Title: “The concept of Smart Cities; A literature review and a proposed framework for analyzing and enriching dimensions of the “smartness” of a city”

Authors:Patricia Ikouta Mazza & Maria MavriQuantitative Methods LaboratoryDepartment of Business Administration, University of the Aegean8 Michalon Street, P.S. 82100 Chiospmazza@ba.aegean.gr; m.mavri@ba.aegean.gr

Abstract

Nowadays cities face complex challenges in order to meet objectives regarding socio-economic development and quality of life. The concept of “smart cities” is a response to these challenges.

The concept of “Smart City” embraces several definitions depending on the meanings of the word “smart”: intelligent city, knowledge city, ubiquitous city, sustainable city, digital city, etc. Many definitions of Smart City exist, but no one has been universally acknowledged yet. According to literature, it emerges that Smart City and Digital City are the most used terminologies to indicate the “smartness” of a city. Smart cities represent a conceptual urban development model based on the utilization of human, collective, and technological capital for the enhancement of development and prosperity in urban agglomerations (Angelidou, 2014). A digital city is substantively an open, complex and adaptive system based on computer network and urban information resources, which forms a virtual digital space for a city. It creates an information service marketplace and information resource deployment center (Qi, L., & Shaofu, L., 2001).

The idea of Smart/Digital City is the result of the development of Information & Communication Technologies (ICT’s) and contributes to the redefinition of the concept of natural region. To be more specific, smart city is the end result of a new, innovative idea about city and urban life: more pleasant, more inclusive, greener and cleaner. Many national or international governments, institutions or political bodies, finance the implementation of project called “Smart Cities”, as they suggest it as an answer to city sustainable development. The Smart City is nowadays seen like a key strategy to improve the quality of life of billions of people living in cities all over the world.

Regarding the definition of both Smart City and Digital City, we notice that a shared and acknowledged definition of both Smart City and Digital City still lacks. Strategic planning for the development of a Smart/Digital City remains a rather abstract idea for several reasons, including the fact that is still largely unexplored refers to interdisciplinary fields. However, there are several most cited definitions and they are

1

establishing themselves like standards (Hall, 2000, Caragliu, 2011, Giffinger, 2007). Digital City definitions show a higher uniformity, because all of them are focused on the key role of ICT in improving the quality of services and information supplied to citizens. Smart City definitions are various, as the goal of a Smart City has to do with improvement of quality of urban life; and based on the assumption that all services and applications used in this city have to be smart i.e smart government, smart public services, smart education, etc .

The aim of this paper is to propose a framework for understanding the dimensions of Smart/Digital City and to provide a methodology for enriching them. Specifically, it will determine the concept of Smart/Digital City and explore aspects which determine a digital entity as a region or town and will make a record of the current situation in the European Union. The first part of this paper reviews the literature concerning the Smart/Digital City from the early 1990s, the time period when the smart city label gained interest, while the second part proposes tools and methods for analyzing the difference between Smart and Digital City.

Keywords: Smart City; Digital City; urban planning; ICT’s

1. Introduction

Current cities are complex systems that are characterized by massive numbers of interconnected citizens, businesses, different modes of transport, communication networks, services and utilities. Population growth and increased urbanization raise a variety of technical, social, economic and organizational problems that tend to jeopardize the economic and environmental sustainability of cities. The rapid growth faced by several cities has generated traffic congestion, pollution and increasing social inequality (Kim & Han, 2012).

The concept of Smart Cities (SCs) (Hollands, 2008) has been the subject of increasing attention and it now appears as a new paradigm of intelligent urban development and sustainable socio-economic growth, whose origin can be traced back to the Smart Growth Movement of the late 1990s (Harrison & Donnelly, 2011). However, despite the rise in SCs in the urban planners’ debate on the future of cities, the diffusion of SC initiatives in countries with different needs and contextual conditions (makes it difficult to identify shared definitions and common current trends at a global scale.

