Analysis of the complexities and ambiguities of the smart city concept

Document Type : بنیادی(Stem, Basic)

Authors

1 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz University of Islamic Art, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

ABSTRACT
In recent decades, the concept of a smart city has become very common in urban planning in response to challenges. However, there are complexities about the definition of the concept of a smart city, and a smart city contains different concepts and meanings for urban activists. Based on this, the current research has sought to clarify and reduce the ambiguities and complexities of the concept of a smart city in a way that tries to extract the main common meanings and concepts for the concept of a smart city. Responding to the purpose of the research was done by relying on the qualitative method and meta-synthesis (meta-analysis) of the authentic studies written on the topic of smart cities (68 selected articles), which were mainly done in the last decade. The findings show that the use of information and communication technologies along with human and social capital are responsible for advancing the plans of a smart city. In addition, these are the driving forces that lead to the creation of other main concepts of the smart city, such as innovation and creativity, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the urban system. The current state of the concept of a smart city, which is accompanied by an increase in the human-centered view and its greater connection with concepts such as holistic, sustainability, and flexibility, while making this concept larger and more comprehensive, has made the ability to measure the smartness of a city more complicated.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
In recent years, the concept of smart urban development in the form of a smart city approach has become increasingly popular in the academic and executive space due to the increasing challenges and problems of cities and the increasing complexity of cities. In the theoretical literature, a wide range of topics, including communication and information technologies, inclusive communication, knowledge and creativity, free and large information, social capital, business, smart community, ecological sustainability, etc., are used to define the discourse of the smart city. On the other hand, different researchers believe that despite the widespread of the smart city approach, there is no single definition for a smart city accepted by everyone. There are ambiguities and complications about the definition of the concept of a smart city, and this concept contains different concepts and meanings for urban activists, including experts, policymakers and other actors effective in guiding and controlling the city. Based on this, the current research seeks to clarify and reduce the ambiguities and complexities of the smart city concept and seeks to answer this basic question:
- What are the main common concepts and meanings corresponding to the concept of smart city and what is their relationship with each other and what effect have they had on the formation and evolution of the concept of smart city?
 
Methodology
The current research is a review article with a fundamental nature, which relies on the meta-synthesis qualitative method to analyze the valid research conducted on the topic of smart city. Meta-synthesis deals with the integration and interpretation of the results and findings of a set of related qualitative studies on a topic. The methods of meta-synthesis can be different according to the purpose of the research and the available data, although they have similarities. The meta-synthesis process in the current research includes defining the research question, identifying and retrieving information, determining the entry and exit criteria of the study, extracting the results, and analyzing and interpreting the findings. In this research, after defining the research question, the collection of materials was done by searching for the keyword "smart city" in Google Scholar. The most important criteria for entering the study were the quality of the research, the publication of articles in the last 10 years (2011-2021 AD), the article having many references and being indexed in reliable international databases, which finally resulted in 68 selected articles. Then, in the phase of extracting the results, we tried to extract the main common meanings and concepts for the concept of a smart city within the selected sources by analyzing the content of the text and coding the information. In the final stage, while explaining each concept, comparison and analysis of connections, commonalities and differences between extracted concepts and their summation were done.
 
Results and discussion
The research findings show that the key concepts and meanings extracted in the smart city literature include the use of information and communication technologies, human and intellectual capital, innovation and creativity, social capital and cooperation, holistic view, sustainability, efficiency and accountability, efficiency and optimality. The analysis of the key concepts and meanings used for the smart city and the connections between these concepts shows that they can be divided into three categories: driving force, performance and result. The main driving force and driving force of the smart city is the use of information and communication technologies, which, of course, have recently become less important, and along with human and social capital, they have the task of advancing the plans of a smart city. Due to the basic and causal role of the aforementioned driving forces, the smart city in the theoretical literature often implies the possession and use of these capitals and assets in order to achieve urban goals. These driving forces create innovation and creativity and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the urban system. Also, especially when the mentioned driving forces act together and synergistically, they can bring about the realization of a holistic view in urban planning and policymaking and, as a result, solve urban problems and achieve urban goals. However, some thinkers do not consider relying on these driving forces, and the emergence of such functions to be considered smart and call a city smart in the real sense when it has the stability or flexibility needed to face changes in the future. In other words, they link the smartness of a city with the ability of a city to survive and have a consequentialist approach to the issue.
 
