Recent studies reveal a deep-rooted division in research on smart cities, which surfaces as a set of dichotomies that question whether smart city development should be based on a: (1) technology-led or holistic strategy; (2) double or quadruple-helix model of collaboration; (3) top-down or bottom-up approach; (4) mono-dimensional or integrated intervention logic. These dichotomies generate a critical knowledge gap because they suggest divergent hypotheses on what principles need to be considered when implementing strategies for enabling smart city development. This paper starts filling such a gap by reporting on the findings of a multiple case study analysis which is conducted into European best practices. In meeting this aim, four European cities considered to be leaders in the field of smart city development are analyzed to test the validity of the hypotheses emerging from each dichotomy. These cities are Amsterdam, Barcelona, Helsinki and Vienna. The results of this best practice analysis offer a series of critical insights into what strategic principles drive smart city development in Europe and generate scientific knowledge which helps to overcome the dichotomous nature of smart city research.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper reviews the literature on smart cities. Offering a critical synthesis of the material, it advances a Triple Helix inspired account of smart cities as future internet-based developments. In particular, as future internet-based developments covering the digital infrastructures, data management systems, renewable energies and cloud computing of a regional innovation in the Internet of Things (IoT). More specifically, as a regional innovation in the IoT that covers the morphology of urban extensions, infill and mass retrofits, which smart cities call for the development of. Focusing on the metrics of mass retrofit proposals, the paper also serves to demonstrate how the urban morphology of such regional innovations matter in the sense they tell us that being aware of the considerable energy savings and CO2 reductions, which IoTs offer cities to be smart, is not enough. Not enough, because without knowing whether the costs and benefits under-gridding the sustainability of city-districts are shared equally, it is impossible to say if the 65% energy saving and 78% reduction in CO2, attributed to the data collection, information processing and smart (micro) grids of mass retrofits is socially just. The paper suggests that in order to verify this, it is necessary for smart cities to first baseline the social-demographic structure of retrofit proposals. Then draw upon the environmental profile this evaluation generates to assess whether the regional innovation creates the wealth needed to under-grid the sustainability of city-districts. In particular, under-grid the sustainability of city-districts as the energy efficient-low carbon zones of an inclusive growth strategy seen to be socially just. Seen to be socially just, because the costs and benefits underlying the 1.5 hectare ecological footprint that surfaces from this regional innovation are equally appropriated as the proceeds of a wealth creation, which contributes to the resilience of city-districts as energy efficient-low carbon zones. As energy efficient-low carbon zones, whose inclusive growth strategy also emerges as a post-carbon economy claiming to be climate neutral.

Overcoming the dichotomous nature of smart city research is fundamental to provide cities with a clear understanding of how smart city development should be approached. This paper introduces a research methodology for conducting the multiple-case study analyses necessary to meet this challenge. After being presented, the practical feasibility, effectiveness and logistics of such a methodology are tested by examining the activities that Vienna has implemented to deliver its smart city development strategy. The results of this pilot study show how the application of the proposed methodology can help smart city researchers codify the knowledge produced from multiple smart city experiences using a common protocol. This in turn allows them to: (1) coordinate efforts when investigating the strategic principles that drive smart city development and test the divergent hypotheses emerging from the scientific literature; (2) share the results of this investigation and hypothesis testing by conducting extensive cross-case analyses among multiple studies able to capture the generic qualities of the findings; (3) gain consensus on the way to think about, conceptualize and standardize the analysis of smart city developments; and (4) develop innovative monitoring and evaluation systems for smart city development strategies by reflecting upon the lessons learned from current practices.