The aim of this paper is to propose a framework for understanding the dimensions of Smart City and to provide a methodology for enriching them. Specifically, it will determine the concept of Smart City and explore aspects which determine a digital entity as a region or town and will make a record of the current situation in the European Union.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces a brief literature review about Smart City from the early 1990s, the time period when the smart city label gained interest. Section 3 gives an overall image of the concept of

2

Smart City, its aspects and proposes a framework for analyzing these aspects and suggesting ways of enriching them, while the forth section proposes tools and methods for analyzing the difference between Smart and Digital City. Section 4 presents cases of applied smart cities in Europe. Finally section 5 summarizes the conclusions of our work and suggests areas for further research.

2. Literature review

The issue of innovation has found, over the past 30 years, various ways of connection with the territory. In recent years it has been developed the concept of “smart city”, which implies, instead, lighter and less expensive approaches. The smart city concept has been introduced among the European Union keywords in 2009 as quite fashionable in the policy arena. Its main focus seems to be on the role of ICT infrastructure, although much research has also been carried out on the role of human capital/education, social and relational capital and environmental interest as important drivers of urban growth.

The European Union (EU), in particular, has devoted constant efforts to devising a strategy for achieving urban growth in a ‘smart’ sense for its metropolitan areas. Not only the EU, but also other international institutions and think tanks believe in a wired, ICT-driven form of development. The Intelligent Community Forum produces, for instance, research on the local effects of the ICT revolution, which is now available worldwide. The OECD and EUROSTAT Oslo Manual (2005) stresses instead the role of innovation in ICT sectors and provides a toolkit to identify consistent indicators, thus shaping a sound framework of analysis for researchers on urban innovation. At a meso-regional level, we observe renewed attention for the role of soft communication infrastructure in determining economic performance.

The availability and quality of the ICT infrastructure is not the only definition of a smart or intelligent city. Other definitions stress the role of human capital and education in urban development. Berry and Glaeser (2005) and Glaeser and Berry (2006) show, for example, that the most rapid urban growth rates have been achieved in cities where a high share of educated labour force is available. In particular Berry and Glaeser (2005) model the relation between human capital and urban development by assuming that innovation is driven by entrepreneurs who innovate in industries and products which require an increasingly more skilled labour force.

However, the first operational definition of Smart city has been given by Giffinger et al. (2007):

“a smart city is a city well performing in six characteristics, built on the ‘smart’ combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent and aware citizens”

This description extends previous results by identifying six dimensions or characteristics determinants, (economics, people, governance, mobility, environment and quality of life), in turn broken down into 31 major factors and 74 indicators in total. Thanks to this definition for the first time has been carried out a classification of cities according to their level of smartness.

3

An extension of the definition could be found in Hollands (2008) where the role is extended to all the networks that are interconnected, and not only the ICT: ‘The Smart City uses the infrastructure network to improve economic and political efficiency, and to allow social, cultural and urban development’. The network concept is introduced in this definition.

Following this approach a recent study (Caragliu, Del Bo and Nijkamp, 2009), includes in the definition of Smart Cities, the following key concepts:

use of interconnected infrastructures that improve economic and political efficiency facilitating at the same time the development of social, cultural and urban development;

ability to be "business-friendly", i.e. able to attract and accommodate business projects;

attention to social inclusion; coexistence and complementarity of high-tech and soft infrastructure; attention to the role of social and relational capital within the urban area; environmental sustainability.

The study, using data sets derived from Urban Audit, measures the effect of some variables, considered essential to urban growth, on the GDP of any city, used as a proxy of "wealth". The analysis confirms the existence of a positive correlation between urban welfare and percentage of people employed in the "creative" sector, the efficiency of public transport system, the accessibility to services, the level of e-government and, finally, the quality of human capital.

Other studies (Nijkamp et al. 2011) focus on the interrelationships among the components of smart cities (as defined by Giffinger 2007), including human and social relations that link the intellectual capital, health and governance through an approach based on the triple helix model. In this framework, the city is called "smart" when: “investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance.” (Caragliu et al., 2009, p.6).