Conclusion
The current state of the concept of a smart city, which is associated with an increase in the human-centered view and its greater connection with concepts such as holistic, sustainability and flexibility under the influence of the evolution and complexity of the concept, although it can help to realize a smart city in accordance with what the word smart means, but the ability Measuring the smartness of a city has made it more difficult and complicated. Based on this, measuring the real smartness of a city is a difficult task, and cities should not be separated into being smart or not but should be measured in terms of how smart they are. Today, many cities call themselves smart despite the apparent differences between their plans and strategies. According to the conceptual requirements, the smart city takes shape and meaning based on the local characteristics and conditions, the needs and priorities of the cities, in addition to the pressures of the global markets and available technologies.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Abedi Jafari, A & Amiri, M (2019). Meta-Synthesis as a Method for Synthesizing Qualitative Researches. Methodology of Social Scince and Humanities, 25(99), 73-87. [In Persian].‌
  2. Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?. Cities, 60, 234-245.‌
  3. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of urban technology, 22(1), 3-21.
  4. Allam, Z., & Newman, P. (2018). Redefining the smart city: Culture, metabolism and governance. Smart Cities, 1(1), 4-25.‌
  5. Angelidou, M. (2017). The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 3-28.‌
  6. Anthopoulos, L. G. (2017). Understanding smart cities: A tool for smart government or an industrial trick? (Vol. 22). Cham: Springer International Publishing.‌
  7. Arafah, Y., & Winarso, H. (2017). Redefining smart city concept with resilience approach. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol.70, No.1, 1-13). IOP Publishing.‌
  8. Ayala, A. L., & Marvin, S. (2015). Developing a critical understanding of smart urbanism?. Urban Studies, 52(12),1-12.‌
  9. Baraniewicz-Kotasińska, S. (2020). Smart city. Four approaches to the concept of understanding. Urban Research & Practice, 1-24.‌
  10. Bashynska, I., & Dyskina, A. (2018). The overview-analytical document of the international experience of building smart city. Business: Theory and Practice, 19, 228-241.‌
  11. Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., ... & Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 481-518.‌
  12. Baykurt, B., & Raetzsch, C. (2020). What smartness does in the smart city: From visions to policy. Convergence, 26(4), 775-789.
  13. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of urban technology, 18(2), 65-82.‌
  14. Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., ... & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. In 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 2289-2297). IEEE.‌
  15. ChuanTao, Y., Zhang, X., Hui, C., JingYuan, W., Daven, C., & Bertrand, D. (2015). A literature survey on smart cities. Science China Information Sciences, 58(10), 1-18.‌
  16. Cocchia, A. (2014). Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In Smart city (pp. 13-43). Springer, Cham.
  17. Colding, J., Colding, M., & Barthel, S. (2020). The smart city model: A new panacea for urban sustainability or unmanageable complexity?. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(1), 179-187.‌
  18. Dameri, R. P. (2013). Searching for smart city definition: a comprehensive proposal. international Journal of computers & technology, 11(5), 2544-2551.
  19. Dameri, R. P., & Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. (2014). Smart city and value creation. In Smart city (pp. 1-12). Springer, Cham.‌
  20. de Wijs, L., Witte, P., & Geertman, S. (2016). How smart is smart? Theoretical and empirical considerations on implementing smart city objectives–a case study of Dutch railway station areas. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 29(4), 424-441.‌
  21. Echebarria, C., Barrutia, J. M., & Aguado-Moralejo, I. (2020). The Smart City journey: a systematic review and future research agenda. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34(2), 159-201.
  22. Eremia, M., Toma, L., & Sanduleac, M. (2017). The smart city concept in the 21st century. Procedia Engineering, 181, 12-19.‌
  23. Esashika, D., Masiero, G., & Mauger, Y. (2020). An investigation into the elusive concept of smart cities: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1-13.
