Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services

Lee, Jungwoo; Lee, Hyejung

doi:10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.010

Cited by 241 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They employ different nomenclatures but are quite similar in how they conceive the evolution of e-government (Coursey and Norris 2008;Layne and Lee 2001;Wescott 2001;Hiller and B elanger 2001). Recently, e-government research has started including new actors (like universities) (Khan and Park 2013), smart cities (Lee and Lee 2014), and broadband infrastructure (Van der Wee et al 2015;Sadowski 2017). …”

Section: Stage Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical test of stage models of e-government development: Evidence from Dutch municipalities

Rooks

Matzat

Sadowski

2017

The Information Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Stage Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical test of stage models of e-government development: Evidence from Dutch municipalities

Rooks

Matzat

Sadowski

2017

The Information Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This lack of consensus is obviously a clear obstacle to identifying a real smart city [30]. Our main focus [45] defines, perhaps too widely, a smart city service as any innovative service using ICT in an urban habitat.…”

Section: A New Catalogue Of Smart E-servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently [45], reviewed and analysed existing taxonomies for classifying e-services in smart cities, and proposed a new typological framework that has four dimensions: technology mode, service purpose, service authority, and delivery mode, resulting in 17 classification categories. This classification is citizen-centric, and borrows the "purpose of consumption" concept from marketing.…”

Section: A New Catalogue Of Smart E-servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local e-government Benchlearning: Impact analysis and applicability to smart cities benchmarking

Batlle-Montserrat¹,

Blat

Abadal

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We claim that local e-services benchmarking studies summarized in indexes do little to enhance city managers' and academics' understanding of actual e-government performance, or to improve the e-services offered by cities. We undertook a different benchmarking approach, focused on learning best practices among cities, in late 2008 and early 2009. A benchlearning methodology (BLM) was developed, and a pilot study with 15 European cities was carried out. In this paper, we present the actual impact of the benchmarking study with respect to improvements in services, as the effectiveness of e-government benchmarking has rarely been evaluated. We discuss and analyse the results of a survey carried out in the same 15 cities four years after the pilot study. This paper presents evidence that BLM helped cities to identify good practices that they could learn from, and that some e-services were subsequently improved. The survey reveals that some changes are needed in the benchmarking methodology. The main one is the updating of the BLM bottom-up e-services catalogue, which is deeply discussed within the changing context of Smart Cities, especially the enlargement of the ecosystem of e-services to include citizens, the third sector, entrepreneurs, companies and other actors. A second one is the measurement of the adoption of e-services by citizens, also rarely assessed.

show abstract

“…Therefore, smart cities have to deal with multiple challenges towards detecting and accurately measuring impact, potential and interoperability of existing smart policies and applications. Several earlier research efforts have been devoted to define and monitor smart cities concepts and measurements of their performance [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Anthopoulos et al [2], in their systematic overview, have concluded that the term smart city describes all types of innovation in the urban ecosystem that address the six smart city dimensions, while Lee and Lee [4] have proposed a new typological framework for classifying smart city services focusing on citizens.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CityDNA

Moustaka

Vakali

Ανθόπουλος

2017

Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion - WWW '17 Companion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smart cities evolve over multiple themes and areas with the development of cyber-physical systems and smart services that address several urban issues regarding economy, mobility, environment, people, living and governance. This evolution has obliged the definition of several conceptualization and evaluation models, which respect alternative smart city perspectives. This work proposes smart city profiling with the introduction of the "CityDNA" model, according which, smart city's dimensions' relevance can be captured and visualized. Based on this model, a smart city's profile can be defined and characterized, under a simple comprehensive view of local needs and challenges. A particular smart city scenario is highlighted as a proof of concept for CityDNA and future design and implementation ideas are identified and justified.

show abstract

Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services

Cited by 241 publications

References 33 publications

An empirical test of stage models of e-government development: Evidence from Dutch municipalities

An empirical test of stage models of e-government development: Evidence from Dutch municipalities

Local e-government Benchlearning: Impact analysis and applicability to smart cities benchmarking

CityDNA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About