“Furthermore, cities can become “smart” if universities and industry support government’s investment in the development of such infrastructures.” (Nijkamp et al., 2011, p.3)

From another point of view, assuming as target that of social innovation, smart cities are cities that create the conditions of governance, infrastructure and technology to produce social innovation, that is to solve social problems related to growth, to inclusion and quality of life through listening and involvement of different local actors: citizens, businesses and associations. The raw materials become information and knowledge and the cities can qualify themselves according to the way in which these lasts are produced, collected and shared to produce innovation. Regardless of the type of communication (financial, economic, social or cultural), cities are increasingly active nodes of that intangible flows in addition to physical ones.

4

A further specification is proposed in Schaffers et al. (2011) in which the role of the new participatory governance is introduced, but the network role is lacking: ‘A city may be called “smart” when investments in human and social capital and traditional and modern communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance’. This city model identifies functional urban hierarchies and it correlates the physical infrastructure with human capital, the intellectual and social development of those who live there, using the mobility, energy and ICT, in order to determine a new optimal state for the organization of urban systems and improve the quality of citizen life.

The Smart Cities Group of Cambridge defines smart cities as ‘systems of systems, and that there are emerging opportunities to introduce digital nervous systems, intelligent responsiveness, and optimization at every level of system integration’ (Mitchell, 2013). This definition expresses a significant conceptual advance. The smart city as a system overcomes the network concept that implies only the problem related to the supply. In the smart city system, the idea of different networks integration has been introduced, but it lacks the crucial presence of users.

The European Parliament (2014) synthetizes international debate and introduces a formal definition that, while providing a milestone in the search of definitions, could also shape the debate and the smart city evolution: ‘a smart city consists of not only components but also people. Securing the participation of citizens and relevant stakeholders in the smart city is therefore another success factor’. This definition tends to coincide with the previous system of systems, but explicitly introduces people component, just implicitly included in the system concept (Russo, F., Rindone, C., & Panuccio, P., 2016).

3. Framework

Although several different definitions of smart city have been given in the previous section, most of them focus on the role of communication infrastructure. However, this bias reflects the time period when the smart city label gained interest, viz. the early 1990s, when the ICTs first reached a wide audience in European countries. Hence, in our opinion, the stress on the internet as ‘the’ smart city identifier no longer suffices.

A recent and interesting project conducted by the Centre of Regional Science at the Vienna University of Technology identifies six main ‘axes’ (dimensions) along which a ranking of 70 European middle size cities can be made. These axes are: a smart economy; smart mobility; a smart environment; smart people; smart living; and, finally, smart governance. These six axes connect with traditional regional and neoclassical theories of urban growth and development. In particular, the axes are based – respectively – on theories of regional competitiveness, transport and ICT economics, natural resources, human and social capital, quality of life, and participation of societies in cities. We believe this offers a solid background for our theoretical framework, and therefore we base our definition on these six axes.

5

We believe a city to be smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance.

The following table illustrates the 6 characteristics and their assigned factors. Smart Economy includes factors all around economic competitiveness as innovation, entrepreneurship, trademarks, productivity and flexibility of the labour market as well as the integration in the (inter-)national market. Smart People is not only described by the level of qualification or education of the citizens but also by the quality of social interactions regarding integration and public life and the openness towards the “outer” world. Smart Governance comprises aspects of political participation, services for citizens as well as the functioning of the administration.

Local and international accessibility are important aspects of Smart Mobility as well as the availability of information and communication technologies and modern and sustainable transport systems. Smart Environment is described by attractive natural conditions (climate, green space etc.), pollution, resource management and also by efforts towards environmental protection. Finally, Smart Living comprises various aspects of quality of life as culture, health, safety, housing, tourism etc (Final report edited by the Centre of Regional Science (SRF), Vienna University of Technology in October 2007).