  24. Fernandez-Anez, V. (2016). Stakeholders approach to smart cities: A survey on smart city definitions. In International conference on smart cities (pp. 157-167). Springer, Cham.‌
  25. Fernandez-Anez, V., Fernández-Güell, J. M., & Giffinger, R. (2018). Smart City implementation and discourses: An integrated conceptual model. The case of Vienna. Cities, 78, 4-16.‌
  26. Gaffney, C., & Robertson, C. (2018). Smarter than smart: Rio de Janeiro's flawed emergence as a smart city. Journal of Urban Technology, 25(3), 47-64.‌
  27. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Nam, T. (2015). What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information Polity, 20(1), 61-87.
  28. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 524-534.‌
  29. Glasmeier, A., & Christopherson, S. (2015). Thinking about smart cities. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 3-12.‌
  30. Greco, I., & Cresta, A. (2015). A smart planning for smart city: the concept of smart city as an opportunity to re-think the planning models of the contemporary city. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 563-576). Springer, Cham.‌
  31. Grossi, G., & Pianezzi, D. (2017). Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology?. Cities, 69, 79-85.‌
  32. Gupta, P., Chauhan, S., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2019). Classification of smart city research-a descriptive literature review and future research agenda. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 661-685.‌
  33. Haarstad, H. (2017). Constructing the sustainable city: Examining the role of sustainability in the ‘smart city’discourse. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(4), 423-437.‌
  34. Ho, E. (2016). Smart subjects for a Smart Nation? Governing (smart) mentalities in Singapore. Urban Studies, 54(13), 1-17.‌
  35. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial?. City, 12(3), 303-320.‌
  36. Ingwersen, P., & Serrano-López, A. E. (2018). Smart city research 1990–2016. Scientometrics, 117(2), 1205-1236.‌
  37. Ji, T., Chen, J. H., Wei, H. H., & Su, Y. C. (2021). Towards people-centric smart city development: Investigating the citizens’ preferences and perceptions about smart-city services in Taiwan. Sustainable Cities and Society, 67, 102691.
  38. Kirimtat, A., Krejcar, O., Kertesz, A., & Tasgetiren, M. F. (2020). Future trends and current state of smart city concepts: A survey. IEEE Access, 8, 86448-86467.‌
  39. Kitchin, R. (2015). Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings. Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 8(1), 131-136.‌
  40. Komninos, N., Kakderi, C., Panori, A., & Tsarchopoulos, P. (2018). Smart city planning from an evolutionary perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 26(2), 3-20.‌
  41. Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Smart cities in the innovation age. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 93-95.‌
  42. Kumar, H., Singh, M. K., Gupta, M. P., & Madaan, J. (2018). Moving towards smart cities: Solutions that lead to the Smart City Transformation Framework. Technological forecasting and social change, 153, 1-16.‌
  43. Kummitha, R. K. R. (2018). Entrepreneurial urbanism and technological panacea: Why Smart City planning needs to go beyond corporate visioning?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 1-10.‌
  44. Kummitha, R. K. R., & Crutzen, N. (2017). How do we understand smart cities? An evolutionary perspective. Cities, 67, 43-52.‌
  45. Lara, A. P., Da Costa, E. M., Furlani, T. Z., & Yigitcanla, T. (2016). Smartness that matters: towards a comprehensive and human-centred characterisation of smart cities. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2(2), 8.
  46. Leary, H., & Walker, A. (2018). Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis methodologies: Rigorously piecing together research. Tech Trends, 62(5), 525-534.‌
  47. Lecomte, P. (2019). What is smart? A real estate introduction to cities and buildings in the digital era. Journal of General Management, 44(3), 128-137.‌
  48. Lim, Y., Edelenbos, J., & Gianoli, A. (2019). Identifying the results of smart city development: Findings from systematic literature review. Cities, 95, 1-13.‌
  49. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. international review of administrative sciences, 82(2), 392-408.‌
  50. Mora, L., Bolici, R., & Deakin, M. (2017). The first two decades of smart-city research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(1), 3-27.
