the lessons learned from smart city
initiatives are captured and used (%)
Your municipal government avoids
duplication of efforts (%)
76% to 100%50% to 75%26% to 49%0% to 25%
64%
66%
65%
50%
50%
54%
64%
79%
40%
66%
62%
62%
52%
52%
57%
39%
50%
50%
47%
58%
30%
51%
62%
62%
Tamarcus Brown / unsplash.com

GLOBAL REVIEW OF SMART CITY
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES
60
Introduction Methodology Governance framework
for smart city initiatives