Table 1: Characteristics and factors of a smart city

SMART ECONOMY(Competitiveness)

SMART PEOPLE(Social and Human Capital)

Innovative spirit Entrepreneurship Economic image & trademarks Productivity Flexibility of labour market International embeddedness Ability to transform

Level of qualification Affinity to lifelong learning Social and ethnic plurality Flexibility Creativity Cosmopolitanism/Open

mindedness Participation in public life

SMART GOVERNANCE(Participation)

SMART MOBILITY(Transport and ICT)

Participation in decision-making Public and social services Transparent governance Political strategies &

perspectives

Local accessibility (Inter-)national accessibility Availability of ICT-

infrastructure Sustainable, innovative and safe

transport systemsSMART ENVIRONMENT(Natural resources)

SMART LIVING(Quality of life)

Attractivity of natural conditions Pollution Environmental protection Sustainable resource

management

Cultural facilities Health conditions Individual safety Housing quality Education facilities

6

Touristic attractivity Social cohesion

These characteristics and factors form the framework for the indicators and the following assessment a city’s performance as smart city.

4. Smart City versus Digital City

The concept of Smart City embraces several definitions depending on the meanings of the word “smart”: intelligent city, knowledge city, ubiquitous city, sustainable city, digital city, etc. Many definitions of Smart City exist, but no one has been universally acknowledged yet. From literature analysis it emerges that Smart City and Digital City are the most used terminologies in literature to indicate the smartness of a city. Smart cities represent a conceptual urban development model based on the utilization of human, collective, and technological capital for the enhancement of development and prosperity in urban agglomerations (Angelidou, 2014). A digital city is substantively an open, complex and adaptive system based on computer network and urban information resources, which forms a virtual digital space for a city. It creates an information service marketplace and information resource deployment center (Qi, L., & Shaofu, L., 2001).

The purpose of the definition analysis is to compare the most cited definitions of Smart City and Digital City, to understand which are the main similarities and the differences between these two concepts, often overlapped or confused. The comparison of these definitions helps us to create a sound relationship between these two topics and to understand if and which are the links between these two different urban strategies. In Table 2 and Table 3, respectively, the most cited and meaningful smart city and digital city definitions are listed (Dameri R.P., Cocchia A. 2012),

Table 2. Smart City Definitions

Smart City Definitions Ref.1 “A Smart City is a city well performing built on the ‘smart’

combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent and aware citizens”

Giffinger 2007

2 “A city to be smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance”.

Caragliuet. al.2009

3 “Smart City is the product of Digital City combined with the Internet of Things”. Su 20114 “A city that monitors and integrates conditions of all of its critical infrastructures, including

roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, subways, airports, seaports, communications, water, power, even major buildings, can better optimize its resources, plan its preventive maintenance activities, and monitor security aspects while maximizing services to its citizens”.

Hall 2000

5 “Smart City is a city in which it can combine technologies as diverse as water recycling, advanced energy grids and mobile communications in order to reduce environmental impact and to offer its citizens better lives”.

Setis-EU2012

6 ‘The Smart City uses the infrastructure network to improve economic and political efficiency, and to allow social, cultural and urban development’.

Hollands

7

2008 Table 3. Digital City Definitions

Digital City Definitions Ref.1 “A digital city is substantively an open, complex and adaptive system based on computer

network and urban information resources, which forms a virtual digital space for a city. It creates an information service marketplace and information resource deployment center”.

Qi & Shaofu 2001

2 “A Digital City has at least two plausible meanings: (1) a city that is being transformed or re-oriented through digital technology and (2) a digital representation or reflection of some aspects of an actual or imagined city”.

Schuler2007

3 “The concept of Digital City is to build an arena in which people in regional communities can interact and share knowledge, experiences, and mutual interests. Digital City integrates urban information (both achievable and real time) and create public spaces in the Internet for people living/visiting the city”.

Ishida 2002

4 “Digital city denotes an area that combines broadband communication infrastructure with flexible, service-oriented computing systems. These new digital infrastructures seek to ensure better services for citizens, consumers and business in a specific area”.

Komninos 2008

For a deeper analysis of these differences, we consider the constituent elements of a city; we define at this aim the following elements:

land, that is, the physical area on which the city is built; infrastructures, that is, the physical features making a city: buildings, transports, other facilities; people, that is, inhabitants and other subjects working, studying and

living in the city government, that is, the political bodies driving the city.

Each of these constituent elements has different characteristics in case of smart city or digital city.