  51. Mora, L., Deakin, M., & Reid, A. (2018). Smart-City Development Paths: Insights from the First Two Decades of Research. Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions, Green Energy and Technology. Springer, 403-427.
  52. Myeong, S., Jung, Y., & Lee, E. (2018). A study on determinant factors in smart city development: An analytic hierarchy process analysis. Sustainability, 10(8), 1-17.‌
  53. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times (pp. 282-291).‌
  54. Nesti, G. (2018). Defining and assessing the transformational nature of smart city governance: Insights from four European cases. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(1), 1-18.‌
  55. Nilssen, M. (2018). To the smart city and beyond? Developing a typology of smart urban innovation. Technological forecasting and social change, 142, 1-7.‌
  56. Nunes, S. A., Ferreira, F. A., Govindan, K., & Pereira, L. F. (2021). “Cities go smart!”: A system dynamics-based approach to smart city conceptualization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 313, 127683.
  57. Nye, E., Melendez‐Torres, G. J., & Bonell, C. (2016). Origins, methods and advances in qualitative meta‐synthesis. Review of Education, 4(1), 57-79.‌
  58. Ogra, A. (2020). Conceptualization of Smart City: A Methodological Framework for Smart Infrastructure, Smart Solutions and Smart Governance. In Data-driven Multivalence in the Built Environment (pp. 57-72). Springer, Cham.‌
  59. Praharaj, S., & Han, H. (2019). Cutting through the clutter of smart city definitions: A reading into the smart city perceptions in India. City, Culture and Society, 18, 1-10.‌
  60. Ruhlandt, R. W. S. (2018). The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review. Cities, 81, 1-23.‌
  61. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2003). Toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV‐positive women. Research in nursing & health, 26(2), 153-170.‌
  62. Silva, B. N., Khan, M., & Han, K. (2018). Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 697-713.‌
  63. Thompson, E. M. (2016). What makes a city ‘smart’?. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 14(4), 1-14.‌
  64. Thorne, S. E. (2015). Qualitative meta synthesis: a technical exercise or a source of new knowledge?. Psycho-oncology, 24(11), 1347-1348.‌
  65. Trindade, E. P., Hinnig, M. P. F., Moreira da Costa, E., Marques, J. S., Bastos, R. C., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Sustainable development of smart cities: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(3), 11.‌
  66. Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of advanced nursing, 50(2), 204-211.‌
  67. Wang, C. H., Steinfeld, E., Maisel, J. L., & Kang, B. (2021). Is your smart city inclusive? Evaluating proposals from the US Department of Transportation's Smart City Challenge. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74, 103148.
  68. Wilson, B., & Chakraborty, A. (2019). Planning smart (er) cities: The promise of civic technology. Journal of Urban Technology, 26(4), 29-51.‌
  69. Yigitcanlar, T. (2015). Smart cities: an effective urban development and management model?. Australian Planner, 52(1), 27-34.‌
  70. Yigitcanlar, T., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities?. Land Use Policy, 73, 49-58.‌
  71. Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Buys, L., Ioppolo, G., Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E. M., & Yun, J. J. (2018). Understanding ‘smart cities’: Intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities, 81, 145-160.
  72. Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E., & Ioppolo, G. (2019). Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustainable cities and society, 45, 1-51.‌
  73. Zelkowitz, M. V., & Wallace, D. (1997). Experimental validation in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 39(11), 735-743.
  74. Zhao, F., Fashola, O. I., Olarewaju, T. I., & Onwumere, I. (2021). Smart city research: A holistic and state-of-the-art literature review. Cities, 119, 103406.
  75. Zheng, C., Yuan, J., Zhu, L., Zhang, Y., & Shao, Q. (2020). From digital to sustainable: A scientometric review of smart city literature between 1990 and 2019. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 1-24.‌
  76. Zhu, S., Li, D., & Feng, H. (2019). Is smart city resilient? Evidence from China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 1-14.‌
  77. Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(3), 311-318.‌
  78. Zubizarreta, I., Seravalli, A., & Arrizabalaga, S. (2016). Smart city concept: What it is and what it should be. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 142(1), 04015005.