Land: concerning smart city, this dimension is mainly considered as physical land corresponding to the administrative boundaries of city, region or city networks. In digital city land is mainly considered as virtual land, that is, a virtual representation of the city, such as network community, networked society, virtual space, and so on, in which people can share data, information and knowledge each other (Ishida 2002). Therefore, smart city has physical boundaries, while digital city has virtual ones.

Infrastructures: smart city includes all types of infrastructures, both physical ones such as streets, bridges, buildings, broadband, railways, etc. and virtual infrastructures such as some elements of ICT (software and telecommunications). Digital city infrastructures are only represented by ICT, especially Internet and technologies such as Internet of Things, cloud and ubiquitous computing, Web 2.0, and so on. ICT is present in both these concepts, but in smart city all the innovative technologies are considered useful for implementing a better urban space.

People: in smart city, people are represented by all individuals who lives the city, such as inhabitants, workers, students, tourists and so on. In digital city, people are considered from two points of view: enablers, who are able to stimulate the digital city implementation, and recipients who are able to use

8

the-services and to gain real benefits from them (Dameri 2012). So, in smart city, people can also not be able to use ICT but they must have the “smart culture” to enable a virtuous behavior in order to reach the sustainability; while in digital city, people must be able to use ICT in order to enable and enjoy e-services (Komninos 2008).

Government: concerning smart city, governmental authorities are mainly local Public Administration, central Public Administration and International Institutions (such as European Union). They aim to improve sustainability and citizen quality of life. Concerning digital city, government is oriented to e-government and e-governance because its main purpose is to improve the relationship among citizens and between citizens and Public Administration through the network and e-services supply.

Finally, examining smart city and digital city and considering in details their constituent elements, several differences emerge; smart city and digital city are two urban strategies aiming at improving the quality of life for citizens, but they use different technologies, different instruments and address different areas and different citizen targets. Therefore, a city can pursue both a smart and a digital strategy, a mix of them or only one of these paths; important is to be aware of this, to better address efforts, resources and investments towards the desired results.

5. Cases of applied smart cities in Europe

National strategy: Malta

‘Smart Island Strategy (2008–2010)’ (Malta) is a national ICT strategy commissioned by the Government of Malta for the country to become ‘one of the top 10 information societies in the world’. Malta seeks to forge a knowledge-based economy and to create new jobs in the high tech/creative industry. The country will become a first class ICT cluster and media capital by attracting and hosting international ICT and media companies and providing them an operational environment of cutting-edge infrastructure and technological means. The strategy was based on five strategic points: a. alignment with the EU Commission’s i2010 Action Plan, Malta’s Research, Technological Development and Innovation strategy, Malta’s Industrial Policy, b. creation of the entirely new township of SmartCity Malta (a technology park on an area of 36 ha), c. adoption of a 360-degree approach, accounting for the interests and objectives of the wider society, d. learning from best international practices and adapting them locally and e. experience and results would be the drivers of the strategy (Ministry for infrastructure transport, 2008).

Existing city: Amsterdam

Amsterdam Smart City is a partnership among businesses, authorities, research institutions, and the people of Amsterdam, today comprising over 70 partners, including CISCO and IBM. The initiative’s main themes of focus are living, working, mobility, public facilities and open data (Amsterdam Smart City, 2013). The program involves 32 area-based projects across Amsterdam’s neighborhoods, focusing on

9

energy transition and open connectivity. These projects are initially tested on a small scale and the ones that prove to be efficient are later scaled to broader areas. The projects help citizens monitor their private consumption, thus encouraging them to manage it better. One of the most well-known projects of Amsterdam Smart City is the Climate Street, which ran from 2009 to 2011 on the popular shopping street Utrechtsestraat (Angelidou M., 2013).

Amsterdam Smart City has received international recognition as one of the world’s most successful smart city initiatives; it was nominated the second smartest city in Europe for 2014 (Chief Digital Officer Club official website, 2014), while it won the World Smart Cities Awards 2012 and the European City Star Award 2011.

Soft infrastructure oriented strategy: Barcelona

The mission of Barcelona in the context of the smart city strategy is centered on the notion that Barcelona is a ‘city of people’. It is a city that seeks to improve citizens’ welfare and quality of life, as well as to foster economic progress. Smartness, in Barcelona’s approach, is not an end in itself, but a means to achieve development (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2014). The engagement of the private sector and citizens and the development of an innovation ecosystem has been the primary concern of the city’s strategy. In this context, the city created a friendly climate for Private–Public Partnerships (PPPs) to flourish, namely by providing the necessary legal framework and the space for these partnerships to settle. Collaboration is therefore key to Barcelona’s smart city initiative, and the city takes a lead to facilitate it among stakeholders (businesses, academic institutions, government authorities and the residents), while allowing partnersm to operate as independently as possible and ensuring that their activities meet the aims of the smart city venture (Lee, Bakici, Almirall, & Wareham, 2012). In total, there are over 100 horizontal projects considered to be part of the smart city strategy in Barcelona and many of them have both a physical and a digital dimension, as Barcelona is one of the cities that paid specific attention to the territorial dimension of urban innovation. The latter is realized through high-quality urban planning and urban renewal projects, along with preservation of the city’s historical patrimony. The 22@Barcelona District is the most representative case of large-scale urban renewal projects: an innovation district built on 200 ha of formerly brownfield land, equipped with high-technology infrastructure, with the goal of attracting businesses, institutions and other organizations in a climate of openness and cooperation. Furthermore, by providing ubiquitous connectivity (corporate fiber optical network, Wi-Fi mesh network, sensor network and public Wi-Fi network), new services for the citizens (to amplify the efficiency of the public sector, to offer up-to-date information to citizens and foster their participation in the management of the city and to innovate by encouraging citizen-tocitizen services) and open public data (Bakici et al., 2012; Komninos, Pallot, & Schaffers, 2013), the city’s people are expected to contribute to local governance and benefit from gaining access to the city’s services and becoming more participative (Angelidou M., 2013).

Overall, Barcelona’s strategy places outstanding emphasis on human and social capital. Nevertheless, the city faced challenges in providing exact and appropriate infrastructure and in the deployment and management of wireless networks and cross-

10

departmental cooperation has been challenging due to the difficulty in defining clearly the roles and responsibilities of each person and authority (Bakici et al., 2012).

Geographically based strategy: Thessaloniki

The city of Thessaloniki, Greece, is another fitting example of a geographically-based smart city strategy. The areas of focus for the ‘Intelligent Thessaloniki’ proposal are the most important districts of innovation and entrepreneurship within Thessaloniki, namely: (1) the port of Thessaloniki, (2) the Central Business District (CBD) and commercial center of the city, (3) the campus of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, (4) the technology district of eastern Thessaloniki, and (5) the airport area. Applications and eservices vary from one city district to another. In the port cluster, smart environments were proposed to enhance the competitiveness of the cluster and facilitate freight transactions and other port operations. In the CBD, smart environments were recommended to facilitate access and mobility and enable environmental monitoring. At the University campus, smart environments were proposed to facilitate research and the dissemination of knowledge and enforce the triple-helix model by encouraging collaboration with the private sector. Finally, in the Eastern technology district, smart environments were proposed to facilitate the promotion of the area’s commercial properties and attract tenants, provide online technology services, and to support new business incubation (Komninos 2008).

6. Conclusions

As a consequence of strong economic and technological changes over the last decades cities and regions are facing growing competition for high ranked economic activities. On the urban level, cities aim at improving their competitiveness and their position in the European or national urban system. Since the European Integration process has diminished differences in economic, social and environmental standards, cities have converged in their basic conditions for competition, which is increasingly scaled down from the national level to the level of cities and regions. This trend enhances the importance of specific local characteristics, which provide comparative advantages competing for increasingly footloose and mobile global enterprises, investors, tourists and capital. Facing this development, urban competitiveness and corresponding strategic approaches with specific goals and modified instruments have become important efforts of urban politics (Giffinger et al. 2010).

In this paper, we have presented an overview of the concept of the ‘smart city’, with a critical review of the previous economics and planning approaches to this concept. We then presented a framework for understanding the dimensions of Smart/Digital City and to provide a methodology for enriching them. In the fourth section we proposed tools and methods for analyzing the difference between Smart and Digital City. Cases of applied smart cities in Europe are also presented in this study. The paper presents a bibliographic overview of the concept of smart cities. The area of further research may include further elaboration on the definition and quantification

11

of smart cities’ characteristics as well as on definition and quantification of smart cities’ Indicators.

References

Angelidou, M., (2014). ‘Smart city policies: A spatial approach’. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Architecture, Department of Urban Planning and Regional Development, Urban and Regional Innovation Research Unit (URENIO), Greece, elsevier, Cities 41 (2014) S3–S11.

Angelidou, M., (2015). ‘Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces’, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Architecture, Department of Urban Planning and Regional Development, Urban and Regional Innovation Research Unit (URENIO), Greece, elsevier, Cities 47 (2015) 95–106.

Auci S., & Mundula L., (2012), ‘Smart Cities and a Stochastic Frontier Analysis: A comparison among European cities’

Berry, C. R. and Glaeser, E.L. (2005). “The divergence of human capital levels across cities”, Papers in Regional Science, 84(3), 407-444.

Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82.

Cocchia, A., (2014). ‘Smart and Digital City: A Systematic Literature Review’, Department of Economics, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.

Dameri, R., P., (2013), ‘Searching for smart city definition: a comprehensive proposal’, International, Journal of Computers & Technology, 11(5), 2544–2551(Council for Innovative Research).

Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanovic, N., & Meijers, E. (2007). “Smart cities. Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Vienna: University of Technology’

Giffinger, R., & Gudrun, H., (2010), ‘Smart cities ranking: An effective instrument for the positioning of the cities’, ACE: Architecture, City and Environment, P. 7-25.

Hall, P. (2000). ‘Creative cities and economic development’. Urban Studies, 37(4), 633-649.

Hall, R. E. (2000), ‘The vision of a smart city. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Life Extension Technology Workshop (Paris, France, Sep 28).

Harrison, C., & Donnelly, I. A. (2011), ‘A theory of smart cities’, In 55th Annual meeting of the international society for the systems sciences, 17–22 July 2011, The University of Hull, Hull, UK

12

Hollands, R.,G., (2008), ‘Will the real smart city please stand up?’ Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Ishida, T. (2000). ‘Understanding digital cities’. In: T. Ishida, K. Isbister (Eds.), Digital cities. LNCS, vol. 1765, (pp. 7–17). Berlin.

Kim, H. M., & Han, S. S. (2012). City profile: Seoul. Cites, 29(2), 142–154.

Komninos, N. (2008). Intelligent cities and globalization of innovation networks. Lomdon: Routledge.

Lazaroiu, G. C., & Roscia M., (2012). ‘Definition methodology for the smart cities model’, Department of Power Systems, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania Dipartimento di Progettazione e Tecnologie, Università di Bergamo, Italy.

Mitchell, W. J. (2013). Smart cities: Vision. Retrieved October 2014, from http://www.smartcities.media.mit.edu/frameset.html

Nam, T., & Pardo T. A., (2011). ‘Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions, Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 282–291). New York: ACM.

Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A., C., Mangano, G., Scorrano, F., (2014). ‘Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts’. Department of Management and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino (TO), Italy

Qi, L., & Shaofu, L., (2001). ‘Research on digital city framework architecture’. IEEE International Conferences on Info-Tech and Info-Net, vol. 1, (pp. 30–36). Proceedings ICII.

Russo, F., Rindone, C., & Panuccio, P., (2016), ‘European plans for the smart city: from theories and rules to logistics test case’, European Planning Studies.

Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., Oliveira, A., (2011). “Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation”.

Schuler, D. (2002). ‘Digital cities and digital citizens’. In: M. Tanabe, P. van den Besselaar, T. Ishida (Eds.), Digital cities II: computational and sociological approaches. LNCS, vol. 2362, (pp. 71–85) Berlin.

Setis-Eu (2012). setis.ec.europa.eu/implementation/technology-roadmap/European-initiative -on-smart-cities.

Su, K., Li, J., & Fu, H. (2011). Smart city and the applications. IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Control (ICECC), pp. 1028–1031(IEEE Xplore).

13